civpro full case

7/23/2019 CivPro Full Case

1/27

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998]

TERESITA G. FABIANpetitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. ESIERTO, !" #!$ %&p&%!t' &$ omb()$m&"* HON. +ESS F

GERRERO, !" #!$ %&p&%!t' &$ ep(t' Omb()$m&" -or (/o"* &") NESTOR 0. AGSTIN respondents.

E I S I O N

REGAAO,J

Petitioner has appealed to us by certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the "Joint Order" issued by public

respondents on June ! ##$ in O%B&Adm' Case No' (&(4 )hich *ranted the motion for reconsideration of and absol+ed pri+ate

respondents from administrati+e char*es for inter alia*ra+e misconduct committed by him as then Assistant Re*ional ,irector

Re*ion -.&A ,epartment of Public /or0s and 1i*h)ays 2,P/13'

I

-t appears from the statement and counter&statement of facts of the parties that petitioner eresita ' 6abian )as the ma7or

stoc0holder and president of PRO%A Construction ,e+elopment Corporation 2PRO%A3 )hich )as en*a*ed in the construction

business' Pri+ate respondents Nestor .' A*ustin )as the incumbent ,istrict En*ineerin* ,istrict 26%E,3 )hen he alle*edly committed

the o8enses for )hich he )as administrati+ely char*ed in the O9ce in the o9ce of the Ombudsman'Promat participated in the biddin* for *o+ernment construction pro7ect includin* those under the 6%E, and pri+ate respondent

reportedly ta0in* ad+anta*e of his o9cial position in+ei*led petitioner into an amorous relationship' heir a8air lasted for some time

in the course of )hich pri+ate respondents *ifted PRO%A )ith public )or0s contracts and interceded for it in problems concernin*

the same in his o9ce':ater misunderstandin* and unpleasant incidents de+eloped bet)een the parties and )hen petitioner tried to terminate their

relationship pri+ate respondent refused and resisted her attempts to do so to the e;tent of employin* acts of harassment

intimidation and threats' 4

##5'he said complaint sou*ht the dismissal of pri+ate respondent for +iolation of ? ##$ Order of respondent Ombudsman and e;onerated

pri+ate respondents from the administrati+e char*es'

II

-n the present appeal petitioner ar*ues that $ of Republic Act No' ?$$( 2Ombudsman Act of #!#3 Dpertinently

pro+ides that &

-n all administrati+e diciplinary cases orders directi+es or decisions of the O9ce of the Ombudsman may be appealed to theD)hen a respondent is absol+ed of the char*es in an administrati+e proceedin* decision of the ombudsman is =na

and unappealable'


2/27

the O9ce of the Ombudsman can "2p3romul*ate its rules of procedure and e;ercise such other po)ers or perform such functions or

duties as may be pro+ided by la)'"Republic Act No' ?$$( duly implements the Constitutional mandate )ith these rele+ant pro+isionsF


3/27

Commission and the O9ce of the Ombudsman' hus the o8enses imputed to herein pri+ate respondent )ere based on both all ad7udications by Ci+il


4/27

7urisdiction of this Court contemplated therein is to be e;ercised o+er "=nal 7ud*ements and orders of lo)er courts" that is the courts

composin* the inte*rated 7udicial system' -t does not include the Guasi&7udicial bodies or a*encies hence )hene+er the le*islature

intends that the decisions or resolutions of the Guasi&7udicial a*ency shall be re+ie)able by the D

-t is su**ested ho)e+er that the pro+isions of Rule 4@ should apply only to "ordinary" Guasi&7udicial a*encies but not to the

O9ce of the Ombudsman )hich is a "hi*h constitutional body'" /e see no reason for this distinction for if hierarchical ran0 should be

a criterion that proposition thereby disre*ards the fact that Rule 4@ e+en includes the O9ce of the President and the Ci+il >D

-t is ho)e+er su**ested that this case could also be decided on other *rounds short of passin* upon the constitutional

Guestion' /e appreciate the ratiocination of pri+ate respondent but re*ret that )e must re7ect the same' hat pri+ate responden

could be absol+ed of the char*e because the decision e;oneratin* him is =nal and unappealable assumes that @D)as intended

to *i+e this Court a measure of control o+er cases placed under its appellate Jurisdiction' Other)ise the indiscriminate enactment o

le*islation enlar*in* its appellate 7urisdiction )ould unnecessarily burden the Court>4D
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/129742.htm#_edn24


5/27

/e perforce ha+e to li0e)ise re7ect the supposed inconsistency of the rulin* in 6irst :epanto Ceramicsand some statements in

Iabut and Albanot only because of the di8erence in the factual settin*s but also because those isolated cryptic statements in Iabut

and Alba should best be clari=ed in the ad7udication on the merits of this case' By )ay of anticipation that )ill ha+e to be underta0en

by the proper court of competent 7urisdiction'6urthermore in addition to our precedin* discussion on )hether $ of Republic Act No' ?$$( e;panded the 7urisdiction of

this Court )ithout its ad+ice and consent pri+ate respondents position paper correctly yields the le*islati+e bac0*round of Republic

Act No' ?$$(' On ? #!# the Conference Committee Report on 5Dhe

#!# >?Dand the same )as thereafter enacted into

la) by President AGuino on No+ember $ #!#'243 )hich pro+ides that the decisions of the O9ce of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the

D

-n the situation under consideration a transfer by the


6/27

aforesaid Act and insofar as they pro+ide for appeals in administrati+e disciplinary cases from the O9ce of the Ombudsman to the

# settin* aside the ,ecision >Ddated ,ecember >$ >((> of the Re*ional rial Court in Ci+il Case No'@>5? and 2ii3 the Resolution@Ddated April @ >((? of the Court of Appeals denyin* reconsideration of the said decision'

he facts are )ell established'Respondent Baltaar N' Pacleb and his late =rst )ife An*elita Chan are the re*istered o)ners of an !(((&sGuare meter

parcel of land in Barrio :an*caan ,asmarias Ca+ite co+ered by ransfer Certi=cate of itle 2C3 No' &!@$5 4D2:an*caan Property3-n ##> the :an*caan Property became the sub7ect of three 2@3 documents purportin* to transfer its o)nership' On 6ebruary >$

##> a ,eed of Absolute ((((( as initial payment and entered into an A*reement dated for the sale of the :an*caan Property they disco+ered it )as tenanted by Ramon C' Pacleb 2Ramon3' #DPetitioner spouses demandedthe cancellation of their a*reement and the return of their initial payment'hereafter petitioner spouses and Ja+ier +eri=ed fromRamon if he )as )illin* to +acate the property and the latter )as a*reeable' Ja+ier then promised to ma0e arran*ements )ith Ramonto +acate the property and to pay the latter his disturbance compensation' 1ence they proceeded to enter into a Contract to


7/27

he said ,ecision and its Certi=cate of 6inalityD)ere annotated on C No' &!@$5 as Entry No' >?$?&$5 >Dand Entry No' >?$$&$5@Drespecti+ely'On %arch ( ##5 petitioner spouses and Ramon and the latters )ife Coraon Bodino e;ecuted a usangloo% na Pagsasauli ngLupang $aa!an at Pagpapa!ayag ng Pagtaliod sa arapatan'4DHnder the said a*reement petitioner spouses paid Ramon theamount of P5((((( in e;chan*e for the )ai+er of his tenancy ri*hts o+er the :an*caan Property'On October > ##5 respondent =led a Complaint 5Dfor annulment of deed of sale and other documents arisin* from it doc0eted asCi+il Case No' ##' 1e alle*ed that the deed of sale purportedly e;ecuted bet)een him and his late =rst )ife and Rebecca ,elRosario )as spurious as their si*natures thereon )ere for*eries' Respondent mo+ed to ha+e summons ser+ed upon Rebecca ,eRosario by publication since the latters address could not be found' he trial court ho)e+er denied his motion' ?DRespondent thenmo+ed to dismiss the case and the trial court *ranted the motion in its Order $Ddated April ##? dismissin* the case )ithoutpre7udice'

%ean)hile on No+ember >@ ##5 petitioner spouses =led an action for forcible entry a*ainst respondent )ith the %unicipal

rial Court 2%C3' hey alle*ed that they had prior physical possession of the :an*caan Property throu*h their trustee Ramon untithe latter )as ousted by respondent in ?$?&$5

and Entry No' >?$$&$5 the annotated ,ecision in Ci+il Case No' $4@ and its Certi=cate of 6inality from the title of the :an*caanProperty'>(DRespondent alle*ed that the deed of sale bet)een him and his late =rst )ife and Rebecca ,el Rosario )ho is not 0no)nto them could not ha+e been possibly e;ecuted on 6ebruary >$ ##> the date appearin* thereon' 1e alle*ed that on said date he)as residin* in the Hnited Dand his late =rst )ife An*elita Chan died t)enty 2>(3 years a*o' >>D

On %ay >! ##$ durin* the pendency of the instant case before the trial court respondent died )ithout ha+in* testi=ed on themerits of his case' 1ence he )as substituted by his sur+i+in* spouse Antonieta @D

On ,ecember >$ >((> the trial court dismissed respondents case and held that petitioner spouses are purchasers in *ood faith'>4Dhe trial court ratiocinated that the dismissal of respondents complaint for annulment of the successi+e sales at his instancesealed the re*ularity of the purchase>5Dby petitioner spouses and that he in e8ect admits that the said sale)as +alid and in order>?D6urther the trial court held that the ,ecision in Ci+il Case No' $4@ on petitioner spouses action for speci=c performance a*ainstJa+ier is already =nal and can no lon*er be altered' Accordin*ly the trial court ordered the cancellation of C No' &!@$5 in thename of respondent and the issuance of a ne) title in the name of petitioner spouses' he trial court also ordered the heirs ofrespondent and all persons claimin* under them to surrender possession of the :an*caan Property to petitioner spouses'On appeal by respondent the Court of Appeals re+ersed and set aside the decision of the trial court' >$Dhe Court of Appeals ruledthat petitioner spouses are not purchasers in *ood faith and that the ,ecision in Ci+il Case No' $4@ did not transfer o)nership ofthe :an*caan Property to them' Accordin*ly the appellate court ordered the cancellation of the annotation of the ,ecision in Ci+ilCase No' $4@ on the title of the :an*caan Property' he Court of Appeals denied reconsideration of said decision'>!D

1ence this Petition'

)o issues are in+ol+ed in the instant petition' he =rst is )hether petitioner spouses are innocent purchasers for +alue and in *oodfaith' he second is )hether o)nership o+er the :an*caan Property )as properly +ested in petitioner spouses by +irtue of the,ecision in Ci+il Case No' $4@'

Petitioner spouses ar*ue that they are purchasers in *ood faith' 6urther they contend that the Court of Appeals erred in=ndin* thatF Ramon told him Ernesto .' IuD that the property is o)ned by his father Baltaar and that he is the mere careta0erthereof>#Dsince Ramon clari=ed that his father )as the -ormero)ner of the :an*caan Property' -n support of their stance they citethe follo)in* testimony of petitioner Ernesto .' IuF

Atty' AbalosF %r' /itness you testi=ed durin* the direct that you acGuired the sub7ect property from one Ruperto

Ja+ier )hen for the =rst time ha+e you come to 0no) %r' Ruperto Ja+ier

AF - =rst came to 0no) him in the year ##> )hen he )as accompanied by %r' ala*ayan' 1e sho)ed me somepapers to the o9ce'

LF ,o you 0no) the e;act date %r' /itnessAF - for*ot the e;act date maam'

LF %ore or less can you estimate )hat monthAF 'LF /hen you said that the sub7ect property )as o8ered to you for sale )hat did you do %r' /itness in

preparation for a transactionAF - as0ed my la)yer Atty' 6lorencio Paredes to chec0 and +erify the ,eed of


8/27

+isited me a*ain to follo)&up )hat decision - ha+e but - told him that - )ill )ait for my la)yersad+icDe'

LF %r' /itness )hat particular instruction did you *i+e to your la)yerAF o +erify the title and the documents'

CourtF ,ocuments for the titleAF Ies Iour 1onor'

Atty' AbalosF /hen you )ere able to *et the title in )hose name the title )as re*istered

AF -t )as re*istered in the name of the older Pacleb'CourtF By the )ay %r' /itness )hen you said you met Ramon Pacleb the son of the o)ner of the property )as

he residin* there or he )as 2sic3 7ust )ent there /hen you +isited the property did you =ndhim to be residin* in that property

AF No Iour 1onor'Atty' AbalosF Iou mean to say %r' /itness you 7ust met %r' Ramon Pacleb in the place at the time you )ent

thereAF No maam' 1e )ent to my o9ce )ith %r' ala*ayan' 1e )as introduced to me at the elly 1ard)are' - do not

0no) %r' Ruperto Ja+ier' 1e told me that there is a property that isD tenanted and occupied bythe son Ramon Pacleb after that - )ent )ith them to +isit the place' On 2sic3 there he introducedme toD %r' Ramon Pacleb the careta0er of the property and - told them that - )ill still loo0 at

the property and he *a+e me some documents and that 2sic3 documents - *a+e it to my la)yerfor +eri=cation'LF Iou said that %r' Ruperto Ja+ier )ent to your o9ce )ith %r' ala*ayan so the =rst time you +isited the

property you did not see %r' Ramon Pacleb thereAF No maam' /hen - )ent there - met Ramon Pacleb the careta0er and he )as the one )ho sho)ed the place to

us'LF %r' /itness since you +isited the place you )ere able to see the alle*edD careta0er %r' Ramon Pacleb did you

as0 him re*ardin* the property or the )hereabouts of the re*istered o)ner did you as0 himAF /hen Ruperto introduced me to %r' Ramon Pacleb he told me that he is the son of the o)ner and he is the

careta0er and his father is in the


9/27

a*ainst Ja+ier he alle*ed that it )as only after he had entered into an A*reement for the sale of the property and his initial paymentof P>((((( that he disco+ered that the property )as indeed bein* tenanted by Ramon )ho li+es in the said farm vi&.F

!' 3 ,eeds of

Absolute Dpurportin* to transfer the :an*caan Property from respondent and his late =rst )ife An*elita Chan to Rebecca ,eRosario then from the latter to Ja+ier' Both deeds )ere not e+en annotated in the title of the :an*caan Property'

3 months apart and

that they contain identical pro+isions'hird it is undisputed that the :an*caan Property is in the possession of Ramon the son of the re*istered o)ner' Re*ardless

of the representations *i+en by the latter this bare fact alone should ha+e made petitioner spouses suspicious as to the +eracity ofthe alle*ed title of their +endor' %oreo+er as noted by the Court of Appeals petitioner spouses could ha+e easily +eri=ed the truestatus of the :an*caan Property from Ramons )ife since the latter is their relati+e as a+erred in para*raph @ of their Ans)er in Ci+ilCase No' ##'@@Dhe case la) is )ell settled vi&'F

he la) protects to a *reater de*ree a purchaser )ho buys from the re*istered o)ner himself' oro&r!',

!t re(!re$ & #!#er )eree o- pr()e"%e -rom o"e :#o b('$ -rom & per$o" :#o !$ "ot t#e re!$tere)o:"er, &t#o(# t#e &") obe%t o- t#e tr&"$&%t!o" !$ re!$tere). /hile one )ho buys from the re*isteredo)ner does not need to loo0 behind the certi=cate of title o"e :#o b('$ -rom o"e :#o !$ "ot t#e re!$tere)o:"er !$ epe%te) to e&m!"e "ot o"' t#e %ert!%&te o- t!te b(t & -&%t(& %!r%(m$t&"%e$ "e%e$$&r'-or #!m to )eterm!"e !- t#ere &re &"' &:$ !" t#e t!te o- t#e tr&"$-eror, or !" #!$ %&p&%!t' to tr&"$-ert#e &").

his Court has consistently applied the $tr!%ter r(e)hen it comes to decidin* the issue of *ood faith of

one )ho buys from one )ho is not the re*istered o)ner but )ho e;hibits a certi=cate of title' @4D2Emphasissupplied36inally as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals the dismissal of Ci+il Case No' ## 2the action to annul the

successi+e sales of the property3 cannot ser+e to +alidate the sale to petitioner spouses since the dismissal )as ordered becauseRebecca ,el Rosario and Ja+ier could no lon*er be found' -ndeed the dismissal )as )ithout pre7udice'

Based on the fore*oin* therefore petitioner spouses cannot be considered as innocent purchasers in *ood faith'

/e no) *o to the second issue'Petitioner spouses ar*ue that the decision of the Re*ional rial Court in Ci+il Case No' $4@ as to the ri*htful o)ner of the :an*caanProperty is conclusi+e and bindin* upon respondent e+en if the latter )as not a party thereto since it in+ol+ed the Guestion ofpossession and o)nership of real property and is thus not merely an action in personambut an action /uasi in rem.-n om&&$ @. +e"$e"@5D)e distin*uished bet)een actions in personamand actions /uasi in rem'

he settled rule is that the aim and ob7ect of an action determine its character' /hether a proceedin* is inrem or in personam or /uasi in remfor that matter is determined by its nature and purpose and by these only' Apro%ee)!" in personam!$ & pro%ee)!" to e"-or%e per$o"& r!#t$ &") ob!&t!o"$ bro(#t &&!"$t t#eper$o" &") !$ b&$e) o" t#e (r!$)!%t!o" o- t#e per$o", &t#o(# !t m&' !"@o@e #!$ r!#t to, or t#eeer%!$e o- o:"er$#!p o-, $pe%!% propert', or $ee; to %ompe #!m to %o"tro or )!$po$e o- !t !"&%%or)&"%e :!t# t#e m&")&te o- t#e %o(rt.he purpose of a proceedin* in personam is to impose throu*h the7ud*ment of a court some responsibility or liability directly upon the person of the defendant' Of this character aresuits to compel a defendant to speci=cally perform some act or actions to fasten a pecuniary liability on him' A"
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/feb2009/172172.htm#_ftn35


10/27

&%t!o" in personam !$ $&!) to be o"e :#!%# #&$ -or !t$ obe%t & ()me"t &&!"$t t#e per$o", &$)!$t!"(!$#e) -rom & ()me"t &&!"$t t#e propr!et' >$!%? to )eterm!"e !t$ $t&te. -t has been held that anaction in personam is a proceedin* to enforce personal ri*hts or obli*ations such action is brou*ht a*ainst theperson'; ; ;

On the other hand a proceedin* /uasi in remis one brou*ht a*ainst persons see0in* to sub7ect the

property of such persons to the dischar*e of the claims assailed' I" &" &%t!o" quasi in rem, &" !")!@!)(& !$"&me) &$ )e-e")&"t &") t#e p(rpo$e o- t#e pro%ee)!" !$ to $(be%t #!$ !"tere$t$ t#ere!" to t#eob!&t!o" or o&" b(r)e"!" t#e propert'' Actions /uasi in remdeal )ith the status o)nership or liability of aparticular property but )hich are intended to operate on these Guestions only as bet)een the particular parties to

the proceedin*s and not to ascertain or cut o8 the ri*hts or interests of all possible claimants' he 7ud*mentstherein are bindin* only upon the parties )ho 7oined in the action'

Ci+il Case No' $4@ is an action for speci=c performance and dama*es =led by petitioner spouses a*ainst Ja+ier to compeperformance of the latters underta0in*s under their Contract to > ##? he )as dismissed from his employment for alle*edly misappropriatin* P@!((('(( )hich )as intended for paymen

by petitioner of its +alue added ta; 2.A3 to the Bureau of -nternal Re+enue 2B-R3' D

Petitioner on the other hand claims that pri+ate respondent )as not its employee but only the uncle of Amelita %alabed the

o)ner of petitioner D

Based on the position papers of the parties the labor arbiter rendered a decision in fa+or of petitioner on October >5 ##?

declarin* that no employer&employee relationship e;isted bet)een the parties and therefore his o9ce had no 7urisdiction o+er the

case'@D

Not satis=ed )ith the said decision pri+ate respondent appealed to the N:RC contendin* that the labor arbiter erred 23 in not

*i+in* credence to the e+idence submitted by him 2>3 in holdin* that he )or0ed as a +olunteer and not as an employee of


11/27

On June @ ##$ the N:RC rendered a resolution settin* aside the Guestioned decision and remandin* the case to the labor

arbiter for immediate appropriate proceedin*s'5DPetitioner then =led a motion for reconsideration )hich )as denied by the N:RC in

its resolution dated Au*ust ! ##$ for lac0 of merit?Dhence the present petition alle*in* that the N:RC committed *ra+e abuse of

discretion'$D

Before proceedin* further into the merits of the case at bar the Court feels that it is no) e;i*ent and opportune to ree;amine

the functional +alidity and systemic practicability of the mode of 7udicial re+ie) it has lon* adopted and still follo)s )ith respect to

decisions of the N:RC' he increasin* number of labor disputes that =nd their )ay to this Court and the le*islati+e chan*es

introduced o+er the years into the pro+isions of Presidential ,ecree 2P.D.3 No' 44> 2he :abor Code of the Philippines and Batas

Pambansa Bl*' 2).P. 'o.3 ># 2he Judiciary Reor*aniation Act of #!(3 no) stridently call for and )arrant a reassessment of that

procedural aspect'/e prefatorily del+e into the le*al history of the N:RC' -t )as =rst established in the ,epartment of :abor by P',' No' > on

October 4 #$> and its decisions )ere e;pressly declared to be appealable to the enacted the :abor Code of the Philippines the same to ta0e e8ect si; months after its

promul*ation'!DCreated and re*ulated therein is the present N:RC )hich )as attached to the ,epartment of :abor and Employment

for pro*ram and policy coordination only'#D-nitially Article @(> 2no) Article >>@3 thereof also *ranted an a**rie+ed party the remedy

of appeal from the decision of the N:RC to the @ as last amended by of R'A' No' ?$5 instead merely pro+ides that the Commission shall decide al

cases )ithin t)enty days from receipt of the ans)er of the appellee and that such decision shall be =nal and e;ecutory after ten

calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties'/hen the issue )as raised in an early case on the ar*ument that this Court has no 7urisdiction to re+ie) the decisions of the

N:RC and formerly of the Dand then seasonably a+ail of the specia

ci+il action of certiorari under Rule ?5@Dfor )hich said Rule has no) =;ed the re*lementary period of si;ty days from notice of the

decision' Curiously althou*h the (&day period for =nality of the decision of the N:RC may already ha+e lapsed as contemplated in

>@ of the :abor Code it has been held that this Court may still ta0e co*niance of the petition for certiorari on 7urisdictiona

and due process considerations if =led )ithin the re*lementary period under Rule ?5'4D

urnin* no) to the matter of 7udicial re+ie) of N:RC decisions B'P' No' ># ori*inally pro+ided as follo)sF

3 E;clusi+e ori*inal 7urisdiction o+er actions for annulment of 7ud*ments of Re*ional rial Courts and2@3 E;clusi+e appellate 7urisdiction o+er all =nal 7ud*ments decisions resolutions orders or a)ards of Re*ional rial Courts and Guasi&

7udicial a*encies instrumentalities boards or commissions includin* the


12/27

and conduct ne) trials or further proceedin*s' rials or hearin*s in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed

)ithin three 2@3 months unless e;tended by the Chief Justice'

-t )ill readily be obser+ed that aside from the chan*e in the name of the lo)er appellate court ?Dthe follo)in* amendments o

the ori*inal pro+isions of vi&.F

' he last para*raph )hich e;cluded its application to the La%or Codeof t!e P!ilippinesand the Central Board of Assessment

Appeals )as deleted and replaced by a ne) para*raph *rantin* the Court of Appeals limited po)ers to conduct trials and hearin*s in

cases )ithin its 7urisdiction'>' he reference to the :abor Code in that last para*raph )as transposed to para*raph 2@3 of the section such that the ori*inal

e;clusionary clause therein no) pro+ides e;cept those fallin* )ithin the appellate 7urisdiction of the # no) *rants e;clusi+e appellate7urisdiction to the Court o

Appeals o+er all =nal ad7udications of the Re*ional rial Courts and the Guasi&7udicial a*encies *enerally or speci=cally referred to

therein e;cept amon* others those fallin* )ithin the appellate7urisdiction of the # and those speci=ed cases in # and of subpara*raph of the third

para*raph and subpara*raph 4 of


13/27

D Record of the he

Conference Committee Report on ha+in* theretofore been appro+ed by the 1ouse of

Representati+es the same )as li0e)ise appro+ed by the ( ##5 >>Dinclusi+e of the dubious formulation on

appeals to the 4D

/hile )e do not )ish to intrude into the Con*ressional sphere on the matter of the )isdom of a la) on this score )e add the

further obser+ations that there is a *ro)in* number of labor cases bein* ele+ated to this Court )hich not bein* a trier of fact has at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn24


14/27

times been constrained to remand the case to the N:RC for resolution of unclear or ambi*uous factual =ndin*s that the Court of

Appeals is procedurally eGuipped for that purpose aside from the increased number of its component di+isions and that there is

undeniably an imperati+e need for e;peditious action on labor cases as a ma7or aspect of constitutional protection to labor'herefore all references in the amended 5Dshould be ta0en into accountF

One =nal obser+ation' /e discern in the proceedin*s in this case a propensity on the part of petitioner and for that matterthe same may be said of a number of liti*ants )ho initiate recourses before us to disre*ard the hierarchy of courts in our

7udicial system by see0in* relief directly from this Court despite the fact that the same is a+ailable in the lo)er courts in the

e;ercise of their ori*inal or concurrent 7urisdiction or is e+en mandated by la) to be sou*ht therein' his practice must be

stopped not only because of the imposition upon the precious time of this Court but also because of the ine+itable and

resultant delay intended or other)ise in the ad7udication of the case )hich often has to be remanded or referred to the

lo)er court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure or as better eGuipped to resol+e the issues since this Court is

not a trier of facts' /e therefore reiterate the 7udicial policy that this Court )ill not entertain direct resort to it unless the

redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or )here e;ceptional and compellin* circumstances 7ustify

a+ailment of a remedy )ithin and callin* for the e;ercise of our primary 7urisdiction'

HEREFORE under the fore*oin* premises the instant petition for certiorari is hereby RE%AN,E, and all pertinent records

thereof ordered to be 6OR/AR,E,,to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition consistent )ith the +ie)s and rulin*

herein set forth )ithout pronouncement as to costs'

SO ORERE.

G.R. No. D1DD4 &' D1, 1978RE3BI OF THE 3HII33INES, petitioner

+s'

THE HONORABE ORT OF A33EAS, AFREO 0. E OA3O, &") OSAR ANGO, respondents'$olicitor 9eneral Felix -. "ntonio and "ssistant $olicitor 9eneral Dominador L. -uiro& for petitioner.Euse%io +. 'avarro, Eugenio 9. 9emarino and Euse%io P. 'avarro for respondent "lfredo +. de 7campo.+icente F. Del3n and +. del Rosario : "ssociates for respondent 7scar "nglo.SANTOS,J.An appeal by certiorari =led on ,ecember 5 #?# by petitioner Republic of the Philippines 2Republic for short3 from the resolution of

the Court of Appeals dated Au*ust > #?# 1dismissin* petitioners appeal in CA&' R' Nos' 4(?!@&!4&R as )ell as from the

resolution of the said Court dated No+ember 4 #?# 2denyin* petitioners motion for reconsideration thereof

he rele+ant and essential factual and procedural Q antecedents follo)' Both Republic and respondents Alfredo .' de Ocampo andOscar An*lo claim o)nership o+er the same lots i'e Nos' !$ and >5(# of the 5F that C No' ?(4 )as issued to the Bureau of Education )hen

the sub7ect property )as beGueathed to it and that as a matter of fact a su*ar Guota 2Plantation Audit No' >4&(3 )as issued for the

lots under the name of the Bureau of Education' 4he lots ha+e a total area of >!#'4$ hectares' C

Respondent de Ocampo upon the other hand predicates his claim on an application for re*istration of the same :ots Nos' !$ and

>5(# in :and Re*istration Case No' N&4 :RC Rec' No' N#? )herein a decree of re*istration No' (55@! )as issued o+er the lots

follo)ed by the issuance in his name of OC No' 5$? on October #?5' 61e a+erred that the lots )ere unre*istered lands

belon*in* to and possessed by him by +irtue of a donation dated No+ember ( # from one :uis %osGuera' 7

Respondent An*lo inter+ened in the case on 6ebruary > #?? ha+in* alle*edly bou*ht the same lots from respondent de Ocampo

on January ? #??' C No' 4>>$ )as issued to him 2An*lo3 on January > #??' 8

Procedurally the records sho) that the Bureau of Public 4 #5! a forcible entry and detainer case a*ainst de Ocampo o+er :ots Nos' !$ and >5(#' On appeal the

Court of 6irst -nstance of Ne*ros Occidental dismissed the complaint 2Ci+il Case No' 5@5@3' 9

hen on June ># #?( de Ocampo =led an application for re*istration of the same t)o parcels of land in :and Re*istration Case No'

N&4 :RC Rec' No' N#? entitled ;"lfredo +. de 7campo, "pplicant, v. Repu%lic of t!e P!ilippines, 7ppositorRepublic =led its

opposition in due time' 1

On %ay > #? Republic represented by the ?4 2?543 entitled ;Repu%lic of t!e P!ilippines v. "lfredo v. de

7campo, Defendant," 11,e Ocampo a+erred in his ans)er that the properties alle*ed to ha+e been donated by Esteban Jalandoni to

the then Bureau of Education )ere di8erent from the properties in+ol+ed in this case the former bein* titled lands 2C No' >53

containin* t)o million nine hundred and t)el+e thousand four hundred and se+enty four sGuare meters 2>#>4$43 )hile :ots Nos'

!$ and >5(# applied for by de Ocampo and )hich Republic sou*ht to reco+er )ere unre*istered lands and that *rantin* )ithout
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/130866.htm#_edn25


15/27

admittin* that they are the same lands the court no lon*er had 7urisdiction o+er the sub7ect matter of the action since the issue of

possession o+er said lots )as already decided by the Court of 6irst -nstance of Ne*ros Occidental' 12

On %ay >? #? a preliminary hearin* )as held before Branch -. of the Court of 6irst -nstance of Ne*ros Occidental )here the land

re*istration case )as pendin* but inasmuch as the issues in+ol+ed in both Ci+il Case No' >?4 2?543 for reco+ery of possession and

the land re*istration case )ere -dentical the parties a*reed to a 7oint trial this time before Branch .- - Jud*e Jose ,' ,i+ina*racia

presidin* )here the ci+il case )as pendin*' 1D

After a 7oint trial of the abo+e&mentioned t)o 2>3 cases the Court of 6irst -nstance rendered 7ud*ment on Au*ust @ #?5 dismissin*

the complaint in Ci+il Case No' >?4 2?543 and ad7ud*in* the re*istration of the sub7ect t)o lots in the name of the then applicant de

Ocampo' On October #?? OC No' 5$? )as issued in his name' 14

-t is admitted by Republic that it recei+ed a copy of the decision on Au*ust @ #?5 1Cbut no appeal )as ta0en therefrom' 1o)e+er

Republic later =led )ith the trial court on ,ecember >! #?5 a "Petition for Relief from Jud*ment )ith Preliminary -n7unction Pendin*

Proceedin* 162petition for short3 prayin* amon* other thin*s that de Ocampo be restrained from enforcin* the decision dated @Au*ust #?5 and that after the hearin* an order be issued declarin* the decision to be not yet =nal add e;ecutory and *rantin*

Republic the ri*ht to =le a motion for reconsideration andor appeal )ithin the period *ranted to commence upon receipt of the orderhe petition alle*ed inter alia that the Republics failure to appeal )as due to accident mista0e andor e;cusable ne*li*ence

speci=cally statin* that its doc0et cler0 Cesar 5 #?? petitioner Republic =led a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid order dismissin* its petition 22and on Au*ust

4 #?? it =led a manifestation a+errin* additional *rounds in support of the motion for reconsideration' 2DRespondent An*lo and de

Ocampo opposed the same' 24

On ! #?? Republic =led an "Amended Petition for Relief from Jud*ment andor Re+ie) of ,ecree )ith Preliminary

-n7unction 2C2Amended Petition for short3' -n speci=c re*ard to the petition for re+ie) of the decree Republic contended inter alia

that actual fraud had been perpetrated by respondent de Ocampo in securin* the lo)er courts decision orderin* the re*istration of

the lots in his name as )ell as the issuance of the decree of re*istration and the correspondin* certi=cate of title on the *rounds

)hich brieKy restated' ad+ert to respondent de Ocampos alle*ed misrepresentations that the t)o parcels of land applied for by him

in the land re*istration case )ere "di8erent from the t)o parcels of land of the same lot numbers technical descriptions and areas

belon*in* to the o+ernment 0no)in* such alle*ations to be false the truth of the matter bein* that said parcels of land are the

same property o)ned by the o+ernment" 26that there )as pre+ious re*istration of the same parcels of land :ots Nos' !$ and

>5(# under the orrens


16/27

On the other issues the trial court found that it )as throu*h mista0e accident and e;cusable ne*li*ence that the decision of Au*ust

@ #?5 )as not brou*ht to the attention of 3 to ,ENI the motion to inter+ene of inter+enor 3 the dismissal of Republics appeal is not in accordance )ith the

liberal construction of the Rules of Court and the promotion of its ob7ect to assist the parties in obtainin* 7ust speedy and ine;pensi+e

determination of actions and proceedin*s 2@3 the trial court has no 7urisdiction to entertain the application for land re*istration of

Alfredo .' de Ocampo on the *round that :ots Nos' !$ and >5(# )ere already re*istered under the orrens 5(# a*ainst respondent de Ocampo' =led - s opposition in the land re*istration case and instituted Ci+il Case No' >?4 2?543 C42>3

that Republic should comply )ith the mandatory and 7urisdictional reGuirements of the rules on perfection of appeals citin*

cases CCthat there cannot be one set of Rules for ordinary pri+ate liti*ants and another set for the


17/27

Respondent Court of Appeals in a +ery simplistic approach )hich disre*ards the substanti+e merits of the appeal dismissed the

same on the *rounds that the record on appeal did not sho) on its face that it )as perfected on time and additionally that e+en if it

)ere to be assumed that the motion for e;tension of >( days to =le the record on appeal )as indeed *ranted the appeal )as still not

perfected on time because the record on appeal )as =led No+ember # si; 2?3 days after No+ember @ #?$ )hen petitioners

reGuested e;tension e;pired'-f respondents line of reasonin* )ere to be upheld the dismissal of the appeal may be sustained' 6or as stated in its notice of

appeal =led on October > #?$ petitioner Republic recei+ed a copy of the decision of the trial court on 5(# )ere re*istered in fa+or of %eer0amp and Company before ## the trial courts decision decreein* a*ain the same lots in the

name of respondent de Ocampo in #?5 is null and +oid a% initio for lac0 of 7urisdiction and a fatal in=rmity necessarily attaches to

the said decision 2>3 here are stron* and substantial alle*ations of fraudulent misrepresentations and machinations employed by

respondent de Ocampo in securin* his title Rele+ant to this is he e;press =ndin* of the trial court that he Petition for Relief )as

=led )ithin the re*lementary period prescribed in 5(# hence this contro+ersy' -f

Republics contentions are true that the said lots had been re*istered t)ice )ith OC No' @$( issued in fa+or of %eer0amp and

Company before ## and another OC No' 5$? issued in the name of respondent de Ocampo in #?5 Q or some forty&si; 24?3

years later Q then the decision of the trial court sittin* as land re*istration court is null and +oid a% initio and su8ers from a fatal

in=rmity )hich is also a *round for the re+ie) of a decree of re*istration' pro+ided no innocent purchaser for +alue )ill be

pre7udiced'6D

-t is +ery si*ni=cant in this connection that respondent de Ocampo admitted the donation of Jalandoni in fa+or of the Bureau of

Education but a+erred that the lots so donated )ere titled 2C No' >53 64)hile :ots Nos' !$ and >5(# applied for by him in the

land re*istration case )ere "unre*istered' 6CIet both parties claim to be the o)ners of the same :ots Nos' !$ and >5(#'

Respondent de Ocampo also *a+e the area of the lots co+ered by C No' >5 in the name of Jalandoni as t)o million nine hundred

and t)el+e thousand four hundred and se+enty four 2>#>4$43 sGuare meters or ># hectares plus' 66Coincidentally :ots Nos' !$

and >5(# claimed by Republic ha+e a total area of >!#'4$ hectares 67or only about t)o 2>3 hectares less' hese factors brou*ht to

li*ht by respondent de Ocampo himself cannot simply be i*nored in reachin* the conclusion that the disputed resolutions of

respondent Court of Appeals be re+ersed'-t is also important to ad+ert to the documentary e;hibits adduced by Republic in the hearin* of the Amended Petition belo) one of

)hich )as a certi=cation dated No+ember ! #5> si*ned by the Re*ister of ,eeds of Ne*ros Occidental statin* that on %ay @

## there )as re*istered a sale e;ecuted by %eer0amp and Company in fa+or of Esteban Jalandoni and as a result OC No @$( in

the name of the Company )as cancelled and C No' >5 )as issued to Jalandoni that C No' >5 )as later cancelled by +irtue of

the )ill of Jalandoni lea+in* the parcel of land to the then Bureau of Education that C No' ?(4 )as correspondin*ly issued to the

Bureau of Education and that lease contracts )ere annotated in C No' ?(4 in fa+or of 6rancisco Copper e;ecuted by the ,i+ision

5(# )ere ne+er declared in the name of %osGuera' 711is later certi=cation states that the said lots )ere assessed in the name of

the Bureau of Education and that the technical descriptions in the Bureau of :ands records sho) that the same lots )ere in the name

of %eer0amp and Company' 72

Authorities are in a*reement that a land re*istration court is )ithout 7urisdiction to decree a*ain the re*istration of land already

re*istered in an earlier re*istration case and that the second decree entered for the same land is null and +oid' 7D-f there is no +alid

and =nal 7ud*ment by the land re*istration court to spea0 of then the =lin* of an admittedly late appeal from the decision denyin*

the Amended Petition )ould be immaterial and of no moment in so far as these proceedin*s are concerned in +ie) of the

con*enitally fatal in=rmity that attaches to the main decision' decreein* for the second time the re*istration of the same :ots Nos'


18/27

!$ and >5(# in fa+or of respondent de Ocampo despite an earlier re*istration in the name of %eer0amp and Company'

Jurisprudence holds that the appellants failure to perfect an appeal on time "althou*h ordinarily decisi+e carries no persuasi+e

force" and may be completely disre*arded if the trial court acted )ithout 7urisdiction' 74As held in 8nited $tates v. (ayme 7Clac0 of

7urisdiction' la 7urisdiction o+er the sub7ect matter is fatal and may be raised at any sta*e of the proceedin*s' Jurisdiction is conferred

by the so+erei*n authority )hich or*anies the court it is *i+en only by la) and in the manner prescribed by la) and an ob7ection on

the lac0 of such 7urisdiction cannot be )ai+ed by the parties' he in=rmity cannot be cured by silence acGuiescence or e+en by

e;press consent 76or by )in of the parties' 77

-n the interest of 7ustice )hich is the paramount consideration in all liti*ations and especially considerin* the cloud surroundin* the

decision of the land re*istration court as aforesaid the more 7udicious course to follo) is for respondent Court of Appeals to entertain

Republics appeal not to dismiss it so that if it =nds the same to be meritorious and the decision appealed from is re+ersed the

correct -dentity of the lots that )ere donated to the then Bureau of Education 2admitted by respondent de Ocampo3 as )ell as those

parcels of land applied for by said respondent in the land re*istration case may already be ascertained once and for all in the trial

court belo) and in this same proceedin* )ithout Republic ha+in* to resort to reliti*ation to pro+e its claim' 6urther proceedin*s )ill

not pre7udice respondents' On the contrary the cloud o+er their titles OC No' 5$? and C No' 4>>$' issued in fa+or of respondents

de Ocampo and An*lo respecti+ely )ill be remo+ed if Republics claim is not true'>' here is a serious char*e )hich is also crucial to the issue bet)een the parties that respondent de Ocampo used fraudulent

misrepresentations and machinations in securin* his title 6irstly there )as the a+erment in his Ans)er in Ci+il case No >?4 2?543

for reco+ery of possession of the sub7ect lots by Republic )hich case )as 7ointly tried )ith the land re*istration case that the

properties alle*ed to ha+e been donated by Jalandoni to the then Bureau of Education )ere "di8erent" from :ots Nos' !$ and >5(#

applied for by him the Jalandoni holdin*s bein* "titled" lands )hile :ots Nos' !$ and >5(# )ere "unre*istered" lands' he then

applicant de Ocampo e+en cited C No' >5 of the Re*ister of ,eeds of Ne*ros Occidental as the title co+erin* the lots in the name

of Jalandoni further statin* that the lands donated by him to the Bureau of Education had an area of >#>4$4 sGuare meters 78or

># hectares plus' :ots Nos' !$ and >5(# ha+e a total area of >!#'4$ hectares 79or a di8erence of only > hectares more or less' he

coincidence in area is hi*hly si*ni=cant since both claim to be the o)ners of the same lots' >$ )as in fact issued to him' 84A ne) party


19/27

E;ceptions to the operation of the mandatory and 7urisdictional character of the rules on perfection of appeals are to be noted

in $armiento v. $alud, et al' 91penned by Justice J'B' Reyes De/uito v. Lope& 92and Carillo v. "llied =orers "ssociation of t!e

P!ilippines 9Dboth )ritten for the Court by Justice E' %' 6ernando decided years after the Re+ised Rules of Court too0 e8ect in

January #?4' -n the


20/27

)ould be a poor 0ind of 7ustice if there )ould be 7ustice at all' .erily 7udicial orders such as the one sub7ect of this petition are issued

to be obeyed nonetheless a non&compliance is to be dealt )ith as the circumstances attendin* the case may )arrant' /hat should

*uide 7udicial action is the principle that a party&liti*ant is to be *i+en the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint

or defense rather than for him to lose life liberty honor or property on technicalities'As in the case of Carco *otor $ales, Inc. vs. of "ppeals 6)herein )e also set aside the appellate courts dismissal of an appeal for

failure to =le appellants brief due to the fault and ne*li*ence of counsels o9ce secretary )e are herein persuaded that the hi*her

interests of 7ustice and fairness 7ustify the settin* aside of respondent courts peremptory dismissal of petitioners appeal and that the

e;ercise of the Courts "inherent ri*ht" to reinstate an appeal that )as dismissed as the result of fraud mista0e or una+oidable

casualty is fully 7usti=ed under the circumstances of the case at bar'Referrin* brieKy to the +ie) e;pressed that the


21/27

7ustice and application of the rules is su%stantial 4ustice and fair play' As restated by the Court in 7%ut vs. Court of "ppeals C2/3e

cannot loo0 )ith fa+or on a course of action )hich )ould place the administration of 7ustice in a strai*ht&7ac0et for then the result

)ould be a poor 0ind of 7ustice if there )ould be 7ustice at all' .erily 7udicial orders such as the one sub7ect of this petition are issued

to be obeyed nonetheless a non&compliance is to be dealt )ith as the circumstances attendin* the case may )arrant' /hat should

*uide 7udicial action is the principle that a party&liti*ant is to be *i+en the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint

or defense rather than for him to lose life liberty honor or property on technicalities'As in the case of Carco *otor $ales, Inc. vs. of "ppeals 6)herein )e also set aside the appellate courts dismissal of an appeal for

failure to =le appellants brief due to the fault and ne*li*ence of counsels o9ce secretary )e are herein persuaded that the hi*her

interests of 7ustice and fairness 7ustify the settin* aside of respondent courts peremptory dismissal of petitioners appeal and that the

e;ercise of the Courts "inherent ri*ht" to reinstate an appeal that )as dismissed as the result of fraud mista0e or una+oidable

casualty is fully 7usti=ed under the circumstances of the case at bar'Referrin* brieKy to the +ie) e;pressed that the


22/27

to ma0e the in7unction permanent' he amount of dama*es sou*ht is not speci=ed in the prayer althou*h the body of the complaint

alle*es the total amount of o+er P$! %illion as dama*es su8ered by plainti8' C

@' Hpon the =lin* of the complaint there )as an honest di8erence of opinion as to the nature of the action in the %a*aspi case' he

complaint )as considered as primarily an action for reco+ery of o)nership and possession of a parcel of land' he dama*es stated

)ere treated as merely to the main cause of action' hus the doc0et fee of only P?('(( and P('(( for the sheri8s fee )ere paid' 6

-n the present case there can be no such honest di8erence of opinion' As maybe *leaned from the alle*ations of the complaint as )ell

as the desi*nation thereof it is both an action for dama*es and speci=c performance' he doc0et fee paid upon =lin* of complaint in

the amount only of P4('(( by considerin* the action to be merely one for speci=c performance )here the amount in+ol+ed is not

capable of pecuniary estimation is ob+iously erroneous' Althou*h the total amount of dama*es sou*ht is not stated in the prayer of

the complaint yet it is spelled out in the body of the complaint totallin* in the amount of P$!$5(((('(( )hich should be the basis of

assessment of the =lin* fee'

4' /hen this under&re assessment of the =lin* fee in this case )as brou*ht to the attention of this Court to*ether )ith similar othercases an in+esti*ation )as immediately ordered by the Court' %ean)hile plainti8 throu*h another counsel )ith lea+e of court =led an

amended complaint on #!5 for the inclusion of Philips /ire and Cable Corporation as co&plainti8 and by emanatin*

any mention of the amount of dama*es in the body of the complaint' he prayer in the ori*inal complaint )as maintained' After this

Court issued an order on October 5 #!5 orderin* the re& assessment of the doc0et fee in the present case and other cases that

)ere in+esti*ated on No+ember > #!5 the trial court directed plainti8s to rectify the amended complaint by statin* the amounts

)hich they are as0in* for' -t )as only then that plainti8s speci=ed the amount of dama*es in the body of the complaint in the reduced

amount of P((((((('((' 7


23/27

HON. AO5SIS AA5, REGIONA TRIA ORT, KEON IT5, BIIE GAN AN HINA BANJING

OR3ORATION, respondents')raulio R. 9. ansinsin for petitioner."ugusto 9atmaytan for private respondent )illie . 9an.Del Rosario, Lim, elan, De +era : +igilia for C!ina )aning Corp.EENIOHERRERA,J.:Applyin* literally the rulin* on doc0et fees enunciated in %anchester ,e+elopment Corporation +s' Court of Appeals 2:&$5## %ay $

#!$ 4# 3 respondent Jud*e on Au*ust #!! ordered 23 that petitioners Complaint belo) 2in Ci+il Case No' L&

5>4!#3 for reconstitution of a sa+in*s account and payment of dama*es and attorneys fees be e;pun*ed and 2>3 that the case be

dismissed' 1e also denied on > October #!! the reconsideration sou*ht by petitioner of that Order'

he aforementioned sa+in*s account )as alle*edly maintained )ith the China Ban0in* Corporation 2CBC3 by an Bun Ia) both of)hom are respondents herein' Petitioner N* )ith CBC )herein he deposited

P#((((('(( more or less'@' Before his death on January @ #!$ he lapsed into a coma until he =nally too0 his last breath' But his passboo0

still sho)ed a deposit of P#((((('(( more or less';;; ;;; ;;;5' 6or almost three 2@3 lon* years she loo0ed for the deposit passboo0 )ith the help of her children to no a+ail';;; ;;; ;;;$' ' Orderin* both defendants to pay moral and e;emplary dama*es of not less than P5(((('(('@' Orderin* both defendants to pay her attorneys fees eGui+alent to t)enty percent of all amounts reconstituted or

payable to her but not less than P5(((('((' of the prayer3 and attorneys fees 2No' @ of the prayer3 for e+idently the phrase not less than

P5(((('(( in each of Nos' > and @ of the prayer merely =;es the minimum amount but it does not mean that

plainti8 is not prayin* for an unspeci=ed sum much hi*her than said minimum' And a*ain the clause eGui+alent to

t)enty percent of all amounts reconstituted or payable to her in No' @ of the prayer is as +a*ue and inde=nite as

the similar clause found in the complaints body referred to earlier' /hat e;actly is the amount relati+e to )hich the

t)enty percent shall be determined -s it the amount of P#((((('(( more or less Or is it the total amount of all

the actual dama*es Or is it the *rand total amount of all the dama*es&actual moral and e;emplary&payable to

her Certainly the *reat di8erence bet)een any of these amounts on the one hand and the amount of

P5(((('(( in the phrase not less than P5(((('(( in No' @ of the prayer on the other hand is Guite too ob+ious to

need underscorin*'


24/27

Needless to state implicit in the obli*ation to specify is the duty to be clear and de=nite' A purported speci=cation

)hich is +a*ue and inde=nite ob+iously is no speci=cation at all indeed it )ill ser+e no purpose other than to e+ade

the payment of the correct =lin* fees by misleadin* the doc0et cler0 in the assessment of the =lin* fees';;; ;;; ;;;/1ERE6ORE the Court hereby *rants defendants aforesaid %O-ON O EPHNE CO%P:A-N and hereby denies

plainti8s aforesaid HREN O%N-BH< %O-ON 2EC'3 and OPPO$ April #!# by and bearin* the seal of the An 1ai %unicipal o+ernment'his alle*ation )as ho)e+er denied by petitioner in her "


25/27

Republic of the PhilippinesS3REE ORT

%anilaEN BANC

July @ #@?'R' No' 4555AREN . 0IA E ORO0EA,petitioner+s'HONORIA RA5NO,respondent'Crispin 7%en for petitioner.*arcelino C. *along for respondent.ABA SANTOS,J.:

Petitioner is the appellee and respondent the appellant in a case no) pendin* on appeal in the Court of Appeals entitled ,omin*oOrdo+ea vs.1onoria Raymundo and numbered 44$?@ in the records of the court' he period for the =lin* of the appellants brief inthat case e;pired on %arch >( #@?' On %arch @ #@? the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure of the appellant to =leher brief )ithin the time prescribed by the rules of the court and ordered that after =fteen days the record of the case be remandedto the court belo)' On April ? #@? the appellant =led a petition for reconsideration of the order dismissin* the appeal )hich petition)as denied on April ! #@?' A second petition for reconsideration )as =led by the appellant and in +ie) thereof the Court of Appealson April 4 #@? passed the follo)in* resolutionFHpon consideration of the second petition of the attorneys for the appellant in case ' R' 44$?@Domingo 7rdove&a vs. 2onoriaRaymundo, etc.prayin* that the resolution of this court of %arch @ #@? dismissin* the appeal for failure to =le their brief bereconsidered in +ie) of the reasons *i+en in said petition and the special circumstances of the case said resolution is hereby setaside and the appeal reinstated pro+ided ho)e+er that the attorneys for the appellant shall =le their printed brief )ithin =+e daysfrom notice hereof'On April $#@? the appellee =led a motion prayin* that the resolution abo+e Guoted be reconsidered and set aside )hich motion)as denied'Hpon the fore*oin* state of facts the appellee =led this petition for a )rit of certiorari)ith a +ie) to ha+in* declared null and +oid theorder of the Court of Appeals restatin* the appeal'

Petitioner no) contends 23 that the Court of Appeals had no po)er to reinstate the appeal because it lost 7urisdiction of the case onApril 5 #@? in that =fteen days had already elapsed from %arch >( #@? the date )hen the period =;ed for the =lin* of theappellants brief e;pired and 2>3 that *rantin* that the Court of Appeals retained 7urisdiction of the case it had no authority to *rantthe appellant an additional period of =+e days )ithin )hich to =le her brief'By section 45&P of the Re+ised Administrati+e Code as amended byCommon)ealth Act No' @ and in +irtue of the resolution adoptedby the Court of Appeals on 6ebruary ! #@? the rules of the @' %otions for e;tension of time for the =lin* of briefs must be presented before the e;piration of the time mentioned in Rules >and >> or )ithin a time =;ed by special order of the court' No more than one e;tension of time for the =lin* of briefs shall be allo)edand then only for *ood and su9cient cause sho)n to be demonstrated by a9da+it'>4' -f the appellant in any ci+il case fails to ser+e his brief )ithin the time prescribed by these rules the court may on motion of theappellee and notice to the appellant or on its o)n motion dismiss the bill of e;ceptions or the appeal'' he =rst contention of the petitioner rests on the theory de+eloped in his ar*ument that upon the failure of the appellant to =le herbrief )ithin the time prescribed by the rules of the court her appeal became ipso facto dismissed' ConseGuently he ar*ues that atthe e;piration of the period of =fteen days from %arch >( #@? the Court of Appeals lost 7urisdiction of the case and had thereforeno po)er to reinstate the appeal' his +ie) =nds no support in the rules of this court' Rule >4 abo+e transcribed clearly indicates thecontrary +ie) )hen it says that upon failure of the appellant to =le his brief )ithin the period prescribed by the rules the court "may"on motion of the appellee and notice to the appellant or its o)n motion dismiss the bill of e;ceptions or the appeal' he use of the)ord "may" implies that the matter of dismissin* the appeal or not rests )ithin the sound discretion of the court and that failure ofthe appellant to =le his brief )ithin the time prescribed by the rules does not ha+e the e8ect of dismissin* the appeal automatically'.ie)ed in this li*ht the period of =fteen days must be counted in the case under consideration not from %arch >( #@? but from%arch @ #@?' 1a+in* been entered on April 4 #@? the order reinstatin* the appeal came )ithin such =fteen&day period'>' ranted that the Court of Appeals still had 7urisdiction of the case )hen it reinstated the appeal it seem reasonable to concludethat it also had authority to *rant the appellant an additional period of =+e days )ithin )hich to =le her brief' Rule >@ pro+ides inspeci=c terms that the court may by special order =; a time )ithin )hich motions for e;tension of time for the =lin* of briefs must bepresented' -t )ould seem to be )ithin the spirit of this rule to hold that the court may *rant either the appellant or appellee anadditional time for the =lin* of his brief e+en )ithout any pre+ious application therefor' %oreo+er as the 45entitled 8nited Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. vs. 8nited Pulp and Paper C!apterAFederation of Free =orers '

he antecedent facts *i+in* rise to the contro+ersy at bar are as follo)sF3 months' he Promotions Policy setsforth the follo)in* *uidelinesF.-' A,%-N-


26/27

' E;cept in abnormal situations 2sub7ect to appro+al by the eneral %ana*er3 promotions shall be made only if a+acancy in the ne;t hi*her position occurs and %ana*ement has decided to =ll&up such +acancy throu*happro+al of the Personnel ReGuisition form'

; ; ;#' -n case of union employees the promotional increase shall be 5T compounded for e+ery pay class

7ump' 1o)e+er the resultin* e8ect of 5T promotional increase shall not cause the promoted employeessalary to e;ceed that of the lo)est paid incumbent )ithin =rst the section second department and thirddi+ision' -f this constraint )ill result to a promotional increase of lo)er than @T o+er his pre+ious salarythe employee )ill recei+e an increase of @T'

; ; ;'4D

On April ##! eodorico ### the Appellate Court dismissed the petition outri*ht for bein* insu9cient in form thusF"' he +eri=cation and certi=cation of non&forum shoppin* )as si*ned only by counsel for the petitioner corporation

rather than by a duly&authoried o9cer thereof>' he a9da+it of ser+ice is inadeGuate as the re*istry receipts e+idencin* mailin* of copies of the petition to the

respondent )ere not attached@' Absence of the mandatory )ritten e;planation reGuired under


27/27

Corona, andCarpioA*orales, ((., concur.+itug, C!airman, (., on o9cial lea+e'

5D

civpro full case

Documents