Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land Registration Authority vs. Raymundo Viaje, et al.

January 27, 2016

G.R. No. 180993

Facts:

The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic and as represented by the LRA,
filed on July 10, 2000 a complaint for cancellation of title and reconveyance with the RTC of Trece
Martires City, docketed as Civil Case No. TM-1001. The action mainly sought the nullity of the TCT
individually issued in the name of the defendants for having been issued in violation of law and for
having dubious origins. The title was allegedly derived from TCT No. T-39046 issued on Oct. 1, 1969
which was derived from OCT No. 114 issued on March 9, 1910. The Republic alleged that OCT No. 114
and the documents of TCT No. T-39046 do not exist in the records of the Register of Deeds of Cavite and
Trece Martires.

The OSG entered its appearance on Aug. 7, 2001 and deputized Atty. Artemio Legaspi and the
members of the LRA legal staff to appear in Civil Case No. TM-1001. The OSG also requested that notice
of hearings, orders, decisions and other processes be served on both the OSG and the deputized
counsel. However, the notice of appearance stated that only notices of orders, resolutions, and
decisions served on him will bind the party represented. Subsequently, Atty. Alexander Acosta of the
LRA entered his appearance pursuant to the OSG Letter dated Aug. 7, 2001.

On April 11, 2003, the RTC dismissed the complaint due to the non-appearance of the counsel
for the Republic. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted by the RTC. Pre-trial was
again set and re-set, but on Jan. 23, 2004 the RTC finally dismissed the case with prejudice.

The OSG forthwith filed a manifestation and motion, informing the RTC that Atty. Acosta was
not given notice of the pre-trial schedule. The OSG also argued that its deputized counsel should have
been notified of the settings made by the trial court as it is not merely a collaborating counsel who
appears with an OSG lawyer during hearing, rather its deputized counsel appears in behalf of the OSG
and should be separately notified.

The RTC denied the OSGs manifestation and motion, subsequently, on motion of the
defendants, the RTC issued an order on Oct. 4, 2004 recalling its previous order that gave due course to
the OSGs appeal. The ground for the recall was the OSGs failure to indicate in its notice of appeal the
court to which the appeal was being directed.

Thus the OSG filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA and on Nov. 28, 2007, rendered
a decision dismissing the OSGs petition on the grounds that the petition was filed one day late and the
RTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Civil Case No. TM-1001 and the
OSGs notice of appeal. It ruled that the OSGs failure to indicate in its notice of appeal the court to
which the appeal is being taken violated Sec. 5 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issue:

Whether or not the appellate court erred in not holding that respondent judge committed grave abuse
of discretion in dismissing the notice of appeal.

Held:

The Court cannot attribute error to the CA when it affirmed the RTCs recall of its order granting
the OSGs notice of appeal. The RTC simply applied the clear provisions of Sec. 5, Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, which mandated that a notice of appeal shall specify the court to which the appeal is being
taken.

Nevertheless, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, the Court resolves to relax the
stringent application of the rules, both on the matter of service of notices to the OSG and its deputized
counsel, and on the notice of appeal.

The OSGs omission should not work against the Republic. For one, the OSG availed of the
proper remedy in seeking a review of the RTCs order of dismissal by pursuing on ordinary appeal and
filing a notice of appeal, albeit without stating where the appeal will be taken. For another, an ordinary
appeal from a final decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction can only be
elevated to the CA under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, in Ulep vs. People of the Philippines,
the OSGs failure to designate where the appeal will be taken was a case of inadvertence and does not
appear to be a dilatory tactic on its part. More importantly, the OSGs omission should not redound to
the Republics disadvantage for it is a well-settled principle that the Republic is never estopped by the
mistakes or error committed by its officials or agents.

The petition is granted, the decision dated Nov. 28, 2007 of the CA is reversed and set aside.
Civil Case No. TM-1001 and all its records are remanded to the RTC of TRECE Martires City for further
disposition on the merits.