G.R. No.

138739

July 6, 2000

RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COM AN!, petitioner, vs. "#ou$%$ &ICENTE '() MA. "*MILANG DEL RO"ARIO, respondents. DECISION ANGANI+AN, J.: When a demurrer to evidence granted by a trial court is reversed on appeal, the reviewing court cannot remand the case or urther proceedings. !ather, it should render "udgment on the basis o the evidence pro ered by the plainti . Inasmuch as de endants in the present case admitted the due e#ecution o the $romissory Note both in their %nswer and during the pretrial, the appellate court should have rendered "udgment on the bases o that Note and on the other pieces o evidence adduced during the trial. &he Case 'e ore us is a $etition or !eview on Certiorari o the December (, )((* Decision) and the +ay ,, )((( !esolution- o the Court o %ppeals in C%./! C0 No. 1**,*. &he assailed Decision disposed as ollows2 3W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the appealed order 6dated November 1, )((17 o the !egional &rial Court 6'ranch 8I07 in the City o +anila in Civil Case No. (,. 99:;* is hereby !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. <et the records o this case be remanded to the court a =uo or urther proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs.3, &he assailed !esolution denied the petitioner>s $artial +otion or !econsideration. 1 &he 5acts &he acts o this case are undisputed. On +arch -, )((), Spouses 0icente and +aria Sumilang del !osario 6herein respondents7, "ointly and severally e#ecuted, signed and delivered in avor o !adiowealth 5inance Company 6herein petitioner7, a $romissory Note: or $),?,(1?. $ertinent provisions o the $romissory Note read2 35O! 0%<@E !ECEI0ED, on or be ore the date listed below, IAWe promise to pay "ointly and severally !adiowealth 5inance Co. or order the sum o ONE 4@ND!ED &4I!&B EI/4& &4O@S%ND NINE 4@ND!ED 5O!&B EI/4&$esos 6$),?,(1?.;;7 without need o notice or demand, in installments as ollows2

$)),:*(.;; payable or )- consecutive months starting on CCCCCCCC )(CC until the amount o $)),:*(.;; is ully paid. Each installment shall be due every CCCC day o each month. % late payment penalty charge o two and a hal 6-.:D7 percent per month shall be added to each unpaid installment rom due date thereo until ully paid. ### ### ###

It is hereby agreed that i de ault be made in the payment o any o the installments or late payment charges thereon as and when the same becomes due and payable as speci ied above, the total principal sum then remaining unpaid, together with the agreed late payment charges thereon, shall at once become due and payable without need o notice or demand. ### ### ###

I any amount due on this Note is not paid at its maturity and this Note is placed in the hands o an attorney or collection agency or collection, IAWe "ointly and severally agree to pay, in addition to the aggregate o the principal amount and interest due, a sum e=uivalent to ten 6);D7 per cent thereo as attorney>s andAor collection ees, in case no legal action is iled, otherwise, the sum will be e=uivalent to twenty. ive 6-:D7 percent o the amount due which shall not in any case be less than 5I0E 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$:;;.;;7 plus the cost o suit and other litigation e#penses and, in addition, a urther sum o ten per cent 6);D7 o said amount which in no case shall be less than 5I0E 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$:;;.;;7, as and or li=uidated damages.39 &herea ter, respondents de aulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeated demands, they ailed to pay their obligations under their $romissory Note. On Eune *, )((,, petitioner iled a Complaint* or the collection o a sum o money be ore the !egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch )1.? During the trial, Easmer 5amatico, the credit and collection o icer o petitioner, presented in evidence the respondents> checF payments, the demand letter dated Euly )-, )((), the customer>s ledger card or the respondents, another demand letter and +etropolitan 'anF dishonor slips. 5amatico admitted that he did not have personal Fnowledge o the transaction or the e#ecution o any o these pieces o documentary evidence, which had merely been endorsed to him. On Euly 1, )((1, the trial court issued an Order terminating the presentation o evidence or the petitioner.( &hus, the latter ormally o ered its evidence and e#hibits and rested its case on Euly :, )((1. !espondents iled on Euly -(, )((1 a Demurrer to Evidence); or alleged lacF o cause o action. On November 1, )((1, the trial court dismissed)) the complaint or

ailure o petitioner to substantiate its claims, the evidence it had presented being merely hearsay. On appeal, the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 reversed the trial court and remanded the case or urther proceedings. 4ence, this recourse.)!uling o the Court o %ppeals %ccording to the appellate court, the "udicial admissions o respondents established their indebtedness to the petitioner, on the grounds that they admitted the due e#ecution o the $romissory Note, and that their only de ense was the absence o an agreement on when the installment payments were to begin. Indeed, during the pretrial, they admitted the genuineness not only o the $romissory Note, but also o the demand letter dated Euly )-, )((). Even i the petitioner>s witness had no personal Fnowledge o these documents, they would still be admissible 3i the purpose or which Gthey areH produced is merely to establish the act that the statement or document was in act made or to show its tenorG,H and such act or tenor is o independent relevance.3 'esides, %rticles )( and -- o the Civil Code re=uire that every person must .. in the e#ercise o rights and in the per ormance o duties .. act with "ustice, give all else their due, and observe honesty and good aith. 5urther, the rules on evidence are to be liberally construed in order to promote their ob"ective and to assist the parties in obtaining "ust, speedy and ine#pensive determination o an action. Issue &he petitioner raises this lone issue2 3&he 4onorable Court o %ppeals patently erred in ordering the remand o this case to the trial court instead o rendering "udgment on the basis o petitioner>s evidence.3), 5or an orderly discussion, we shall divide the issue into two parts2 6a7 legal e ect o the Demurrer to Evidence, and 6b7 the date when the obligation became due and demandable. &he Court>s !uling &he $etition has merit. While the C% correctly reversed the trial court, it erred in remanding the case 3 or urther proceedings.3

Consequences of a Reversal, on Appeal, of a Demurrer to Evidence $etitioner contends that i a demurrer to evidence is reversed on appeal, the de endant should be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence, and the appellate court should render "udgment on the basis o the evidence submitted by the plainti . % remand to the trial court 3 or urther proceedings3 would be an outright de iance o !ule ,,, Section ) o the )((* !ules o Court. On the other hand, respondents argue that the petitioner was not necessarily entitled to its claim, simply on the ground that they lost their right to present evidence in support o their de ense when the Demurrer to Evidence was reversed on appeal. &hey stress that the C% merely ound them indebted to petitioner, but was silent on when their obligation became due and demandable. &he old !ule ,: o the !ules o Court was reworded under !ule ,, o the )((* !ules, but the conse=uence on appeal o a demurrer to evidence was not changed. %s amended, the pertinent provision o !ule ,, reads as ollows2 3SEC&ION ). Demurrer to evidence.% ter the plainti has completed the presentation o his evidence, the de endant may move or dismissal on the ground that upon the acts and the law the plainti has shown no right to relie . I his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. I the motion is granted but on appeal the order o dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.3)1 E#plaining the conse=uence o a demurrer to evidence, the Court in 0illanueva &ransit v. Eavellana): pronounced2 3&he rationale behind the rule and doctrine is simple and logical. &he de endant is permitted, without waiving his right to o er evidence in the event that his motion is not granted, to move or a dismissal 6i.e., demur to the plainti >s evidence7 on the ground that upon the acts as thus established and the applicable law, the plainti has shown no right to relie . I the trial court denies the dismissal motion, i.e., inds that plainti >s evidence is su icient or an award o "udgment in the absence o contrary evidence, the case still remains be ore the trial court which should then proceed to hear and receive the de endant>s evidence so that all the acts and evidence o the contending parties may be properly placed be ore it or ad"udication as well as be ore the appellate courts, in case o appeal. Nothing is lost. &he doctrine is but in line with the established procedural precepts in the conduct o trials that the trial court liberally receive all pro ered evidence at the trial to enable it to render its decision with all possibly relevant proo s in the record, thus assuring that the appellate courts upon appeal have all the material be ore them necessary to maFe a correct "udgment, and avoiding the need o remanding the case or retrial or reception o improperly e#cluded evidence, with the possibility therea ter o still another appeal, with all the concomitant delays. &he rule, however, imposes the condition by the same toFen that

i his demurrer is granted by the trial court, and the order o dismissal is reversed on appeal, the movant losses his right to present evidence in his behal and he shall have been deemed to have elected to stand on the insu iciency o plainti >s case and evidence. In such event, the appellate court which reverses the order o dismissal shall proceed to render "udgment on the merits on the basis o plainti >s evidence.3 6@nderscoring supplied7 In other words, de endants who present a demurrer to the plainti >s evidence retain the right to present their own evidence, i the trial court disagrees with themI i the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the appellate court disagrees with both o them and reverses the dismissal order, the de endants lose the right to present their own evidence.)9 &he appellate court shall, in addition, resolve the case and render "udgment on the merits, inasmuch as a demurrer aims to discourage prolonged litigations.)* In the case at bar, the trial court, acting on respondents> demurrer to evidence, dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the plainti had adduced mere hearsay evidence. 4owever, on appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court because the genuineness and the due e#ecution o the disputed pieces o evidence had in act been admitted by de endants. %pplying !ule ,,, Section ) o the )((* !ules o Court, the C% should have rendered "udgment on the basis o the evidence submitted by the petitioner. While the appellate court correctly ruled that 3the documentary evidence submitted by the GpetitionerH should have been allowed and appreciated ###,3 and that 3the petitioner presented =uite a number o documentary e#hibits ### enumerated in the appealed order,3)? we agree with petitioner that the C% had su icient evidence on record to decide the collection suit. % remand is not only rowned upon by the !ules, it is also logically unnecessary on the basis o the acts on record. Due and Demandable Obligation $etitioner claims that respondents are liable or the whole amount o their debt and the interest thereon, a ter they de aulted on the monthly installments. !espondents, on the other hand, counter that the installments were not yet due and demandable. $etitioner had allegedly allowed them to apply their promotion services or its inancing business as payment o the $romissory Note. &his was supposedly evidenced by the blanF space le t or the date on which the installments should have commenced.)( In other words, respondents theoriJe that the action or immediate en orcement o their obligation is premature because its ul illment is dependent on the sole will o the debtor. 4ence, they consider that the proper court should irst i# a period or payment, pursuant to %rticles ))?; and ))(* o the Civil Code.

&his contention is untenable. &he act o leaving blanF the due date o the irst installment did not necessarily mean that the debtors were allowed to pay as and when they could. I this was the intention o the parties, they should have so indicated in the $romissory Note. 4owever, it did not re lect any such intention. On the contrary, the Note e#pressly stipulated that the debt should be amortiJed monthly in installments o $)),:*( or twelve consecutive months. While the speci ic date on which each installment would be due was le t blanF, the Note clearly provided that each installment should be payable each month. 5urthermore, it also provided or an acceleration clause and a late payment penalty, both o which showed the intention o the parties that the installments should be paid at a de inite date. 4ad they intended that the debtors could pay as and when they could, there would have been no need or these two clauses. 0erily, the contemporaneous and subse=uent acts o the parties mani est their intention and Fnowledge that the monthly installments would be due and demandable each month.-; In this case, the conclusion that the installments had already became due and demandable is bolstered by the act that respondents started paying installments on the $romissory Note, even i the checFs were dishonored by their drawee banF. We are convinced neither by their avowals that the obligation had not yet matured nor by their claim that a period or payment should be i#ed by a court. Convincingly, petitioner has established not only a cause o action against the respondents, but also a due and demandable obligation. &he obligation o the respondents had matured and they clearly de aulted when their checFs bounced. $er the acceleration clause, the whole debt became due one month 6%pril -, )(()7 a ter the date o the Note because the checF representing their irst installment bounced. %s or the disputed documents submitted by the petitioner, the C% ruling in avor o their admissibility, which was not challenged by the respondents, stands. % party who did not appeal cannot obtain a irmative relie other than that granted in the appealed decision.-) It should be stressed that respondents do not contest the amount o the principal obligation.1 p!i1 &heir liability as e#pressly stated in the $romissory Note and ound by the C% is 3$),G?H,(1?.;;-- which is payable in twelve 6)-7 installments at $)),:*(.;; a month or twelve 6)-7 consecutive months.3 %s correctly ound by the C%, the 3ambiguity3 in the $romissory Note is clearly attributable to human error.-, $etitioner, in its Complaint, prayed or 3)1D interest per annum rom +ay 9, )((, until ully paid.3 We disagree.1 p!i1&he Note already stipulated a late payment penalty o -.: percent monthly to be added to each unpaid installment until ully

paid. $ayment o interest was not e#pressly stipulated in the Note. &hus, it should be deemed included in such penalty. In addition, the Note also provided that the debtors would be liable or attorney>s ees e=uivalent to -: percent o the amount due in case a legal action was instituted and ); percent o the same amount as li=uidated damages. <i=uidated damages, however, should no longer be imposed or being unconscionable.-1 Such damages should also be deemed included in the -.: percent monthly penalty. 5urthermore, we hold that petitioner is entitled to attorney>s ees, but only in a sum e=ual to ); percent o the amount due which we deem reasonable under the proven acts.-: &he Court deems it improper to discuss respondentsK claim or moral and other damages. Not having appealed the C% Decision, they are not entitled to a irmative relie , as already e#plained earlier.-9 W4E!E5O!E, the $etition is /!%N&ED. &he appealed Decision is +ODI5IED in that the remand is SE& %SIDE and respondents are ordered &O $%B $),?,(1?, plus -.: percent penalty charge per month beginning %pril -, )(() until ully paid, and ); percent o the amount due as attorney>s ees. No costs. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) Rollo, pp. -,.,;. $romulgated by the &hird Division composed o E. !amon +abutas Er., ponenteI EE Emerito C. Cui, Division chairman, and 4ilarion <. %=uino, member, both concurring. Rollo, p. -;. In this !esolution, E. Cui was replaced by E. Corona Ibay.Somera. , %ssailed Decision, p. *I rollo, p. -(. 1 Rollo, p. -;. : %nne# 3CI3 rollo, p. ,). 9 %nne# 3CI3 rollo, p. ,). * Rollo, pp. ,-.,1. ? $resided by Eudge Inocencio D. +aliaman. ( %ppellant>s 'rie be ore the C%, p. 1I rollo, p. 1?. ); Rollo, pp. ,*.,?. )) Rollo, pp. 1;.1). )&his case was deemed submitted or decision upon receipt by this Court on %pril -?, -;;; o the petitioner>s +emorandum, signed by %tty. %llan '. /epty o Singson 0aldeJ L %ssociates. !espondents> +emorandum, signed by %tty. Eduardo 0. 'ringas o !omeo !. 'ringas L %ssociates, was received earlier, on %pril ,, -;;;. ), +emorandum or the $etitioner, p. 1I rollo, p. (9. Original written in capital letters. )1 In the old !ules, the same provision is worded in Section ) o !ule ,: as ollows2 3SEC&ION ). Effect of "udgment on demurrer to evidence.% ter the plainti has completed the presentation o his evidence, the de endant without waiving his right to o er evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move or a dismissal on the ground that upon the acts and the law the plainti has shown no right to relie . 4owever, i the motion is granted and the order o dismissal is reversed on appeal, the movant loses his right to present evidence in his behal .3 ): ,, SC!% *::, *9).*9-, Eune ,;, )(*;, per Maldivar, #. )9 Siayngco v. Costibolo, -* SC!% -*-, -?1, 5ebruary -?, )(9(I &ison v. Court o %ppeals, -*9 SC!% :?-, :((.9;;, Euly ,), )((*. )* %tun v. NuNeJ, (* $hil. *9-, *9:, October -9, )(::I %rroyo v. %Jur, *9 $hil. 1(,. )? C% Decision, pp. 1.:I rollo, pp. -9.-*. )( !espondents> %nswer, p. )I rollo, p. ,:. -; %rticle ),*) o the Civil Code provides that 3GiHn order to "udge the intention o the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subse=uent acts shall be principally considered.3

-)

<agandaon v. Court o %ppeals, -(; SC!% ,,;, +ay -), )((?I Dio v. Concepcion, -(9 SC!% :*(, September -:, )((?. 5il le# Industrial L +anu acturing Corporation v. National <abor !elations Commission, -?9 SC!% -1:, 5ebruary )-, )((?I $hilippine &obacco 5lue.Curing L !edrying Corporation v. National <abor !elations Commission, ,;; SC!% ,*, December );, )((?I OueJon Development 'anF v. Court o %ppeals, ,;; SC!% -;9, December )9, )((?. -&here was a typographical error in the C% Decision. %s re lected in the $romissory Note, the amount should be $),?,(1? not $),;,(1?. -, C% Decision, p. :I rollo, p. -*. -1 %rticle ---9 o the Civil Code provides that 3GlHi=uidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be e=uitably reduced i they are ini=uitous or unconscionable.3 -: <aw 5irm o !aymuncdo %. %rmovit v. C%, -;- SC!% )9, September -*, )((), $ascual v. C%, ,;; SC!% -)1, December )9, )((?. -9 $ee note -).

G.R. No$. 1-8712.1/

J'(u'0y 21, 200-

EO LE OF THE HILI INE", appellee, vs. DOMINADOR CACHOLA y "ALA1AR, ERNE"TO AMA! y A"C*A, NE"TOR MAR2*E1 y MAN*EL, +ENJAMIN LAEGEN y CAMADO, RODOLFO "AG*N y JIMENE1, RODEMIR G*ER1O y LATAOAN, MELL3E IGNACIO y "AL&ADOR, '() NEL"ON C. ECHA+ARIA, appellants. DECISION PER CURIAM4 In "ust an instant, )-.year.old Eessie E. 'arnachea lost his mother, an elder brother, an uncle, and a cousin as a result o the carnage that tooF place at around 92;; p.m. o -? December )((( right inside their house in 'arangay Calumbaya, 'auang, <a

@nion. &heir horrible death was attributed to herein appellants, who, however, pleaded not guilty to the our separate in ormations or murder. %t the trial be ore the !egional &rial Court o 'auang, <a @nion, 'ranch 9*, the prosecution presented as witnesses Eessie and his brother and neighbors, as well as several police o icers. &heir testimonies disclose as ollows2 Eessie was about to leave their house to watch cartoons in his uncle>s house ne#t door when two armed men suddenly entered the ront door o their house. &he two ordered Eessie to drop to the loor, and then hit him in the bacF with the butt o a long gun. Without much ado, the intruders shot to death Eessie>s uncle, 0ictorino 0. <olarga, who was then in the living room. Eessie orthwith crawled and hid under a bed, rom where he saw the eet o a third man who had also entered the house. &he men entered the Fitchen and continued shooting. When the rampage was over and a ter the male actors had already departed, Eessie came out o his hiding place and proceeded to the Fitchen. &here he saw his mother, Carmelita 'arnacheaI his brother 5eli# 'arnachea, Er.I and his cousin !ubenson %bance . all slaughtered.) +eanwhile, Eessie>s eldest brother, !obert E. 'arnachea, was in his uncle>s house watching television with his aunt and young cousins when he sensed a commotion outside. When !obert went out to see what was transpiring, he saw armed men running towards their house. One o them turned and pointed a gun at him, prompting him to scamper away and hide at the bacF o his uncle>s house. 5rom where he was hiding, he noticed a stainless "eep, with blue rim and marFing 3 ruits and vegetables dealer,3 parFed in ront o the ence o their house. Standing behind the "eep were three armed men wearing bonnets, with only their nose and eyes e#posed. In the ne#t instant, he heard gunshots and then saw men running rom his house. &he men hurriedly boarded the "eep and le t the place. &he "eep did not go unnoticed by the neighbors. !ussel &amba was with some riends in ront o !oda>s Store, around );; meters away rom the 'arnachea residence, when the "eep passed by very slowly going towards the 'arnachea residence. %ccording to him, the "eep had a marFing 3El Shaddai3 in ront, aside rom the marFing 3 ruits and vegetables dealer3 on the sides., 5rancisco %ndrada was also talFing with some people in ront o the Calumbaya 'arangay 4all, only ive meters away rom !oda>s Store, when he noticed that "eep, with the 3El Shaddai3 marFing, pass by.1 Not long a ter, both heard gunshots and later saw the "eep pass by again, this time running very ast.: &he incident was immediately reported to the police, and the description o the 3El Shaddai3 "eep used by the male actors was relayed through radio to the police stations in the province o <a @nion.9 %t around *21: p.m., the "eep was intercepted at a checFpoint set up in the highway by the police orce in %ringay, <a @nion. On

board were the eight appellants. No irearms were ound in the vehicle. &he "eep and the eight appellants were therea ter brought to the %ringay police station and then turned over to the 'auang police.* When the Chie o $olice o 'auang 'en"amin +. <usad was in ormed o the apprehension o the eight appellants, he went to the 'arnachea residence, where he came to Fnow that Eessie was an eyewitness. 4e invited Eessie to ride with him to picF up the suspects. While <usad was supervising the boarding o the suspects into the vehicle, Eessie was in another police vehicle with $O, Euan Casern, Er., to see whether he could recogniJe any one o the eight men. Eessie pointed to Dominador Cachola and Ernesto %may as the two armed men who entered his house and Filled his relatives. During the police line.up at the 'auang $olice Station, Eessie again identi ied Cachola and %may as the assailants.? &he ne#t day, when the police conducted the third con irmatory investigation, which was to present Eessie with photographs o the suspects, Eessie identi ied the two or the third time. &he eight appellants were therea ter sub"ected to para in test. 'ut only the right hands o Cachola and %may yielded positive results or gunpowder nitrates.( &he Death Certi icates attest to the gruesome and merciless Fillings. Carmelita sustained one gunshot wound on her head and three on her bodyI ); 5eli#, Er., two gunshot wounds on his head and on his body, and stab wounds on his chest and armsI)) 0ictorino, two gunshot wounds on his head, three on his body, and with his penis e#cisedI)- !ubenson, one gunshot wound on his head and a stab wound that lacerated his liver.), &he testimonies o the other prosecution witnesses were dispensed with upon the stipulation by the public prosecutor and the counsels or the appellants that the nature o their testimonies would be that 6)7 $O, Euan Casern, Er., was inside the police car with Eessie when the latter recogniJed appellants Cachola and %mayI 6-7 +arF /arcia would corroborate the testimony o 5eli# %ndrada regarding the description o the "eepI 6,7 5eli# 'arnachea, Sr., su ered actual damages amounting to $)**,;;; as a result o the death o his wi e Carmelita and son 5eli#, Er.I 617 a police o icer o %ringay, <a @nion, lagged down the "eep at the checFpoint and saw the appellants on boardI and 6:7 a police o icer o 'auang, <a @nion, would identi y the pictures taFen at the crime scene. % ter the prosecution had rested its case, the de ense counsels orally asFed or leave o court to ile a demurrer to evidence. &he trial court denied the motion outright and set the schedule or the presentation o the evidence or the de ense. )1 Instead o presenting their evidence, however, the appellants, through their respective counsels, iled a Demurrer to Evidence): even without leave o court. On -9 September -;;;, the trial court rendered a decision)9 6)7 convicting 6a7 Cachola and %may, as principals, o our counts o murder and sentencing them to

su er our counts o the supreme penalty o deathI and 6b7 +ar=ueJ, <aegen, Sagun, /uerJo, Ignacio, and Echabaria, as accomplices, o our counts o murder and sentencing them to su er our counts o the indeterminate penalty o eight years o prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day o reclusion temporal as ma#imumI and 6-7 ordering all o them to pay the heirs o the victims a total o $,;;,;;; as death indemnityI $-;;,;;; as moral damagesI and $)**,;;; as actual or compensatory damages. 'e ore us on automatic review, appellants Cachola, Sagun, Ignacio, and +ar=ueJ contend that the trial court erred 6)7 in inding conspiracy among them and their co. appellantsI 6-7 in inding proo beyond reasonable doubtI and 6,7 in not dismissing the in ormations outright despite a motion be ore arraignment, there having been a clear illegal arrest and denial o due process. %s or appellants %may, /uerJo, <aegen, and Echabaria, they assert that the trial court erred 6)7 in inding appellant %may guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the crime o murderI and 6-7 in not ac=uitting appellants /uerJo, <aegen, and Echabaria or insu iciency o evidence and on reasonable doubt. In its Consolidated !eply 'rie , the O ice o the Solicitor /eneral 6OS/7 recommends the a irmance o the conviction or murder o appellants Cachola and %may, and the ac=uittal o the other appellants or ailure o the prosecution to establish their identity and participation beyond reasonable doubt. We agree with the recommendation o the OS/ to ac=uit appellants Sagun, Ignacio, +ar=ueJ, /uerJo, <aegen, and Echabaria. @pon a thorough review o the records o the case, we ound nothing that would show their participation in the commission o the crimes. Not one o the prosecution witnesses identi ied them as among the male actors who were at the 'arnachea residence on that ate ul day. Surprisingly, even as the trial court declared that the prosecution ailed to establish the actual participation o the other appellants in the commission o the crime, it ound that 3they cooperated in the e#ecution o the o ense by previous or simultaneous acts.3)* It appears, however, that the only reason why they were implicated was that they were with Cachola and %may on board the "eep that was intercepted in %ringay, <a @nion, almost two hours a ter the Fillings. What constitute previous or simultaneous acts that would maFe them liable as accomplices are not ound in the decision or in any evidence on record. &o hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur2 6)7 community o design, which means that the accomplice Fnows o , and concurs with, the criminal design o the principal by direct participationI and 6-7 the per ormance by the accomplice o previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission o the crime.)? In the present case, neither element was proved. &he mere presence o the si# appellants in the company o appellants Cachola and %may on board a "eep is not evidence o their Fnowledge o , or assent to, the criminal

design to perpetuate the massacre.)( &hat they were ound to be with appellants Cachola and %may almost two hours a ter the commission o the crime does not constitute previous or simultaneous act. %bsent a linF between the crime and their presence in the "eep two hours later, we cannot consider their participation even as accessories to the crime. It is a basic evidentiary rule in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden o proving the guilt o the accused beyond reasonable doubt.-; I the prosecution ails to discharge that burden, the accused need not present any evidence.-) &hus, or utter lacF o evidence against the si# appellants, their ac=uittal is in order. 4owever, as regards appellants Cachola and %may, we concur with the trial court and the OS/ that the prosecution had presented su icient evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. &he credible testimony o , and positive identi ication by, Eessie 'arnachea, which are corroborated by orensic evidence, i.e., the positive results o the para in test on the right hands o Cachola and %may, constitute su icient evidence to sustain their conviction. %s to the credibility o Eessie 'arnachea, the trial court made the ollowing observations2 &he Court observed the demeanor o Eessie 'arnachea on the witness stand and ... did not observe any indication o alsehood in his narration. 4e showed obvious readiness to answer =uestions propounded to him. 4is reactions and answers to the =uestions displayed evident respect or truth. 4e remained consistent on cross.e#amination. 4e positively identi ied accused %may and Cachola as the one who shot and Filled his amily. &he Court did not observe any hesitancy or indication o uncertainty . and his recital o the events appeared spontaneous.-&here is nothing on record that gives this Court cause to inter ere with the trial court>s determination o the credibility o Eessie. Indeed, his testimony was unwavering despite attempts o the de ense counsels to con use or trap him. &he alleged inconsistency between Eessie>s sworn statement and testimony on the number o male actors, i at all, does not detract rom his credibility. &hat Eessie saw two armed men enter his house is clear. While the de ense claims ambiguity as to the presence o a third man, Eessie>s statement easily reveals that the third man was not immediately mentioned because he 6the third man7 only ollowed the two and Eessie did not see his ace. It is also pointed out that Eessie>s identi ication o Cachola and %may runs counter to !obert>s testimony that the armed men were wearing bonnets. %gain, rom their testimonies, it is apparent that the brothers saw di erent men. 'esides, !obert also stated that one o the men did not have his head covered. %s to the alleged improbability o the looFouts wearing bonnets while the principal shooters were

unmasFed, or o the male actors sparing Eessie, su ice it to say that such circumstances are not so incredible as to cast reasonable doubt on the truth o the narrated events. In sum, none o the alleged inconsistencies, minor as they are, could leave us with doubt that Eessie was present in his house and saw armed men shoot his relatives. 'arely two hours had passed since he witnessed the gruesome murders when Eessie identi ied appellants Cachola and %may as the male actors. !easonably, the memory o their aces was still resh on his mind. +oreover, Eessie identi ied the two appellants two times more at the police station and once in open court, and he never altered in his identi ication. Signi icantly, the appellants have not imputed any ill motive to Eessie or testi ying against Cachola and %may. Where there is no evidence to show a doubt ul reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testi y against the accused or alsely implicate him in a crime, the said testimony is trustworthy and should be accorded ull aith and credit.-, In all, there does not appear on record to be 3some act or circumstance o weight and in luence which the trial court has overlooFed or the signi icance o which it has misapprehended or misinterpreted. 3-1 We rely, there ore, on the competence o the trial court to decide the =uestion o credibility o the witnesses, having heard them and observed their deportment and manner o testi ying during the trial.3-: &he reliance by appellant Cachola on $eople v. &eehanFee-9 is misplaced. In that case the negative result o the para in test did not preclude a inding o guilt by the trial court, the reason being that the accused was tested or the presence o nitrates only a ter more than *- hours had lapsed rom the time o the shooting. In the present case, the para in test was conducted on the same night the shooting incident occurredI hence, the lapse o only a ew hours increases its reliability. While the presence o nitrates on accused>s hand is not conclusive o guilt, it bolsters the testimony o an eyewitness that the accused ired a gun. %s to whether the trial court erred in not allowing the appellants to present evidence a ter iling their demurrer to evidence without leave o court, then Section ):, !ules ))( o the !ules o Court-* is clear on the matter, thus2 SEC. ):. . Demurrer to evidence. . % ter the prosecution has rested its case, the court may dismiss the case on the ground o insu iciency o evidence2 6)7 on its own initiative a ter giving the prosecution an opportunity to be heardI or 6-7 on motion o the accused iled with prior leave o court. I the court denies the motion or dismissal, the accused may adduce evidence in his de ense. When the accused iles such motion to dismiss without e#press leave o court, he waives the right to present

evidence and submits the case or "udgment on the basis o the evidence or the prosecution. 6@nderscoring supplied7. &he iling by the appellants o a demurrer to evidence in the absence o prior leave o court was a clear waiver o their right to present their own evidence. &o sustain their claim that they had been denied due process because the evidence they belatedly sought to o er would have e#culpated them would be to allow them to 3wager on the outcome o "udicial proceedings by espousing inconsistent viewpoints whenever dictated by convenience.3-?5urthermore, it cannot be said that the waiver was not clear. &he trial court postponed the hearings on the motion or demurrer, even a ter leave o court had been denied, and then granted e#tensions to %may until he inally adopted the position o his co.appellants. %t no time other than in this automatic review was there any attempt that is contrary to the waiver o the presentation o evidence. Neither can the =uestion o the legality o the warrantless arrest o the appellants be raised or the irst time be ore this Court. %s arrests all into the =uestion o the e#ercise by the trial court o its "urisdiction over the person o the accused, the =uestion should have been raised prior to their arraignment. &hat the appellants ob"ected to the arrests prior to the arraignment -( is unsubstantiated. &heir claim that they re=uested an e#tension o time to ile a motion to =uash the in ormation or to dismiss the case,,; which the trial court allegedly denied, cannot save the day or them. &he act remains that be ore arraignment, no such motion was iled. Even assuming that their arrest was illegal, their act o entering a plea during their arraignment constituted a waiver o their right to =uestion their arrest. ,) We now discuss the circumstances that attended the commission o the crimes. &he in ormation alleges the =uali ying circumstances o treachery and evident premeditation. &here is no doubt that the Fillings were done with treachery, considering that the assailants suddenly barged in and immediately went on a shooting rampage. We have time and again ruled that when the attacF is sudden and une#pected, there is treachery. ,- &he presence o even this single =uali ying circumstance is su icient to =uali y the Filling to murder.,, %s to the =uali ying circumstance o evident premeditation, we ind the same lacFing, or there is no evidence o planning or preparation to Fill, much less o the time when the plot was conceived.,1 It may not be amiss to mention that the death certi icate o 0ictorino <olarga reveals that his penis was e#cised. One may wonder whether such circumstance amounted to ignominy that can aggravate the o ense. 5or ignominy to be appreciated, it is re=uired that the o ense be committed in a manner that tends to maFe its e ect more humiliating, thus adding to the victim>s

moral su ering. Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereo was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taFen against the accused.,: In this case, the in ormation states that 0ictorino>s se#ual organ was severed a ter he was shot and there is no allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the natural e ects o the act. We cannot, there ore, consider ignominy as an aggravating circumstance. 4owever, as regards Carmelita and 5eli#, Er., we appreciate the aggravating circumstance o dwelling, since it was alleged in the in ormation and proved during the trial that they were Filled inside their house. %ppellants Cachola and %may, there ore, violated the sanctity o the said victims> home. %rticle -1? o the !evised $enal Code provides that the penalty or murder is reclusion perpetua to death. In con"unction, %rticle 9, o the !evised $enal Code provides that when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be imposed when in the commission o the deed, there is present one aggravating circumstance. In the cases o Carmelita and 5eli# Er., in Criminal Cases Nos. -,-1 and -,-:, there is one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance to o set itI hence, the higher penalty o death imposed by the trial court stands. &hree members o the Court maintain their adherence to the separate opinions e#pressed in $eople vs. Echegaray,9 that !epublic %ct No. *9:(, inso ar as it prescribes the penalty o death, is unconstitutionalI nevertheless they submit to the ruling o the ma"ority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed. 'ut in the cases o 0ictorino and !ubenson, in Criminal Cases Nos. -,-, and -,-9, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua, which is the lower o the two indivisible penalties prescribed by law. %s regards the civil liability o appellants Cachola and %may, we hold them "ointly and severally liable to pay the heirs o each o the victims death indemnity and moral damages each in the amount o $:;,;;;, or a total o $1;;,;;;. &hey are urther ordered to pay the respective heirs o Carmelita and 5eli# Er. e#emplary damages in the amount o $-:,;;;, or a total o $:;,;;;, in view o the presence o one aggravating circumstance in the commission o the crime against the said victims. %s to the claim or damages by 5eli# 'arnachea Sr. in the amount o $)**,;;;, we sustain the same even i only a list o e#penses,,* not o icial receipts, was submitted because such amount was admitted by the de ense during the trial.,? +oreover, although there is no evidence as to the amount spent as a result o the death o 0ictorino and !ubenson, their respective heirs shall be awarded temperate damages in the amount o $-:,;;;, since they clearly incurred uneral e#penses.,(

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated -9 September -;;; o the !egional &rial Court o 'auang, <a @nion, 'ranch 9*, is hereby %55I!+ED inso ar as DO+IN%DO! C%C4O<% y S%<%M%! and E!NES&O %+%B y $%SC@% are ound /@I<&B o our counts o murder in Criminal Cases Nos. -,-,.-9 and sentenced to su er the supreme penalty o death in Criminal Cases Nos. -,-1 and -,-:. &he said decision is, however, +ODI5IED in that they are 6)7 sentenced to su er the penalty o reclusion perpetua, instead o death, in Criminal Cases Nos. -,-, and -,-9I and 6-7 ordered to pay, "ointly and severally, the ollowing damages2 a. $:;,;;; as death indemnity in avor o the heirs o each victim, or a total o $-;;,;;;I b. $:;,;;; as moral damages in avor o the heirs o each victim, or a total o $-;;,;;;I c. $-:,;;; as e#emplary damages in avor o the respective heirs o Carmelita 'arnachea and 5eli# 'arnachea Er., or a total o $:;,;;;I d. $)**,;;; as actual damages in avor o the heirs o Carmelita 'arnachea and 5eli# 'arnachea Er.I and e. $-:,;;; as temperate damages in avor o the respective heirs o !ubenson %bance and 0ictorino <olarga, or a total o $:;,;;;. &he assailed decision is !E0E!SED inso ar as appellants NES&O! +%!O@EM y +%N@E<, 'ENE%+IN <%E/EN y C%+%DO, !ODO<5O S%/@N y EI+ENEM, !ODE+I! /@E!MO y <%&%O%N, +E<<PE I/N%CIO y S%<0%DO!, and NE<SON C. EC4%'%!I% are concerned, and another one is hereby rendered 6)7 ac=uitting them o the crimes charged or insu iciency o evidenceI 6-7 ordering their immediate release rom con inement unless their urther detention is warranted by virtue o any law ul causeI and 6,7 directing the Director o the 'ureau o Corrections to submit a report on their release within ive days rom notice hereo . Costs de o icio. "O ORDERED. Davide, #r., C.#., %uno, &itug, %anganiban, 'uisumbing, (nares)$antiago, $andoval)*utierre+, Carpio, Austria),artine+, Corona, Carpio),orales, Calle"o, $r., A+cuna, and -inga, ##., concur.
Foo,(o,%$
) -

&SN, * +arch -;;;, 1.?, )-, )9.)*. &SN, ): +arch -;;;, ,.1, *, )9.)*, -,. , &SN, -) +arch -;;;, 1, ),, -;. 1 &SN, ,) +ay -;;;, 1.:, )?. : &SN, -) +arch -;;;, )1I &SN, ,) +ay -;;;, 9.

9 *

&SN, )- %pril -;;;, *, );.)). &SN, )* +ay -;;;, )(.-;, ,;, ,1. ? &SN, ); +ay -;;;, -(, ,-. ( E#hibit 3N3, O! vol. -, 1,I &SN, -? Euly -;;;, :. ); E#hs. 3/3 and 3/.),3 O! vol. ), ),.):. )) E#hs. 3E3 and 3E.),3 O! vol. ), -:.-*. )E#hs. 3I3 and 3I.),3 O! vol. ), -).-,. ), E#hs. 343 and 34.),3 O! vol. ), )*.)(. )1 O!, vol. ), )?:. ): O!, vol. ), )9*.)*1, -;,, -;9.-;*. )9 $er Eudge Eose /. $aneda. O!, vol. ), 1*,.:;*I !ollo, ,,.*-. )* O!, vol. ), :;:. )? $eople v. De 0era, /.!. No. )-?(99, )? %ugust )(((, ,)- SC!% 91;. )( See $eople v. Sayaboc, /.!. No. )1*-;), ): Eanuary -;;1. -; $eople v. 'atidor, /. !. No. )-9;-*, )? 5ebruary )(((, ,;, SC!% ,,:I $eople v. OlivareJ, Er., /.!. No. **?9:, 1 December )((?, -(( SC!% 9,:. -) $eople v. &adepa, /.!. No. );;,:1, -9 +ay )((:, -11 SC!% ,,(. -O!, vol. ), :;,. -, $eople v. 'arnuevo, /.!. No. ),1(-?, -? September -;;), ,99 SC!% -1,I $eople v. 5ernandeJ, /. !. No. ),*91*, ) 5ebruary -;;), ,:) SC!% ?;I -1 $eople v. Eulian.5ernandeJ, /.!. Nos. )1,?:;.:,, )? December -;;), ,*- SC!% 9;?. -: Id. -9 /.!. Nos. )))-;9.;?, 9 October )((:, -1( SC!% :1. -* Now Section -,, !ule ))(, !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure, as amended 6which became e ective on ) December -;;;7. -? $eople v. &uringan, ,1* $hil. (* 6)((*7. -( !ollo, ));. ,; Id. ,) $eople v. <iwanag, /.!. No. )-;19?, ): %ugust -;;), ,9, SC!% 9-I $eople v. Calimlim, /.!. No. )-,(?;, ,; %ugust -;;), ,91 SC!% 1:. ,$eople v. Cachola, /.!. No. ),:;1*, )9 +arch -;;), ,:1 SC!% :**I $eople v. 'olivar, /.!. No. ),;:(*, -) 5ebruary -;;), ,:- SC!% 1,?. ,, $eople v. Dueno, /.!. No. <.,));-, : +ay )(*(, (; SC!% -,. ,1 $eople v. NaJareno, supra, note ,-. ,: ) <@IS '. !EBES, &4E !E0ISED $EN%< CODE 1:) 6)((,7, citing $eople v. 5errera, No. <.99(9:, )? Eune )(?*, ):) SC!% )),, )1;I and $eople v. Carmina, /.!. No. ?)1;1, -? Eanuary )((), )(, SC!% 1-(, 1,9. ,9 ,,: $hil. ,1, 6)((*7. ,* E#h. 3<,3O!, )9-. ,? &SN, * Eune -;;;, 9I Section 1, !ule )-(, !ules on Evidence. ,( $eople v. 'aNo, /.!. No. )1*?);, ): Eune -;;1.

G.R. No. 1/3867

F%50u'0y 17, 200/

WOOD TECHNOLOG! COR ORATION, CHI TIM CORDO&A AND RO+ERT TIONG 3ING !O*NG, petitioners, vs. E2*ITA+LE +AN3ING COR ORATION, !espondent. DECISION 2*I"*M+ING, J.: &his petition or review seeFs to reverse and set aside the D%67$7o() dated %pril )), -;;) o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. C0 No. :*,*) and its R%$olu,7o(- dated Eune ,, -;;- which denied the motion or reconsideration. &he case originated rom a Complaint or Sum o +oney iled on October -), )((9, be ore the !egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch -(, by respondent E=uitable 'anFing Corporation, against the petitioners, Wood &echnology Corporation 6W&C7, Chi &im Cordova, and !obert &iong Ping Boung. &he Co8#l'7(, alleged that on December (, )((1, W&C obtained rom respondent a loan in the amount o @SQ*:,;;;, with ?.*:D interest per annum, as evidenced by a $romissory Note, No. 58'D(1.;;??), signed by Cordova and Boung as representatives o W&C. Cordova and Boung e#ecuted a Surety %greement binding themselves as sureties o W&C or the loan. !espondent banF made a inal demand on %pril )(, )((9, or W&C to pay its obligation, but petitioners ailed to pay. !espondent prayed that petitioners be ordered to pay it Q*:,9;,.9: or $-,;)?,9)*.19 6computed as o October );, )((:7 plus interest, penalty, attorney>s ees and other e#penses o litigationI and the cost o suit.

In their %nswer, petitioners stated that W&C obtained the Q*:,;;; loanI that Cordova and Boung bound themselves as its sureties. &hey claimed that only one demand letter, dated %pril )(, )((9, was made by respondent. &hey added that the promissory note did not provide the due date or payment. $etitioners also claimed that the loan had not yet matured as the maturity date was purposely le t blanF, to be agreed upon by the parties at a later date. Since no maturity date had been i#ed, the iling o the Complaint was premature, and it ailed to state a cause o action. &hey urther claimed that the promissory note and surety agreement were contracts o adhesion with terms on interest, penalty, charges and attorney>s ees that were e#cessive, unconscionable and not re lective o the parties> real intent. $etitioners prayed or the re ormation o the promissory note and surety agreement to maFe their terms and conditions air, "ust and reasonable. &hey also asFed payment o damages by respondent. On +ay :, )((*, respondent moved or a "udgment on the pleadings. &he !&C, 'ranch -( rendered "udgment1and disposed as ollows2 W4E!E5O!E, in view o the oregoing, and to abbreviate this case, "udgment is hereby rendered based on the pleadingGsH iled by the opposing parties and the documents anne#ed thereto. &he de endantGsH Wood &echnology Corporation, !obert &iong Ping Boung and Chi &im Cordova are hereby ordered to pay solidarily to herein plainti the sum o Q*:,;;;.;; or its e=uivalent in $hilippine Currency and to pay the stipulated interest o ?.*:D per annum to be recFoned rom the date that the obligation was contracted until the iling o this suit. &herea ter, the legal rate shall apply. SO O!DE!ED. $etitioners appealed, but the Court o %ppeals a irmed the !&C>s "udgment. &he appellate court noted that petitioners admitted the material allegations o the Complaint, with their admission o the due e#ecution o the promissory note and surety agreement as well as o the inal demand made by the respondent. &he appellate court ruled that there was no need to present evidence to prove the maturity date o the promissory note, since it was payable on demand. In addition, the Court o %ppeals held that petitioners ailed to show any ambiguity in the promissory note and surety agreement in support o their contention that these were contracts o adhesion. 5inally, it ruled that the interest rate on the loan was not e#orbitant. &he appellate court also denied petitioners> motion or reconsideration. 'e ore us, petitioners now raise the ollowing issues2 ). W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E %NSWE! O5 $E&I&IONE!S WI&4 S$ECI%< %ND %55I!+%&I0E DE5ENSES 5%I<S &O &ENDE! %N ISS@E O! %D+I&S &4E +%&E!I%< %<<E/%&IONS IN &4E

CO+$<%IN& SO %S &O E@S&I5B &4E !ENDI&ION O5 E@D/+EN& ON &4E $<E%DIN/S 'B &!I%< CO@!&I -. W4E&4E! O! NO& $E&I&IONE!S S4O@<D 4%0E 'EEN /I0EN &4E !I/4& &O $!ESEN& E0IDENCE ON &4EI! S$ECI%< %ND %55I!+%&I0E DE5ENSESI ,. W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E $!O+ISSO!B NO&E IS % CON&!%C& O5 %D4ESION CON&%ININ/ @N!E%SON%'<E CONDI&IONS W4IC4 $E&I&IONE!S SI/NED WI&4O@& !E%< 5!EEDO+ O5 WI<< &O CON&!%C& &4E O'<I/%&IONS &4E!EINI %ND 1. W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E 5I<IN/ O5 &4E CO+$<%IN& W%S $!E+%&@!E %NDAO! &4E CO+$<%IN& 5%I<GEDH &O S&%&E % C%@SE O5 %C&ION.: Simply put, the basic issue is whether the appellate court erred when it a irmed the !&C>s "udgment on the pleadings. $etitioners argue that a "udgment on the pleadings cannot be rendered because their %nswer tendered genuine issues and disputed the material allegations in the Complaint. &hey claim that they did not totally or un=uali iedly admit all the material allegations in the Complaint, and that they had alleged special and a irmative de enses. I they were given the chance, they could have presented witnesses to prove their special and a irmative de enses.9 5or its part, respondent E=uitable 'anFing Corporation states that the Court o %ppeals was correct in a irming the "udgment on the pleadings granted by the !&C. It adds that petitioners had admitted the material allegations o the Complaint and they did not raise genuine issues o act that necessitate submission o evidence. It also contends that the special and a irmative de enses raised by petitioners concern the proper interpretation o the provisions o the promissory note and surety agreement. !espondent asserts that these de enses may be resolved based on the pleadings and the applicable laws and "urisprudence, without the need to present evidence.*1a p!i1.n.t %t the outset, we must stress the Court>s policy that cases and controversies should be promptly and e#peditiously resolved. &he !ules o Court seeFs to shorten the procedure in order to allow the speedy disposition o a case. Speci ically, we have rules on demurrer to evidence, "udgment on the pleadings, and summary "udgments. In all these instances, a ull blown trial is dispensed with and "udgment is rendered on the basis o the pleadings, supporting a idavits, depositions and admissions o the parties.?

In this case, at issue is the propriety and validity o a "udgment on the pleadings. % "udgment on the pleadings is proper when an answer ails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations o the adverse party>s pleading. ( 'oth the !&C and Court o %ppeals recogniJe that issues were raised by petitioners in their %nswer be ore the trial court. &his may be gleaned rom their decisions which we partly =uote below2 RTC9$ ORDER4 ... De endants raised the ollowing )%:%($%$2 a. &hat the contract is one o adhesion and they were 3 orced to sign the same3I b. &hat the interest G?.*:D per annumH, penalties and ees are unconscionableI c. &hat plainti >s demand is premature.); ... Cou0, o: A##%'l$9 DECI"ION4 . . . &hey neither raise ;%(u7(% 7$$u%$ o act needing submission o evidence. !ather, ,<%$% 7$$u%$ hoist =uestions concerning the proper interpretation o the provisions o the promissory note and the surety agreementR)) 6Emphasis supplied.7 $etitioners also contend that their %nswer below raised issues that 3are very material and ;%(u7(%.3)- 4ence, according to petitioners, "udgment on the pleadings was not proper. !espondent, on the other hand, argues that the special and a irmative de enses raised by $etitioners are (o, ;%(u7(% issues that needed a hearing.), We note now that 6)7 the !&C Fnew that the %nswer asserted special and a irmative de ensesI 6-7 the Court o %ppeals recogniJed that certain issues were raised, but they were not genuine issues o actI 6,7 petitioners insisted that they raised genuine issuesI and 617 respondent argued that petitioners> de enses did not tender genuine issues. 4owever, whether or not the issues raised by the %nswer are genuine is not the cru# o in=uiry in a motion or "udgment on the pleadings. It is so only in a motion or summary "udgment.)1 In a case or "udgment on the pleadings, the %nswer is such that no issue is raised at all. &he essential =uestion in such a case is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings.): &his is the distinction between a proper

case o summary "udgment, compared to a proper case or "udgment on the pleadings. We have e#plained this vital distinction in/arra 0ntegrated Corporation v. Court of Appeals,)9 thus, &he e#istence or appearance o ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or ictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case or summary "udgment rom one or a "udgment on the pleadings. In a proper case or "udgment on the pleadings, there is no ostensible issue at all because o the ailure o the de ending party>s answer to raise an issue. On the other hand, in the case a o a summary "udgment, issues apparently e#istSi.e. acts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or =uali icationI or speci ic denials o0 '::708',7=% )%:%($%$ '0% 7( ,0u,< $%, ou, 7( ,<% '($>%0Sbut the issues thus arising rom the pleadings are sham, ictitious or not genuine, as shown by a idavits, depositions, or admissions. . . . 6@nderscoring and emphasis supplied.7 Indeed, petitioners> %nswer apparently tendered issues. While it admitted that W&C obtained the loan, that Cordova and Boung signed the promissory note and that they bound themselves as sureties or the loan, it also alleged special and a irmative de enses that the obligation had not matured and that the promissory note and surety agreement were contracts o adhesion. %pplying the re=uisites o a "udgment on the pleadings vis)1)vis a summary "udgment, the "udgment rendered by the !&C was not a "udgment on the pleadings, but a summary "udgment. %lthough the %nswer apparently raised issues, both the !&C and the Court o %ppeals a ter considering the parties> pleadings, petitioners> admissions and the documents attached to the Complaint, ound that the issues are not actual ones re=uiring trial, nor were they genuine issues.12vvp!i1.n.t Summary "udgment)* is a procedure aimed at weeding out sham claims or de enses at an early stage o the litigation. &he proper in=uiry in this regard would be whether the a irmative de enses o ered by petitioners constitute genuine issues o act re=uiring a ull.blown trial.)? In a summary "udgment, the crucial =uestion is2 are the issues raised by petitioners not genuine so as to "usti y a summary "udgmentT )( % 3genuine issue3 means an issue o act which calls or the presentation o evidence, as distinguished rom an issue which is ictitious or contrived, an issue that does not constitute a genuine issue or trial.-; We note that this is a case or a sum o money, and petitioners have admitted that they obtained the loan. &hey also admitted the due e#ecution o the loan documents and their receipt o the inal demand letter made by the respondent. &hese documents were all attached to the Complaint. $etitioners merely claimed that the obligation has not matured. Notably, based on the promissory note, the !&C and the Court o %ppeals ound this de ense not a actual issue or trial, the loan being payable on demand. We are bound by this actual inding. &his Court is not a trier o acts.

When respondent made its demand, in our view, the obligation matured. We agree with both the trial and the appellate courts that this matter pro erred as a de ense could be resolved "udiciously by plain resort to the stipulations in the promissory note which was already be ore the trial court. % ull.blown trial to determine the date o maturity o the loan is not necessary. %lso, the act o leaving blanF the maturity date o the loan did not necessarily mean that the parties agreed to i# it later. I this was the intention o the parties, they should have so indicated in the promissory note.l3vvp!i1.net &hey did not show such intention.l3vvp!i1.net $etitioners liFewise insist that their de ense tendered a genuine issue when they claimed that the loan documents constituted a contract o adhesion. Signi icantly, both the trial and appellate courts have already passed upon this contention and properly ruled that it was not a actual issue or trial. We agree with their ruling that there is no need o trial to resolve this particular line o de ense. %ll that is needed is a care ul perusal o the loan documents. %s held by the Court o %ppeals, petitioners ailed to show any ambiguity in the loan documents. &he rule is that, should there be ambiguities in a contract o adhesion, such ambiguities are to be construed against the party that prepared it. 4owever, i the stipulations are clear and leave no doubt on the intention o the parties, the literal meaning o its stipulations must be held controlling.-) In sum, we ind no cause to disturb the indings o act o the Court o %ppeals, a irming those o the !&C as to the reasonableness o the interest rate o ?.*:D per annum on the loan. We also ind no persuasive reason to contradict the ruling o both courts that the loan secured by petitioner W&C, with co.petitioners as sureties, was payable on demand. Certainly, respondent>s complaint could not be considered premature. Nor could it be said to be without su icient cause o action therein set orth. &he "udgment rendered by the trial court is valid as a summary "udgment, and its a irmance by the Court o %ppeals, as herein clari ied, is in order. WHEREFORE, the $etition is DENIED or lacF o merit. SO O!DE!ED. Davide, Er., C.E., 6Chairman7, Bnares.Santiago, Carpio, and %Jcuna, EE., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ ) Rollo, pp. 1;.1*. $enned by %ssociate Eustice Conrado +. 0as=ueJ, Er., with %ssociate Eustices +artin S. 0illarama, Er., and ElieJer !. delos Santos concurring. 0d. at :*. , Now E=uitable $CI 'anF. 1 !ecords, p. 1?. : Rollo, p. )). 9 0d. at ?:.?*. * 0d. at );,.);9. ? Evadel !ealty and Development Corporation v. Soriano, /.!. No. )11-(), -; %pril -;;), ,:* SC!% ,(:, 1;;. ( !ules o Court, !ule ,1, Section ). #udgment on t!e pleadings. U Where an answer ails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations o the adverse party>s pleading, the court may, on motion o that party, direct "udgment on such pleading. 4owever, in actions or declaration o nullity or

annulment o marriage or or legal separation, the material acts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. ); !ecords, p. 1?. )) Rollo, p. 11. )0d. at ?9. ), 0d. at );9. )1 Evangelista v. +ercator 5inance Corp., /.!. No. )1??91, -) %ugust -;;,, 1;( SC!% 1);, 1):. ): /arcia v. <lamas, /.!. NO. ):1)-*, ? December -;;,, 1)* SC!% -(-, ,;9. )9 /.!. No. ),*():, ): November -;;;, ,11 SC!% *?), *?9. )* !ules o Court, rule ,:, Section ). $ummar4 "udgment for claimant. U % party seeFing to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross.claim or to obtain a declaratory relie may, at any time a ter the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting a idavits, depositions or admissions or a summary "udgment in his avor upon all or any part thereo . )? $upra, note )1. )( $upra, note )9 at *?*. -; $upra, note )1. -) $ilipino &elephone Corporation v. &ecson, /.!. No. ):9(99, * +ay -;;1, p. 1.

LA*RENTINO D. +A"C*G, complainant, vs. J*DGE GRACIANO H. ARINDA!, JR., 0%$7)7(; Ju);%, +0'(6< 69, R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0, o: N%;0o$ O667)%(,'l, "7l'y C7,y, respondent. &IT*G, J.2 % complaint, dated ;) December )((*, initiated by <aurentino D. 'ascug, has charged Eudge /raciano 4. %rinday, Er., o the !egional &rial Court o Silay City, 'ranch 9(, with grave misconduct, Fnowingly rendering an un"ust "udgment, malicious delay in the administration o "ustice, and violation o the code o "udicial conduct. !elative to Civil Cases No. )*(*.9(, entitled 3Spouses <aurentino and Estrella 'ascug, et al., vs. Spouses <oreto Duganggay,3 and No. )*(?.9(, entitled 3Spouses <aurentino and Estrella 'ascug, et al., vs. Spouses !omeo %buagan, et al.,3 complainant <aurentino 'ascug charged respondent "udge with delaying the proceedings thereat. &he civil cases, ormerly docFeted Civil Cases No. 9-1.0 and No. 9,,.0, were originally iled with the +unicipal Circuit &rial Court 63+C&C37 o 0ictorias.+anapla, Negros Occidental. On ): +ay )((:, the +C&C rendered a decision dismissing the cases on the ground that no certi icate o barangay conciliation was attached to the complaints. &he plainti s subse=uently appealed the decision to the !egional &rial Court 63!&C37 o Silay City. &he appeal was assigned to respondent "udge. In an order, dated -; October )((:, respondent "udge reversed the ):th +ay )((: decision o the +C&C and ordered the latter to conduct urther proceedings on the cases. &he de endants iled a motion or reconsideration but, because it did not bear the signature o de endantsK counsel, the motion was denied by respondent "udge. % second motion or reconsideration was iled on )9 Eanuary )((9. In his order, dated -, Eanuary )((9, respondent "udge li ted the denial o the irst motion or reconsideration and gave due course to the second motion or reconsideration. On )- November )((9, respondent "udge ultimately denied the second motion or reconsideration or lacF o merit. It was only, however, in his order o ), Eune )((* that respondent "udge re=uired the ClerF o Court to remand the entire records o the cases to +C&C 0ictorias.+anapla or urther proceedings. Complainant 'ascug attributed the delay in the disposition o the cases to the alleged in luence on respondent "udge by the mayor o the municipality o 0ictorias. In respect to Civil Case No. )*)?.9(, entitled 30icente Ditching, Er., or himsel and as %SSI/NEE o his co.heirsI viJ2 Ester, Editha, Euan, CoraJon, Eose a, Otelia, !osita, Eose !amon, +arciano, Samson, Ciello, 4erminio and +arino, all surnamed Ditching vs. Odisco 5arms System Cooperative 5oundation, represented by <eyte Salvacion '. +onteroso, accompanied by her husband /lenn +onteroso and <ino Cornelio Cecilio 'ascug,3 complainant 'ascug charged respondent "udge with gross misconduct when he directed a "udgment on the pleadings. Complainant 'ascug claimed that respondent "udge had declared the parties as having agreed to the

A.M. No. RTJ.00.1/91 A#07l 11, 2002 65ormerly OCA I I No. 98.-90.RTJ7

rendition o a "udgment on the pleadings even while the de endant corporation, Odisco 5arms System Cooperative 5oundation o which complainant 'ascug was the $resident, had never agreed to it. In act, complainant 'ascug stated, the corporation precisely did not submit any memorandum or "udgment on the pleadings re=uired by respondent "udge in his order o -; December )((1. On ;1 %pril )((:, respondent "udge, nevertheless, rendered a "udgment based on the pleadings in avor o the plainti s. % motion or the reconsideration o the decision was denied in an order o )) December )((:. &he case was later brought to the Court o %ppeals. In its decision, dated )1 %ugust )((?, the appellate court set aside the appealed "udgment and remanded the case to the court a =uo or urther proceedings. In Criminal Case No. 1;;;.9(, entitled 3&he $eople o the $hilippines vs. 0icente Ditching, Er., et al.,3 complainant 'ascug, the ather.in.law o the complaining witness, asserted that there was irregularity in the service o the warrant o arrest against the accused. 4e averred that respondent "udge had ailed to commence any prosecution against the persons liable. !e=uired to submit his comment on the complaint, respondent "udge re uted the several allegations in the complaint. 4e attributed the delay in the resolution o Civil Cases No. )*(*.9( and No. )*(?.9( to the ormer counsel o complainant who had ailed to ile any opposition to the second motion or reconsideration. 4e denied the averment that he delayed the resolution o the cases due to the in luence over him by the municipal mayor o 0ictorias. %s regards Civil Case No. )*)?.9(, respondent "udge maintained that the parties, including the ormer counsel o complainant, had mani ested that they had no ob"ection to the submission o the case or "udgment on the pleadings. !espondent "udge disowned any irregularity in Criminal Case No. 1;;;.9(. 4e argued that i , indeed, there was any problem about the service o the warrant o arrest, that matter should have been addressed to Senior Inspector <arry Decena, Chie o $olice o 0ictorias, Negros Occidental. In reply to the comment o respondent Eudge relating to Civil Case No. )*)?.9(, complainant 'ascug submitted a certi ication rom the ClerF o Court o the Court o %ppeals stating that, on the basis o the records o C%./.!. C0 No. :1-,1 6 ormerly Civil Case No. )*)?.9(7, no memorandum or a "udgment on the pleadings was iled by the de endants. &he matter was re erred by the Court to the O ice o the Court %dministrator 63OC%37 or evaluation, report and recommendation. In its memorandum, dated ): %ugust -;;;, the OC% ound respondent "udge liable or his ailure to resolve the second motion or reconsideration in Civil Cases No. )*(*.9( and No. )*(?.9( within the reglementary period and or grave misconduct in issuing an order, dated )) December )((:, in Civil Case No. )*)?.9(, stating that the parties had agreed to submit the case or "udgment on the pleadings even though the de endant corporation in the civil case did not apparently agree thereto. &he OC% recommended that a ine in the amount o $:,;;;.;; be imposed or unreasonably delaying the proceedings in

Civil Cases No. )*(*.9( and No. )*(?.9( and or grave misconduct in Civil Case No. )*)?.9(. &he Court adopts the recommendation o the O ice o the Court %dministrator. % motion or reconsideration should be resolved within thirty days rom the time it is submitted or resolution.) In this case, the second motion or reconsideration was iled on )9 Eanuary )((9 and respondent "udge issued an order, dated -, Eanuary )((9, giving it due course. &he motion was eventually resolved by respondent "udge only on )- November )((9, and directed, only on ), Eune )((*, the ClerF o Court to remand the records o the case to +C&C 0ictorias.+anapla or urther proceedings. &he ailure o respondent "udge to act with reasonable dispatch on the matter constituted gross ine iciency on his part. +oreover, respondent "udge ought to have Fnown that, under the rules, a second motion or reconsideration should not be allowed.&he Court has o ten given reminder that any delay in the disposition o cases erodes the aith and con idence o our people in the "udiciary and brings it into unnecessary disrepute., It is indeed a situation that cannot "ust be ignored. With regard to the order o respondent "udge holding Civil Case No. )*)?.9( submitted or "udgment on the pleadings, Section ), !ule ,1, o the !ules on Civil $rocedure provides . 36W7here an answer ails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations o the adverse partyKs pleading, the court may on motion o that party, direct "udgment on such pleading.3 In his order, dated -; December )((1, respondent "udge re=uired the parties to submit their respective memoranda or a "udgment on the pleadings. Complainant was the $resident o the de endant corporation who maintained that the corporation never agreed to have the case submitted or "udgment on the pleadings. %s so aptly put by the Court o %ppeals in its decision o )1 %ugust )((? . 3It is believed that under the circumstances o the case, "udgment on the pleadings was not called or and prevented a air and ull resolution o controversy. &he trial court stated that both parties agreed to have "udgment on the pleadings, the minutes o the session held on December -;, )((1 merely stated that Vboth parties will submit their respective memoranda or "udgment on the pleadingsK 6p. :*, !ecord7. Only the plainti s submitted +emorandum praying or "udgment on the pleadingsI the de endants did not submit their memorandum or "udgment on the pleadings. In act, in their +otion or !econsideration o the Eudgment on the pleadings, the de endants pointed out that the parties presented Vwidely opposing contentionsK in their respective pre.trial brie , and the court cannot rely on

Vcon"ecturesK on the VwildK monetary claims o plainti s. In view o the ob"ections e#pressed by the de endants to the issues raised, there was no clear agreement to submit the case to a "udgment or the pleadings, much less an implied admission o each otherKs actual allegations, which the de endants.appellants correctly describe as Vwidely opposing,K that would support a submission by the parties to a "udgment on the pleadings.3 &he Court shares the view o OC% that respondent "udge has allen below circumspection and the standard o conduct e#pected o him. W4E!E5O!E, the Court inds Eudge /raciano 4. %rinday, Er., o the !egional &rial Court o Silay City, Negros Occidental, 'ranch 9(, guilty o gross ine iciency and grave misconduct and hereby imposes on him a ine o 5I0E &4O@S%ND $ESOS with a warning that any urther in raction will be dealt with severely. SO O!DE!ED. ,elo, 5C!airman6, %anganiban, $andoval)*utierre+, and Carpio, ##., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ ) !ule ,*, Section 1, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure. Section :, !ule ,* o the !evised !ules on Civil $rocedure , -1* SC!% :)(.

&his is a $etition or !eview on Certiorari under !ule 1: o the !ules o Court, seeFing to reverse and set aside the decision) dated 5ebruary -?, -;;9 o the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 in C%./.!. C0 No. 9*1)*, which dismissed the appeal o petitioner Eland $hilippines, Inc. and a irmed the !esolutions dated November ,, )((( and Eune -?, -;;9 o 'ranch )?, !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o &agaytay City. &he acts o the case, as shown in the records, are the ollowing2 !espondents %Jucena /arcia, Elino 5a"ardo, and &eresa +alabanan, the heir o &iburcio +alabanan, iled a Complaint- dated +arch -, )((? or Ouieting o &itle with Writ o $reliminary In"unction with the !&C, 'ranch 80III, &agaytay City against petitioner Eland $hilippines, Inc. !espondents claimed that they are the owners, in ee simple title, o a parcel o land identi ied as <ot (-:; Cad.,::, &agaytay Cadastre, $lan %p.;1.;;?,9*, situated in 'arangay Iruhin, &agaytay City, containing an area o &wo 4undred 5orty.5our &housand One 4undred &welve 6-11,))-7 s=uare meters, by occupation and possession under the provisions o Sec. 1? 6b7, o the $ublic <and <aw or Commonwealth %ct No. )1), as amended. 5or having been in continuous, public, and adverse possession as owners o the said lot or at least thirty years, respondents stated that they were not aware o any person or entity who had a legal or e=uitable interest or claim on the same lot until the time they were re=uesting that the lot be declared or ta# purposes. &hey ound out that the lot was the sub"ect o a land registration proceeding that had already been decided by the same court1 where their complaint was iled. &hey also ound out that Decree No. N.-)*,),, <!C !ecord No. N.9-9?9, was already issued on %ugust -;, )((* to the petitioner pursuant to the Decision dated Eune *, )((1 o the same court. &hey averred that they were not noti ied o the said land registration caseI thus, they claimed the presence o misrepresentation amounting to actual or e#trinsic raud. &hus, they argued that they were also entitled to a writ o preliminary in"unction in order to restrain or en"oin petitioner, its privies, agents, representatives, and all other persons acting on its behal , to re rain rom committing acts o dispossession on the sub"ect lot. Summons, together with a copy o the complaint, were served on the petitioner on %pril *, )((?. On %pril -(, )((?, petitioner iled an Entry o %ppearance with +otion or E#tension o &ime,: which the trial court granted9 or a period o ten 6);7 days within which to ile a responsive pleading. $etitioner iled a Second +otion or E#tension o &ime to 5ile %nswer* dated %pril -(, )((?, which the trial court liFewise granted.? &herea ter, petitioner iled a +otion to Dismiss( dated +ay (, )((?, stating that the pleading asserting the claim o respondents stated no cause o action, and that the latter were not entitled to the issuance o a writ o preliminary in"unction, setting the same or hearing on +ay -), )((?. On the date o the hearing, the trial court issued an Order,); which granted the respondents ten 6);7 days rom that day to ile a

G.R. No. 173289

F%50u'0y 17, 2010

ELAND HILI INE", INC., $etitioner, vs. A1*CENA GARCIA, ELINO FAJARDO, AND HEIR OF TI+*RCIO MALA+ANAN NAMED TERE"A MALA+ANAN,!espondents. DECISION ERALTA, J.:

comment, and set the date o the hearing on Euly -,, )((?. !espondents iled a +otion to %dmit CommentAOpposition to De endant Eland,))together with the corresponding CommentAOpposition)- dated Eune ?, )((?. On the scheduled hearing o September -,, )((?, the trial court issued an Order,), considering the +otion to Dismiss submitted or resolution due to the non. appearance o the parties and their respective counsels. &he said motion was eventually denied by the trial court in an Order)1 dated September -:, )((?, ruling that the allegations in the complaint established a cause o action and en"oined petitioner Eland to ile its answer to the complaint within ten 6);7 days rom receipt o the same. $etitioner then iled two +otions or E#tension to 5ile an %nswer. ): $etitioner, on November (, )((?, iled a +otion or !econsideration)9 o the trial courtKs Order dated September -:, )((?, denying the ormerKs +otion to Dismiss. %gain, petitioner iled a +otion or 5inal E#tension o &ime to 5ile %nswer )* dated November 9, )((?. !espondents iled their CommentAOpposition to +otion or !econsideration dated November -1, )((?. Subse=uently, the trial court denied petitionerKs motion or reconsideration in an Order)? dated Eanuary )), )(((. +eanwhile, respondents iled a +otion to Declare De endant Eland in De ault)( dated November )*, )((?. On December 1, )((? $etitioner Eland iled its Comment 6on $lainti Ks +otion to Declare De endant Eland in De ault7 -; dated December -, )((?, while respondents iled a !eply to Comment 6on $lainti Ks +otion to Declare De endant Eland in De ault7-) dated December -(, )((?. &herea ter, the trial court issued an Order-- dated Eanuary )), )((( declaring the petitioner in de ault and allowed the respondents to present evidence e7 parte. $etitioner iled a +otion or !econsideration 6o the Order dated )) Eanuary )(((7-, dated 5ebruary :, )((( on the trial courtKs denial o its motion to dismiss and in declaring it in de ault. &he trial court in an Order -1 dated +arch )?, )(((, denied the ormer and granted the latter. In the same Order, the trial court admitted petitionerKs %nswer Ad Cautelam. Earlier, petitioner iled its %nswer Ad Cautelam 6With Compulsory Counterclaim7-: dated November )-, )((?. !espondents countered by iling a +otion to E#punge ElandKs %nswer rom the !ecords-9 dated December -, )((?. $etitioner iled its Opposition 6to $lainti Ks +otion to E#punge ElandKs %nswer rom the !ecords7-* dated December -), )((?, as well as a Comment 6on $lainti Ks +otion to E#punge ElandKs %nswer rom the !ecords7-?dated Eanuary -9, )(((. Conse=uently, respondents iled a +otion to Set $resentation o Evidence E7 %arte-( dated Eanuary )?, )(((, which was granted in an Order,; dated Eanuary --, )(((. On Eanuary -?, )(((, respondents presented their evidence be ore the ClerF o Court o the trial court which ended on 5ebruary ,, )(((I and, on 5ebruary );, )(((,

respondents iled their 5ormal O er o Evidence.,)4owever, petitioner iled an @rgent +otion to Suspend $lainti Ks E7 %arte $resentation o Evidence,- dated 5ebruary ?, )(((. In that regard, the trial court issued an Order ,, dated 5ebruary )), )((( directing the ClerF o Court to suspend the proceedings. On +ay )1, )(((, respondents iled a +otion or Clari ication,1 as to whether or not the evidence presented e7 parte was nulli ied by the admission o petitionerKs %nswer Ad Cautelam. $etitioner iled its Comment,: dated +ay ),, )((( on the said motion or clari ication. % pre.trial con erence was scheduled on +ay -*, )(((, wherein the parties submitted their pre.trial brie s.,94owever, petitioner iled a +otion to Suspend $roceedings,* dated +ay -1, )((( on the ground that the same petitioner had iled a petition or certiorari with the C%, asFing or the nulli ication o the Order dated +arch )?, )((( o the trial court and or the a irmation o its earlier Order denying petitionerKs +otion to Dismiss. &he petition or certiorari was subse=uently deniedI and a copy o the !esolution,? dated Eune )1, )((( was received by the trial court. 4ence, in an Order,( dated Euly *, )(((, the trial court ruled that the reception o evidence already presented by the respondents be ore the ClerF o Court remained as part o the records o the case, and that the petitioner had the right to cross.e#amine the witness and to comment on the documentary e#hibits already presented. Conse=uently, petitioner iled a +otion or !econsideration 1; dated Euly )(, )(((, but it was denied by the trial court in an Omnibus Order 1) dated September )1, )(((. Eventually, respondents iled a +otion or Summary Eudgment 1- dated %ugust :, )(((, while petitioner iled its Opposition1, to the +otion dated %ugust ,), )(((. In its !esolution11 dated November ,, )(((, the trial court ound avor on the respondents. &he dispositive portion o the !esolution reads2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the motion or summary "udgment is hereby /!%N&ED and it is hereby ad"udged that2 ). $lainti s are the absolute owners and right ul possessors o <ot (-:;, C%D.,::, &agaytay Cadastre, sub"ect to the rights o occupancy o the arm worFers on the one.third area thereo I -. &he Eudgment dated Eune *, )((1 in <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-, is set aside and the Decree No. N.-)*,),, <!C !ecord No. N.9-9?9 dated %ugust -;, )((* is null and voidI ,. &he Original &rans er Certi icate o &itle is ordered to be canceled, as well as ta# declaration covering <ot (-:;, Cad.,::. SO O!DE!ED.

$etitioner appealed the !esolution o the trial court with the C%, which dismissed it in a Decision dated 5ebruary -?, -;;9, which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, or lacF o merit, the appeal is DIS+ISSED. &he assailed !esolution dated November ,, )(((, o the !&C, 'ranch )?, &agaytay City, in Civil Case No. &/.)*?1, is %55I!+ED. No pronouncement as to cost. SO O!DE!ED. 4ence, the present petition. &he grounds relied upon by the petitioner are the ollowing2 :.) &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S %C&ED IN % +%NNE! NO& IN %CCO!D WI&4 <%W %ND WI&4 &4E %$$<IC%'<E DECISIONS O5 &4IS 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& W4EN I& !@<ED &4%& !ES$ONDEN&SK +O&ION 5O! S@++%!B E@D/+EN& D%&ED %@/@S& ;:, )((( DID NO& 0IO<%&E &4E &EN 6);7.D%B NO&ICE !@<E @NDE! SEC&ION ,, !@<E ,: O5 &4E )((* !@<ES O5 CI0I< $!OCED@!E. :.- &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S %C&ED IN % +%NNE! NO& IN %CCO!D WI&4 <%W %ND WI&4 &4E %$$<IC%'<E DECISIONS O5 &4IS 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& W4EN I& !@<ED &4%& % +O&ION 5O! S@++%!B E@D/+EN& IS $!O$E! IN %N %C&ION 5O! O@IE&IN/ O5 &I&<E. :., &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S %C&ED IN % +%NNE! NO& IN %CCO!D WI&4 <%W %ND WI&4 &4E %$$<IC%'<E DECISIONS O5 &4IS 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& W4EN I& !@<ED &4%& &4E!E %!E NO /EN@INE 5%C&@%< %ND &!I%'<E ISS@ES IN CI0I< C%SE NO. &/.)*?1. :.1 &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S %C&ED IN % +%NNE! NO& IN %CCO!D WI&4 <%W %ND WI&4 &4E %$$<IC%'<E DECISIONS O5 &4IS 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& W4EN I& @$4E<D &4E !ESO<@&ION D%&ED NO0E+'E! ;,, )((( O5 &4E CO@!& % O@O, '%SED ON &ES&I+ONIES O5 !ES$ONDEN&SK WI&NESSES &%PEN WI&4O@& /!%N&IN/ 4E!EIN $E&I&IONE! &4E !I/4& &O C!OSS. E8%+INE %ND @$ON DOC@+EN&%!B E84I'I&S $!ESEN&ED '@& NO& %D+I&&ED %S E0IDENCE. :.: &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S %C&ED IN % +%NNE! NO& IN %CCO!D WI&4 <%W %ND WI&4 &4E %$$<IC%'<E DECISIONS O5

&4IS 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& W4EN I& @$4E<D &4E !ESO<@&ION D%&ED NO0E+'E! ;,, )((( O5 &4E CO@!& % O@O '%SED ON 5%<SI5IED 3E0IDENCE.3 :.9 &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S %C&ED IN % +%NNE! NO& IN %CCO!D WI&4 <%W %ND WI&4 &4E %$$<IC%'<E DECISIONS O5 &4IS 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& W4EN I& 5%I<ED &O !@<E &4%& &4E CO@!& % O@O $%&EN&<B DE$!I0ED $E&I&IONE! O5 I&S !I/4& &O D@E $!OCESS IN !ENDE!IN/ I&S S@++%!B E@D/+EN&. :.* &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S %C&ED IN % +%NNE! NO& IN %CCO!D WI&4 <%W %ND WI&4 &4E %$$<IC%'<E DECISIONS O5 &4IS 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& W4EN I& 4E<D &4%& &4E CO@!& % O@O 4%S E@!ISDIC&ION &O C%NCE< $E&I&IONE!KS O!I/IN%< CE!&I5IC%&E O5 &I&<E 6OC&7 NO. ;.99; IN %N %C&ION &O O@IE& &I&<E. %ccording to the petitioner, a motion or summary "udgment must be served at least ten 6);7 days be ore the date set or hearing thereo , and that a hearing must be held to hear the parties on the propriety o a summary "udgment, per Sec. , o !ule ,: o the !evised !ules o Court, which was not observed because the petitioner received a copy o the respondentsK motion or summary "udgment only on %ugust -;, )(((, or the very same day that the motion was set or hearing. $etitioner urther claims that the trial court never conducted any hearing on the motion or summary "udgment. $etitioner also argued that a summary "udgment is only available to a claimant seeFing to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross.claim or to obtain a declaratory relie , and does not include cases or =uieting o title. 5urthermore, petitioner also averred that a summary "udgment has no place in a case where genuine actual and triable issues e#ist, liFe in the present case. It added that the genuine and triable issues were all raised in its %nswer Ad Cautelam. %nother ground relied upon by petitioner is its ailure to cross.e#amine the witnesses or the respondents without ault on its part. It also stated that the trial court did not issue any order admitting in evidence the documentary e#hibits presented by the respondents. 4ence, according to the petitioner, the trial court gravely erred in relying upon the testimonies o the witnesses or the respondents, without having the latter cross.e#aminedI and upon the documentary e#hibits presented but not admitted as evidence. $etitioner urther claimed that the trial court based its !esolution dated November ,, )((( on alsi ied evidence.

<astly, petitioner raised the issue that by rendering summary "udgment, the trial court deprived the ormer o its right to due process. !espondents, in their Comment1: dated October )9, -;;9, countered the irst issue raised by the petitioner, stating that their iling o the motion or summary "udgment ourteen 6)17 days be ore the re=uested hearing o the same motion was in compliance with Sec. ,, !ule ,: o the !ules o Court. %s to the second and third issues, respondents argued that petitioner had a constricted perception o the coverage o the !ules o Summary Eudgment, and that the latterKs citation o cases decided by this Court showed the diverse causes o action that could be the sub"ect matters o summary "udgment. !espondents also posited that petitionerKs statements in its %nswer Ad Cautelam, although denominated as Speci ic Denial, were really general denials that did not comply with the provisions o Section );, !ule ? o the !ules o Court. %nent the ourth and i th issues, respondents claimed that despite the opportunity, or the right allowed in the Order dated Euly )*, )((( o the trial court, or the petitioner to cross.e#amine respondentsK witnesses and to comment on the documentary evidence presented e7 parte a ter the de ault order against the same petitioner, the latter evasively moved to set aside respondentsK evidence in order to suspend urther proceedings that were intended to abort the pre.trial con erence. &hey added that petitioner neglected to avail itsel o , or to comply with, the prescription o the rules ound in !ule ,: o the !ules o Court by opting not to avail itsel o the hearing o its opposition to the summary "udgment a ter receiving the Order dated %ugust -;, )(((I by ailing to serve opposing a idavit, deposition or admission in the recordsI and by not ob"ecting to the decretal portion o the said Order dated %ugust -;, )(((, which stated that the motion or summary "udgment has been submitted or resolution without urther argument. With regard to the contention o the petitioner that the trial court wrongly appreciated alsi ied evidence, respondents asserted that petitionerKs counsel ailed to study care ully the records o the proceedings or the presentation o the evidence e7 parte to be able to Fnow that it was not only a single. day proceeding, and that more than one witness had been presented. &hey urther averred that the trial court did not only rely on the photographs o the houses o the occupants o the property in =uestion. 5inally, as to the si#th and seventh issues, respondents asseverated that their complaint alleged "oint causes o action or =uieting o title under %rt. 1*9 o the New Civil Code and or the review o the decree o registration pursuant to Sec. ,o the $roperty !egistration Decree or $.D. No. ):-(, because they are complimentary with each other. &he petition is impressed with merit.

&he basic contention that must be resolved by this Court is the propriety o the summary "udgment in this particular case o =uieting o title. !ule ,: o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure provides2 SEC. ). Summary "udgment or claimant. . % party seeFing to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross.claim or to obtain a declaratory relie may, at any time a ter the pleading in answer thereto has been served, move with supporting a idavits or a summary "udgment in his avor upon all or any part thereo SEC. ,. +otion and proceedings thereon. . &he motion shall be served at least ten 6);7 days be ore the time speci ied or the hearing. &he adverse party prior to the day o hearing may serve opposing a idavits. % ter the hearing, the "udgment sought shall be rendered orthwith i the pleading, depositions, and admissions on ile together with the a idavits, show that, e#cept as to the amount o damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material act and that the moving party is entitled to a "udgment as a matter o law.19 In the present case, it was the respondents who moved or a summary "udgment. $etitioner contended that the ten.day notice rule was violated, because the copy o the motion or summary "udgment was served only on %ugust -;, )((( or on the same day it was set or hearing. It also added that even i the petitioner received a copy o the motion only on %ugust -;, )(((, there was no hearing conducted on that date because the trial court issued an order giving petitioner ); days within which to ile its comment or opposition. &he above speci ic contention, however, is misguided. &he C% was correct in its observation that there was substantial compliance with due process. &he C% ruled, as the records show, that the ten.day notice rule was substantially complied with because when the respondents iled the motion or summary "udgment on %ugust (, )(((, they urnished petitioner with a copy thereo on the same day as shown in the registry receipt and that the motion was set or hearing on %ugust -;, )(((, or ); days rom the date o the iling thereo . Due process, a constitutional precept, does not, there ore, always and in all situations a trial.type proceeding. &he essence o due process is ound in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit oneKs evidence in support o his de ense. What the law prohibits is not merely the absence o previous notice, but the absence thereo andthe lacF o opportunity to be heard.1* $etitioner urther argues that summary "udgment is not proper in an action or =uieting o title. &his particular argument, however, is misplaced. &his Court has already ruled that any action can be the sub"ect o a summary "udgment with the sole

e#ception o actions or annulment o marriage or declaration o its nullity or or legal separation.1? $roceeding to the main issue, this Court inds that the grant o summary "udgment was not proper. % summary "udgment is permitted only i there is no genuine issue as to any material act and a moving party is entitled to a "udgment as a matter o law. % summary "udgment is proper i , while the pleadings on their ace appear to raise issues, the a idavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not genuine. 1( It must be remembered that the (o(.%?7$,%(6% o: ' ;%(u7(% 7$$u% is the determining actor in granting a motion or summary "udgment, and the 8o='(, <'$ ,<% 5u0)%( o proving such none#istence. &he trial court ound no genuine issue as to any material act that would necessitate conducting a ull.blown trial. 4owever, a care ul study o the case shows otherwise. In their motion or summary "udgment, the respondents ailed to clearly demonstrate the absence o any genuine issue o act. &hey merely reiterated their averments in the complaint or =uieting o title and opposed some issues raised by the petitioner in its %nswer Ad Cautelam, to wit2 Nonetheless, going by the records o the admitted and uncontroverted acts and acts established there is no more litigious or genuine issue o basic act to be the sub"ect o urther trial on the merits. &he irst de ense as to the identity o the sub"ect property, the issue has already become nil because o not only the lacF o seriousness in the allegations but also because the identity o the sub"ect parcel o land <ot (-:; was proven by the approved plan %p.;1.;;?,9* that was already presented and o ered in evidence as E#hibit 3'3 or the plainti s. &he second de ense that plainti sK claim o the property is barred by prior "udgment rule is unavailing considering that the vital documentary evidence they presented in <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-, be ore this 4onorable Court the marFings and descriptions o such documents are stated in the Eudgment =uoted as ollows2 6)7 &a# Declaration No. ;):--1.% 6E#hibit 3O3I # # #. 6-7 &a# Declaration No. ;:;)(.' 6E#hibit 3!3I # # #. 6,7 &a# Declaration No. ;)(-9.' 6E#hibit 3S3I # # #. 617 &a# Declaration No. /!.;;*.;;;* 6E#hibit 3&3 # # #.

are the very documentary evidence adopted and relied upon by the plainti s in seeFing the review and nullity o the Decree No. -)*,), issued on %ugust -;, )((* under <!C !ecord No. N.9-9?9 pursuant to the Eudgment dated Eune *, )((1 rendered by this 4onorable Court penned by the acting presiding Eudge Eleuterio 5. /uerrero in said <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-,. On the other hand, as to the gravamen o the claims in the complaint, the plainti s have presented clear and convincing evidence as the well.nigh or almost incontrovertible evidence o a registerable title to the sub"ect land in the proceedings conducted on the reception o evidence e#.parte or the plainti s establishing in detail the speci ications o continuous, open, e#clusive possession as aspects o ac=uisitive prescription as con irmed in the a idavit herein attached as %nne# 3%3I In ruling that there was indeed no genuine issue involved, the trial court merely stated that2 &his Court, going by the records, observed Feenly that plainti s> 6'u$% o: '6,7o( or =uieting o title on the disputed parcel o land is based on the alleged :0'u) 7( ,<% $u5$,7,u,7o( o their landholdings o <ot (-:;, Cad ,::, &agaytay Cadastre containing only an area o -11,))- s=uare meters with <ot ()-), Cad ,,:, &agaytay Cadastre, containing only an area o )(,,:9 s=uare meters. While de endant Eland in its answer practically and mainly interposed the de enses o 2 6a7 the parcel o land being claimed by the plainti s is not the parcel o land sub"ect matter o <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-,I 6b7 the claim o the plainti s is barred by prior "udgment o this Court in said <and !egistration CaseI and 6c7 plainti sK complaint is barred by the Statute o <imitation since Original Certi icate o &itle No. ;.99; has become incontrovertible. Cross.re erence o the above.cited <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-, that was decided previously by this Court with the case at bench was imperatively made by this Court. 'eing minded that the Court has and can taFe "udicial notice o the said land registration case, this Court observed that there is no genuine issue o act to be tried on the merits. 5irstly, because the supposed identity crisis o the controverted parcel o land covered by the <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-, with the sub"ect parcel o land is established by $lan %p.;1.;;9-*: 6E#hibit 3N37 <!C Case No. 1-, and by $lan %;1 ;;?,9* 6E#hibit 3'3 o the plainti s7 and the &echnical Description o <ot (-:;, Cad ,:: 6E#hibit 3'.)3 o the plainti s7. Secondly, the prior "udgment rule cannot be availed o by de endant Eland since not only intrinsic raud but e#trinsic raud were alleged in and established by the records. 64eirs o +anuel !o#as v. Court o %ppeals, /. !. No. ))?11,9, pro. +arch -), )((*7. &hirdly, it is incontrovertible that the complaint in this case seeFing to review the "udgment and annul the decree was iled on +arch :, )((? or within one 6)7 year rom %ugust -;, )((* or the date o issuance o Decree No. -)*,),, <!C !ecord No. N.9-9?9, hence, the Original Certi icate o &itle No. ;.99; issued to de endant

Eland has not attained incontrovertibility. 64eirs o +anuel !o#as v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. ))?1,9, prom. +arch -), )((*7. Notwithstanding, the 7$$u% o: #o$$%$$7o( 7$ ' @u%$,7o( o: :'6, 5y ,<% 7(,%0'6,7o( o: ,<% 5'$76 #l%')7(;$, the observation o this Court is that the plainti s were able to prove by the well.nigh incontrovertible evidence, the aspects o possession in accordance with Section 1? 6b7 o Commonwealth %ct )1), as amended, as hereina ter illustrated. &he C%, in a irming the above !esolution o the trial court, propounded thus2 &he contention o de endant.appellant is untenable. Summary "udgment is not only limited to solving actions involving money claims. @nder !ule ,: o the )((* !ules o Court, e#cept as to the amount o damages, when there is no genuine issue as to any material act and the moving party is entitled to a "udgment as a matter o law, summary "udgment may be allowed. &he term 3genuine issue3 has been de ined as an issue o act which calls or the presentation o evidence as distinguished rom an issue which is sham, ictitious, contrived, set up in bad aith and patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue or trial. &hus, under the a orecited rule, summary "udgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues o act, which call or the presentation o evidence in a ull.blown trial. &hus, even i on their ace the pleadings appear to raise issues, but when the a idavits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then summary "udgment as prescribed by the rules must ensue as a matter o law. It should be stressed that the court a =uo which rendered the assailed resolution in Civil Case No. &/.)*?1 was the very court that decided the <!C Case No. &/.1-,. Such being the case, the court a =uo was privy to all relevant acts and rulings pertaining to <!C Case No. &/.1-, which it considered and applied to this case. &hus, where all the acts are within the "udicial Fnowledge o the court, summary "udgment may be granted as a matter o right. On the contrary, in petitionerKs %nswer Ad Cautelam, genuine, actual and triable issues were raised, aside rom speci ically denying all the allegations in the complaint, thus2 -. S$ECI5IC DENI%<S -.) %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraphs ) and , o the Complaint inso ar as it alleges the personal circumstances o the plainti and one %. 5. Development Corporation or lacF o Fnowledge or in ormation su icient to orm a belie as to the truth thereo .

-.- %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, :, 9 and * o the Complaint or lacF o Fnowledge or in ormation su icient to orm a belie as to the truth o said allegations. %nd i the property re erred to in said paragraphs is that parcel o land which was the sub"ect matter o <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-, which was previously decided by this 4onorable Court with inality, said allegations are liFewise speci ically denied or the obvious reason that the said property had already been ad"udged with inality by no less than this 4onorable Court as absolutely owned by herein answering de endant as will be urther discussed hereunder. -., %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraph ? o the Complaint inso ar as it alleged that 36u7pon e#ercise o urther circumspection, counsel or the plainti s once ollowed.up in writing the )((1 re=uest o the plainti s to have the sub"ect parcel o land be declared or ta#ation purposes3 and inso ar as it is made to appear that parcel o land being claimed by the plainti s is the same parcel o land sub"ect matter o <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-, or lacF o Fnowledge or in ormation su icient to orm a belie as to the truth thereo and or the reason that the names o the herein plainti s were never mentioned during the entire proceedings in said land registration case and by reason o the % irmative %llegations contained hereunder. -.1 %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraphs (, );, ); 6a7, ); 6b7, ); 6c7, ); 6d7, ); 6e7, ); 6 7, ); 6g7, ); 6h7, and )) or the reason that there is no showing that the parcel o land being claimed by the plainti is the same parcel o land which was the sub"ect matter o <and !egistration Case No. &/. 1-,, and in the remote possibility that the parcel o land being claimed by the plainti s is the same as that parcel o land sub"ect o <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-,, the allegations contained in said paragraphs are still speci ically denied or the reason that no less than the 4onorable Court had decided with inality that the parcel o land is absolutely owned by herein de endant to the e#clusion o all other persons as attested to by the subse=uent issuance o an Original Certi icate o &itle in avor o answering de endant and or reasons stated in the % irmative %llegations. -.: %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraph )- o the Complaint or the obvious reason that it was the plainti s who appear to have been sleeping on their rights considering that up to the present they still do not have any certi icate o title covering the parcel o land they are claiming in the instant case, while on the part o herein de endant, no less than the 4onorable Court had ad"udged with inality that the parcel o land sub"ect matter o <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-, is absolutely owned by herein de endant.

-.9 %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraph ), o the complaint or the reason that de endant has never ladgrabbed any parcel o land belonging to others, much less rom the plainti s, and urther, answering de endant speci ically denies the allegations therein that plainti s engaged the services o a lawyer or a ee or lacF o Fnowledge r in ormation su icient to orm a belie as to the truth thereo . -.* %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraphs )1, ):, )9, )* and )? o the Complaint or lacF o Fnowledge or in ormation su icient to orm a belie as the truth thereo . -.? %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraphs I0 6a7 to I0 6c7 or the reason that, as above.stated, i the parcel o land being claimed by the plainti s is the same as that parcel o land sub"ect matter o <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-,, this 4onorable Court had already decided with inality that said parcel o land is absolutely owned by herein answering de endant and additionally, or those reasons stated in de endantKs +otion to Dismiss. -.( %nswering de endant speci ically denies the allegations contained in paragraph I0 6d7 o the Complaint or lacF o Fnowledge or in ormation su icient to orm a belie as to the truth thereo . Special and a irmative de enses were also raised in the same %nswer Ad Cautelam, to wit2 #### 1.) &he pleading asserting the claim o the plainti states no cause o action as asserted in the +otion &o Dismiss iled by herein answering de endant and or the reason that there is no evidence whatsoever showing or attesting to the act that the parcel o land being claimed by the plainti s in the Complaint is the same parcel o land which was the sub"ect matter o <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-,. 1.- &he complaint was barred by the prior "udgment rendered by this 4onorable in <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-,. 1., &he complaint is barred by the Statute o <imitation in that OC& No. ;. 99; had become incontrovertible by virtue o the &orrens System o !egistrationI and to allow plainti s to =uestion the validity o answering de endantKs title through the instant complaint would be a collateral o OC& No. ;.99; which is not permissible under the law.

1.1 $lainti s are barred by their own acts andAor omission rom iling the present complaint under the principles o estoppel and laches. 1.: $lainti s does not to the Court with clean hands as they appear to be well aware o the proceedings in said <and !egistration Case No. &/. 1-, and inspite o such Fnowledge, plainti s never bothered to present their alleged claims in the proceedings. 1.9 %nswering de endant has always acted with "ustice, given everyone his due, and observed honesty and good aith in his dealings. Clearly, the acts pleaded by the respondents in their motion or summary "udgment have been duly disputed and contested by petitioner, raising genuine issues that must be resolved only a ter a ull.blown trial. When the acts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings or summary "udgment cannot taFe the place o trial.:; In the present case, the petitioner was able to point out the genuine issues. % 3genuine issue3 is an issue o act that re=uires the presentation o evidence as distinguished rom a sham, ictitious, contrived or alse claim.:) It is o utmost importance to remember that petitioner is already the registered owner 6Original Certi icate o &itle GOC&H No. ;.99; issued by the !egister o Deeds7 o the parcel o land in =uestion, pursuant to a decree o registration 6Decree No. N. -)*,),, <!C !ecord No. 9-9?97 based on the ruling o the same court that granted the summary "udgment or the =uieting o title. Incidentally, the indings o the trial court contained in the disputed summary "udgment were obtained through "udicial notice o the acts and rulings pertaining to that earlier case 6<!C Case No. &/.1-,7 wherein the same trial court ruled in avor o the petitioner. It is, there ore, disorienting that the same trial court reversed its earlier ruling, which categorically stated that2 # # # &here is overwhelming evidence or proo on record that the vendors listed in E#hibit 344,3 with submarFings, are the previous owners o the parcel o land mentioned in the same deed o sale and aside orm the ta# declarations covering the same property 6E#hibits 3O3 to 3&,3 inclusive7, the uncontroverted testimony o %tty. !uben !o#as establishes beyond any shadow o doubt that applicantKs 6re erring to herein de endant.appellant7 sellersApredecessors.in.interest are the grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren o the spouses <ucio $etate and +aria $obleta $etate, the ormer owners o the same property, whose ownership is urther bolstered by ta# receipts showing payments o realty ta#es 6E#hibits 3@3 to 3//,3 inclusive, with submarFings7. ###

On the basis o the oregoing acts and circumstances, and considering that applicant is a domestic corporation not otherwise dis=uali ied rom owning real properties in the $hilippines, this Court inds that applicant has satis ied all the conditionsAre=uirements essential to the grant o its application pursuant to the provisions o the <and !egistration <aw, as amended, inspite o the opposition iled by the 4eirs o the late Doroteo +iranda. 4ence, the grant o applicantKs petition appears to be inevitable. W4E!E5O!E, this Court hereby approves the instant petition or land registration and, thus, places under the operation o %ct )1), %ct 1(9 andAor $.D. ):-(, otherwise Fnown as the $roperty !egistration <aw, the land described in $lan %p. ;1.;;9-*: and containing an area o &wo 4undred 5orty.&wo &housand Seven 4undred Ninety.5our 6-1-,*(17 s=uare meters, as supported by its technical description now orming part o the record o this case, in addition to other proo s adduced in the name o the applicant, E<%ND $4I<I$$INES, INC., with principal o ice at No. 1, E. !odrigueJ %ve. 6EspaNa E#tension7, OueJon City, +etro +anila. Once this decision becomes inal and e#ecutory, the corresponding decree o registration shall orthwith issue. SO O!DE!ED. 'y granting the summary "udgment, the trial court has in e ect annulled its ormer ruling based on a claim o possession and ownership o the same land or more than thirty years without the bene it o a ull.blown trial. &he act that the respondents seeF to nulli y the original certi icate o title issued to the petitioner on the claim that the ormer were in possession o the same land or a number o years, is already a clear indicium that a genuine issue o a material act e#ists. &his, together with the ailure o the respondents to show that there were no genuine issues involved, should have been enough or the trial court to give the motion or summary "udgment, iled by respondents, scant consideration. &rial courts have limited authority to render summary "udgments and may do so only when there is clearly no genuine issue as to any material act.:'ased on the oregoing, this Court deems it necessary to delve brie ly on the nature o the action o =uieting o title as applied in this case. &his CourtKs ruling in Calacala, et al. v. Republic, et al.:, is instructive on this matter, thus2 &o begin with, it bears emphasis that an action or =uieting o title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on e=uity. %s we held in 8aricuatro, #r. vs. CA2:1 !egarding the nature o the action iled be ore the trial court, =uieting o title is a common law remedy or the removal o any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property. Originating in e=uity "urisprudence, its purpose is to secure W# # # an ad"udication that a claim o title to or an interest in property, adverse

to that o the complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and those claiming under him may be orever a terward ree rom any danger o hostile claim.> In an action or =uieting o title, the competent court is tasFed to determine the respective rights o the complainant and other claimants, W# # # not only to place things in their proper place, to maFe the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also or the bene it o both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud o doubt over the property dissipated, and he could a terwards without ear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best ###. @nder %rticle 1*9 o the New Civil Code, the remedy may be availed o only when, by reason o any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding, which appears valid but is, in act, invalid, ine ective, voidable, or unen orceable, a cloud is thereby cast on the complainant>s title to real property or any interest therein. &he codal provision reads2 %rticle 1*9. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason o any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or e ective but is in truth and in act invalid, ine ective, voidable, or unen orceable, and may be pre"udicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to =uiet the title. %n action may also be brought to prevent a cloud rom being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein. In turn, %rticle 1** o the same Code identi ies the party who may bring an action to =uiet title, thus2 %rticle 1**. &he plainti must have legal or e=uitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the sub"ect.matter o the action. 4e need not be in possession o said property. It can thus be seen that or an action or =uieting o title to prosper, the plainti must irst have a legal, or, at least, an e=uitable title on the real property sub"ect o the action and that the alleged cloud on his title must be shown to be in act invalid. So it is that in Robles, et al. vs. CA,:: we ruled2 It is essential or the plainti or complainant to have a legal title or an e=uitable title to or interest in the real property which is the sub"ect matter o the action. %lso, the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is being alleged as a cloud on plainti >s title must be shown to be in act invalid or inoperative despite its prima facieappearance o validity or legal e icacy. 0erily, or an action to =uiet title to prosper, two 6-7 indispensable re=uisites must concur, namely2 61A ,<% #l'7(,7:: o0 6o8#l'7('(, <'$ ' l%;'l o0 '( %@u7,'5l% ,7,l%

,o o0 7(,%0%$, 7( ,<% 0%'l #0o#%0,y $u5B%6, o: ,<% '6,7o(C '() D2A ,<% )%%), 6l'78, %(6u850'(6%, o0 #0o6%%)7(; 6l'78%) ,o 5% 6'$,7(; 6lou) o( <7$ ,7,l% 8u$, 5% $<o>( ,o 5% 7( :'6, 7(='l7) o0 7(o#%0',7=% )%$#7,% 7,$ prima facie '##%'0'(6% o: ='l7)7,y o0 l%;'l %::76'6y. !espondents, in their Complaint, claim that they have become the owners in ee. simple title o the sub"ect land by occupation and possession under the provisions o Sec. 1? 6b7 o the $ublic <and <aw or Commonwealth %ct No. )1), as amended. &hus, it appears that the irst re=uisite has been satis ied. %nent the second re=uisite, respondents enumerated several acts that would tend to prove the invalidity o the claim o the petitioner. %ll o these claims, which would correspond to the two re=uisites or the =uieting o title, are actualI and, as discussed earlier, the petitioner interposed its ob"ections and duly disputed the said claims, thus, presenting genuine issues that can only be resolved through a ull.blown trial. %nent the propriety o the iling o an action or the =uieting o title, the inde easibility and incontrovertibility o the decree o registration come into =uestion. @nder Sec. ,- o $.D. No. ):-( or the $roperty !egistration Decree2 Section ,-. !eview o decree o registrationI Innocent purchaser or value. &he decree o registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason o absence, minority, or other disability o any person adversely a ected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court or reversing "udgments, sub"ect, however, to the right o any person, including the government and the branches thereo , deprived o land or o any estate or interest therein by such ad"udication or con irmation o title obtained by actual raud, to ile in the proper Court o 5irst Instance a petition or reopening and review o the decree o registration not later than one year rom and a ter the date o the entry o such decree o registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser or value has ac=uired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be pre"udiced. Whenever the phrase 3innocent purchaser or value3 or an e=uivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer or value. *#o( ,<% %?#70',7o( o: $'7) #%07o) o: o(% y%'0, ,<% )%60%% o: 0%;7$,0',7o( '() ,<% 6%0,7:76',% o: ,7,l% 7$$u%) $<'ll 5%6o8% 7(6o(,0o=%0,75l%. %ny person aggrieved by such decree o registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action or damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible or the raud. %s borne out by the records and undisputed by the parties, OC& No. ;.99; o petitioner was issued on %ugust -(, )((* pursuant to a Decree issued on %ugust -;, )((*, while the complaint or the =uieting o title in Civil Case No. &/.)*?1 was iled and docFeted on +arch :, )((?I hence, applying the above provisions, it would seem that the period o one 6)7 year rom the issuance o the decree o registration has not elapsed or the review thereo . 4owever, a closer e#amination o the above

provisions would clearly indicate that the action iled, which was or =uieting o title, was not the proper remedy. Courts may reopen proceedings already closed by inal decision or decree when an application or review is iled by the party aggrieved within one year rom the issuance o the decree o registration.:9 4owever, the basis o the aggrieved party must be anchored solely on actual raud. Shedding light on the matter is a discussion presented in one o the recogniJed te#tbooFs on property registration,:* citing decisions o this Court, thus2 &he right o a person deprived o land or o any estate or interest therein by ad"udication or con irmation o title obtained by actual raud is recogniJed by law as a valid and legal basis or reopening and revising a decree o registration. :? O(% o: ,<% 0%8%)7%$ '='7l'5l% ,o <78 7$ ' #%,7,7o( :o0 0%=7%> . &o avail o a petition or review, the ollowing re=uisites must be satis ied2 6a7 &he petitioner must have an estate or interest in the landI 6b7 4e must show actual raud in the procurement o the decree o registrationI 6c7 &he petition must be iled within one year rom the issuance o the decree by the <and !egistration %uthorityI and 6d7 &he property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser or value.:( % mere claim o ownership is not su icient to avoid a certi icate o title obtained under the &orrens system. A( 78#o0,'(, :%',u0% o: ' 6%0,7:76',% o: ,7,l% 7$ 7,$ :7('l7,y. &he proceedings whereby such a title is obtained are directed against all persons, Fnown or unFnown, whether actually served with notice or not, and includes all who have an interest in the land. I they do not appear and oppose the registration o their own estate or interest in the property in the name o another, "udgment is rendered against them by de ault, and, in the absence o raud, such "udgment is conclusive. I an interest in the land will not by itsel operate to vacate a decree o registration, a fortiori, raud is not alone su icient to do so.9; %s urther pointed out in the same booF,9) the petition or review must be iled within one year rom entry o the decree o registration. %s written2 %s long as a inal decree has not been entered by the <and !egistration %uthority and period o one year has not elapsed rom the date o entry o such decree, the title is not inally ad"udicated and the decision in the registration case continues to be under the control and sound discretion o the registration court.9- % ter the lapse o

said period, the decree becomes incontrovertible and no longer sub"ect to reopening or review. "%6,7o( 32 #0o=7)%$ ,<', ' #%,7,7o( :o0 0%=7%> o: ,<% )%60%% o: 0%;7$,0',7o( 8'y 5% :7l%) E(o, l',%0 ,<'( o(% y%'0 :0o8 '() ':,%0 ,<% )',% o: %(,0y o: $u6< )%60%% o: 0%;7$,0',7o(.E /iving this provision a literal interpretation, it may at irst blush seem that the petition or review cannot be presented until the inal decree has been entered. 4owever, it has been ruled that ,<% #%,7,7o( 8'y 5% :7l%) ', '(y ,78% ':,%0 ,<% 0%()7,7o( o: ,<% 6ou0,F$ )%67$7o( '() 5%:o0% ,<% %?#70',7o( o: o(% y%'0 :0o8 ,<% %(,0y o: ,<% :7('l )%60%% o: 0%;7$,0',7o( or, as noted in Rivera v. ,oran,9, there can be no possible reason re=uiring the complaining party to wait until the inal decree is entered be ore urging his claim or raud. &he one.year period stated in Sec. ,- within which a petition to re.open and review the decree o registration re ers to the decree o registration described in Section ,), which decree is prepared and issued by the <and !egistration %dministrator. 91 &he provision o Section ,) that every decree o registration shall bind the land, =uiet title thereto, and be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the national government, and Sec. ,- that the decree shall not be reopened or revised by reason o absence, minority or other disability or by any proceeding in court, save only in cases o actual raud and then only or one year rom the entry o the decree, must be understood as re erring to inal and unappealable decrees o registration. % decision or, as it is sometimes called a ter entry, a decree o a registration court, does not become inal and unappealable until i teen days a ter the interested parties have been noti ied o its entry, and during that period may be set aside by the trial "udge on motion or new trial, upon any o the grounds stated in the !ules o Court.9: %n appeal rom the decision o the trial court prevents the "udgment rom becoming inal until that decree is a irmed by the "udgment o the appellate court.99 A #%,7,7o( :o0 0%=7%> u()%0 "%6,7o( 32 7$ ' 0%8%)y $%#'0',% '() )7$,7(6, :0o8 ' 8o,7o( :o0 (%> ,07'l '() ,<% 07;<, ,o ,<% 0%8%)y 7$ (o, '::%6,%) 5y ,<% )%(7'l o: $u6< ' 8o,7o( 700%$#%6,7=% o: ,<% ;0ou()$ u#o( ><76< 7, 8'y <'=% 5%%( #0%$%(,%). &hus, where petitioners ac=uired their interest in the land be ore any inal decree had been entered, the litigation was there ore in e ect still pending and, in these circumstances, they can hardly be considered innocent purchasers in good aith.9*1avvp!i1 Where the petition or review o a decree o registration is iled within the one.year period rom entry o the decree, it is error or the court to deny the petition without hearing the evidence in support o the allegation o actual and e#trinsic raud upon which the petition is predicated. &he petitioner should be a orded an opportunity to prove such allegation.9?

In the present case, the one.year period be ore the &orrens title becomes inde easible and incontrovertible has not yet e#piredI thus, a review o the decree o registration would have been the appropriate remedy. 'ased on the above dis=uisitions, the other issues raised by the petitioner are necessarily rendered inconse=uential. WHEREFORE, the petition or review on certiorari o petitioner Eland $hilippines, Inc. is hereby GRANTED, and the decision dated 5ebruary -?, -;;9 o the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 in C%./.!. C0 No. 9*1)*, which dismissed the appeal o petitioner Eland $hilippines, Inc. and a irmed the resolutions dated November ,, )((( and Eune -?, -;;9 o 'ranch )?, !&C o &agaytay City, is hereby RE&ER"ED and "ET A"IDE. Conse=uently, the resolutions dated November ,, )((( and Eune -?, -;;9 o 'ranch )?, !&C o &agaytay City in Civil Case No. &/.)*?1 are hereby declared N*LL and &OID. "O ORDERED.
Foo,(o,%$ X Designated to sit as an additional +ember, in lieu o Eustice $resbitero E. 0elasco, Er., per !a le dated 5ebruary );, -;);. ) $enned by %ssociate Eustice 4aFim S. %bdulwahid, with %ssociate Eustices !emedios %. SalaJar. 5ernando and Estela +. $erlas.'ernabe, concurringI rollo, pp. **.(-. !ecords, p. ). , Sec. 1?. &he ollowing described.citiJens o the $hilippines, occupying lands o the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been per ected or completed, may apply to the Court o 5irst Instance o the province where the land is located or con irmation o their claims and the issuance o a certi icate o title therea ter, under the <and !egistration %ct, to wit2 #### 6b7 &hose who by themselves or through their predecessors.in.interest have been in open, continuous, e#clusive, and notorious possession and occupation o agricultural lands o the public domain, under a bona ide claim o ac=uisition or ownership, or at least thirty years immediately preceding the iling o the application or con irmation o title, e#cept when prevented by war or force ma"eure. &hose shall be conclusively presumed to have per ormed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certi icate o title under the provisions o this Chapter. 1 <and !egistration Case No. &/.1-,. : Supra note - at :). 9 Id. at :*. * Id. at 9?. ? Id. at *). ( Id. at :?. ); Id. at 9*. )) Id. at (*. )Id. at ((. ), Id. at )19. )1 Id. at )1*. ): +otion or E#tension to 5ile %nswer dated October )9, )((? and Second +otion or E#tension to 5ile %nswer dated October -?, )((?. )9 Supra note - at )9:. )* Id. at )9?. )? Id. at -)1. )( Id. at )*,. -; Id. at -;(. -) Id. at -;1.

--,

Id. at -)1. Id. at --1. -1 Id. at ,;:. -: Id. at )**. -9 Id. at )(*. -* Id. at -;;. -? Id. at --). -( Id. at -)?. ,; Id. at --;. ,) Id. at -,(. ,Id. at -,:. ,, Id. at -1?. ,1 Id. at ,*9. ,: Id. at ,*(. ,9 Id. at ,*; or the respondents, p. ,(1 or petitioner. ,* Id. at ,(?. ,? Id. at 1?9. ,( Id. at 1(). 1; Id. at 1(-. 1) Id. at :-;. 1Id. at :;9. 1, Id. at :),. 11 Id. at :--. 1: !ollo, p. 19(. 19 Now Secs.) and ,, !ule ,:, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure. 1* +utuc v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. 1?);?, September -9, )((;, )(; SC!% 1,. 1? See Carlos v. Sandoval, et al, /. !. No. )*((--, December )9, -;;?, SC!% :*1 ))9, citing Republic v. $andiganba4an, /.!. No. ):-):1, November )?, -;;,, 1)9 SC!% ),,, citing 5amily Code, %rts. 1? L 9;, and Roque v. Encarnacion, (9 $hil. 91, 6)(:17. 1( ,ariano /ocom v. Oscar Camerino, et al., /. !. No. )?-(?1, 5ebruary );, -;;(, :*? SC!% ,(;, citing Ong v. !oban <ending Corporation, /.!. No. )*-:(-, Euly (, -;;?, ::* SC!% :)9. :; /ational %o er Corporation v. 9oro, et al., /. !. No. )*:)*9, October )*, -;;?, :9( SC!% 91?, citing !ivera v. SolidbanF Corporation, /.!. No. )9,-9(, %pril )(, -;;9, 1?* SC!% :)-, :,:. :) Id. :Concrete %ggregates Corp. v. C%, et al, /. !. No. ))*:*1, Eanuary -, )((*, -99 SC!% ??, citing %rchipelago 'uilders v. Intermediate %ppellate Court, /.!. No. *:-?-, 5ebruary )(, )((), )(1 SC!% -;*, -)-, citing %uman v. EstenJo., No. <. 1;:;;, -* 5ebruary )(*9, 9( SC!% :-1I <oreno v. EstenJo, No. <.1,,;9, -( October )(*9, *, SC!% 9,;I 0ia"ar v. EstenJo, No. <. 1:,-), ,; %pril )(*(, ?( SC!% 9?1. :, /. !. No. ):11):, Euly -?, -;;:, 191 SC!% 1,?. :1 ,?- $hil. ):, -: 6-;;;7. :: ,?1 $hil. 9,:, 91* 6-;;;7. :9 <opeJ v. $adilla, /. !. No. <.-*::(, +ay )?, )(*-, 1: SC!% 11. :* Eustice %gcaoili 6ed.7, $roperty !egistration Decree and !elated <aws 6<and &itles and Deeds7, -(*.-(? 6-;;97. :? Serna v. C%, /. !. No. )-19;:, Eune )?, )(((, ,;? SC!% :-*. :( Walstrom v. +apa, /. !. No. ,?,?*, Eanuary -(, )((;, )?) SC!% 1,)I CruJ v. Navarro, /. !. No. <. -*911, November -(, )(*,, :1 SC!% );(I <ibudan v. $alma /il, /. !. No. <.-))91, +ay )*, )(*-, 1: SC!% )*. 9; -9 $hil. :?) 6)()17. 9) Supra note :* at ,;-.,;1. 9/omeJ v. C%, /. !. No. ****;, December ):, )(??, )9? SC!% 1(). 9, 1? $hil. ?,9 6)(-97. 91 !amos v. !odrigueJ, /.!. No. (1;,,, +ay -(, )((:, -11 SC!% 1)?. 9: !oman Catholic %rchbishop o +anila v. Sunico, ,9 $hil. -*( 6)()*7. 99 Supra note at 9;. 9* !ivera v. +oran, 1? $hil. ?9, 6)(-97.

9?

!epublic v. Sioson, /. !. No. <.),9?*, November -(, )(9,, ( SC!% :,,.

G.R. No. 1-3/8-

M'06< 10, 200-

" O*"E" ANTONIO '() "OLEDAD CON"ING, petitioners, vs. CO*RT OF A EAL" '() "*GAR ROD*CER" COO ERATI&E MAR3ETING A""OCIATION, respondents. DECISION

CAR IO, J.: &he Case 'e ore us is a petition or review) o the -( November )((( Decision- and : Eune -;;; !esolution o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. C0 No. 1)9;1. &he Court o %ppeals a irmed the )( Eune )(?( Decision, o the !egional &rial Court o Negros Occidental, 'ranch 11, 'acolod City in Civil Case No. ),:)1. &he %ntecedent 5acts $etitioner.spouses %ntonio and Soledad Consing 63%ntonio and Soledad37 were sugar. arm landowners. %ntonio and Soledad mortgaged their properties to the $hilippine National 'anF 63$N'37 0ictorias 'ranch. %ntonio and Soledad also had an annual agricultural crop loan with $N'. % portion o this loan was or a ertiliJer line. $rivate respondent Sugar $roducers> Cooperative +arFeting %ssociation 63S$C+%37 is a cooperative engaged in assisting planters.members procure ertiliJer and other arm needs. In )(*:, %ntonio and Soledad purchased on credit various grades o ertiliJer through S$C+% on the strength o the documents presented by %ntonio and Soledad. &he documents consisted o a certi ication issued by $N' and a promissory note chargeable against $N'. &he certi ication o $N' stated that %ntonio and Soledad 3have a )(*:.*9 %gricultural Crop <oan line o $,,(;*,;;;.;; out o which has GsicH a 5ertiliJer allotment o $),,?(,1;;.;;,3 and that $N' would hold or S$C+%>s account the proceeds o said allotment 3as soon as the same has been processed and approved by us.3 &he promissory note was or $1?),99;.:-, payable to the order o $N' as payment or the anticipated ertiliJer allotment. When S$C+% presented the promissory note, $N' re used to honor the note as %ntonio and Soledad no longer had a ertiliJer line with $N'. On ? November )(**, S$C+% iled a complaint or collection o sum o money against %ntonio and Soledad with the !egional &rial Court o Negros Occidental, 'acolod City. On )( Eune )(?(, the trial court ruled in avor o S$C+%. Dissatis ied with the decision o the trial court, %ntonio and Soledad appealed to the Court o %ppeals.

On -( November)(((, the Court o %ppeals a irmed the decision o the trial court. On : Eune -;;;, the Court o %ppeals denied %ntonio and Soledad>s motion or reconsideration. &he !uling o the &rial Court We =uote in ull the two.page decision o the trial court, as ollows2 'e ore this Court is a complaint or sum o money iled by plainti Sugar $roducers> Cooperative +arFeting %ssociation, Inc., and against de endant.spouses %ntonio and Soledad Consing. &he record shows that sometime in )(*:, de endant.spouses purchased on account various grades o ertiliJers rom plainti cooperative, as shown in E#hibits 3'3, 3C3, 3D3, 3E3, 353, 3/3, 343, and 3I3. &he total purchase price o which was $:11,;:1.;; as shown in E#hibit 3P3. De endant.spouses however ailed to pay their obligation to plainti , hence the present suit. On the other hand, the de endant.spouses in their answer, admit their indebtedness with plainti regarding the cost o ertiliJers but deny the accuracy o the account, other charges and e#penses alleged in the complaint. &hat the promissory note e#ecuted by de endant.spouses in avor o plainti was novated by a subse=uent agreement. It appears that de endant.spouses had a )(*:.*9 %gricultural Sugar Crop <oan <ine o $,,(;*,;;;.;;, with the $hilippine National 'anF, with a 5ertiliJer allotment o $),,?(,1;;.;;, as shown in E#hibit 3%3. &hat on the strength o the assurance o de endant.spouses by presenting the $hilippine National 'anF Certi ication 6E#h. %7, and $romissory Note 6E#h. 3E37, plainti delivered voluminous ertiliJers o various grades to de endants, as shown in E#hibits 3'3, 3C3, 3D3, 3E3, 353, 3/3, 343 and 3I3. &hat when plainti presented or payment the $romissory Note to the $hilippine National 'anF, the said note was dishonored by the banF or reason that de endants have no more ertiliJer line out o their alleged agricultural crop loan with the $hilippine National 'anF. When plainti demanded payment rom de endant. spouses, the latter o ered some temporary payment arrangement with the plainti 6E#h. 3O37 by assigning one trucF load o sugarcane daily, which de endants ailed to comply. &hat as o %pril ,;, )(?,, the total obligations due to plainti by de endant.spouses amounted to $),-1,,,-:.-:, as shown in E#hibit 3O3. W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the Court hereby renders "udgment, ordering de endant spouses %ntonio and Soledad Consing to be "ointly and severally liable to pay the plainti S$C+% the sum o $),-1,,,-:.-: with legal rate o interest rom November ?, )(**, date o the iling o the complaint until ully paidI ordering de endant.spouses %ntonio and Soledad Consing to pay plainti S$C+% "ointly and

severally );D o the total unpaid obligation as attorney>s eesI and to pay the costs o this suit. SO O!DE!ED. 1 &he !uling o the Court o %ppeals &he Court o %ppeals ruled that based on the documentary evidence, %ntonio and Soledad were the purchasers in the transaction. %ntonio signed the 5ertiliJer Order. %ntonio bound himsel and his wi e, Soledad, to pay or reimburse S$C+% or the price, including delivery e#penses and ta#es, o the ertiliJers. &he invoices, delivery order and record o deliveries bear the name o %ntonio as the recipient or trans eree o the goods. None o these actionable documents, the genuineness and due e#ecution o which %ntonio and Soledad did not controvert, show that $N' assumed responsibility or %ntonio and Soledad>s obligations. &he Court o %ppeals held that $N' was not the guarantor or surety o %ntonio and Soledad. Citing %rticle -;:: o the Civil Code, the Court o %ppeals ruled that a guaranty cannot be presumed but must be e#press. &he $N' certi ication does not show that $N' guaranteed the transaction as the certi ication merely embodied the ollowing undertaFing2 In this connection, we will hold or your account a ter we have been duly in ormed o any ertiliJer advances you may have e#tended to Eudge L +rs. %ntonio Consing or the )(*9.** crop against his ertiliJer allotment or this a orementioned )(*9.** as soon as the same has been processed and approved by us.: &he dispositive portion o the decision o the Court o %ppeals reads2 W4E!E5O!E, inding no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby %55I!+ED. SO O!DE!ED.9 &he Court o %ppeals denied the motion or reconsideration o %ntonio and Soledad as it saw no cogent reason to set aside its decision. &he dispositive portion o the appellate court>s resolution reads2 W4E!E5O!E, the sub"ect motion or reconsideration is hereby DENIED or lacF o merit. SO O!DE!ED.
*

%ntonio and Soledad raise the ollowing issues in their memorandum2 ). &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S /!OSS<B E!!ED IN 4O<DIN/ &4%& $E&I&IONE!S %!E <I%'<E 5O! &4E C<%I+ O5 $!I0%&E !ES$ONDEN&, I& 'EIN/ $4I<I$$INE N%&ION%< '%NP, W4IC4 IS $!I+%!I<B <I%'<E &4E!E5O!. -. &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S /!%0E<B E!!ED IN O!DE!IN/ $E&I&IONE!S &O $%B $!I0%&E !ES$ONDEN& $),-1,,,-:.-: WI&4 <E/%< IN&E!ES&S 5!O+ NO0E+'E! ?, )(**, &4E D%&E O5 5I<IN/ O5 &4E CO+$<%IN&, %S &4IS WI<< %+O@N& &O DO@'<E I+$OSI&ION O5 IN&E!ES&S.? On the other hand, S$C+% believes that the issues or resolution are as ollows2 ). W4E&4E! &4E &!I%< CO@!&, W4IC4 &!IED %ND DECIDED &4E C%SE ON &4E +E!I&S %ND &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S W4IC4 %55I!+ED I&S DECISION, E!!ED IN 4O<DIN/ &4%& &4E $E&I&IONE!S %!E <I%'<E 5O! &4E C<%I+ O5 S$C+% %+O@N&IN/ &O $),-1,,,-:.-: WI&4 &4E <E/%< !%&E O5 IN&E!ES& 5!O+ NO0E+'E! ?, )(** @N&I< 5@<<B $%IDI -. W4E&4E! $E&I&IONE!S %!E %<<OWED &O C4%N/E &4EI! &4EO!B O5 &4E C%SE ON %$$E%<I ,. W4E&4E! &4E 5INDIN/S O5 5%C& O5 &4E &!I%< CO@!& %ND &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S W4IC4 %55I!+ED I&S DECISION %!E 'INDIN/ ON &4E S@$!E+E CO@!&I 1. W4E&4E! &4E INS&%N& $E&I&ION 5O! !E0IEW IS $!O 5O!+%. 4%0IN/ 5%I<ED &O CO+$<B WI&4 &4E )((* !@<ES O5 $!OCED@!E, %S %+ENDED, !EO@I!IN/ &4%& &4E $E&I&ION S4%<< 'E %CCO+$%NIED 'B CE!&I5IED &!@E CO$IES, %+ON/ O&4E!S, O5 %<< $E!&INEN& $<E%DIN/S %ND DOC@+EN&S 6!@<E 9:, SEC. )7.( &he !uling o the Court &he petition is without merit. $etition Complies with the !e=uirements o the !ules o Court S$C+% moves or the outright dismissal o the petition on the ground that it ailed to comply with the )((* !ules o Court re=uiring petitions or review under !ule 1:

&he Issues

to be accompanied by certi ied true copies o 3all pleadings and documents pertinent thereto.3 We disagree. In Cadayona v. Court o %ppeals,); we held that in appeals by certiorari under !ule 1:,)) what the rules re=uire is a certi ied true copy o the =uestioned "udgment, inal order or resolution. &he present petition is accompanied by the certi ied true copies o the decision o the trial court and the decision and resolution o the Court o %ppeals. &he petition there ore does not su er rom any in irmity. Decision o the !egional &rial Court 5ailed to State the <egal 'asis o its !uling %ntonio and Soledad draw our attention to the two.page decision o the trial court penned by Eudge Cicero @. Ouerubin 63Eudge Ouerubin37. While Eudge Ouerubin mentioned his actual indings, the legal basis o his ruling is not set out in the decision. Eudge Ouerubin ailed to meet aith ully the re=uirement demanded by the Constitution rom the courts in rendering their decisions. Section )1, %rticle 0III o the Constitution declares that2 Sec. )1. No decision shall be rendered by any court without e#pressing therein clearly and distinctly the acts and the law on which it is based. No petition or review or motion or reconsideration o a decision o the court shall be re used due course or denied without stating the legal basis there or. 6Emphasis supplied7 &he court must in orm the parties to a case o the legal basis or the court>s decision so that i a party appeals, it can point out to the appellate court the points o law to which it disagrees.)- Every "udge should Fnow the constitutional mandate and the rationale behind it. Eudge Ouerubin should have Fnown the e#acting standard imposed on courts by Section )1, %rticle 0III o the Constitution and should not have sacri iced the constitutional standard or brevity>s saFe. &he ailure o the trial court decision to measure up to the standard set by the Constitution is too gross to ignore as it is in starF contrast to the Court o %ppeals> decision. &he Court o %ppeals> decision, while also brie , being only three pages long, laid down the actual and legal reasons why %ntonio and Soledad are the ones liable to S$C+%, and not $N'. &he Court o %ppeals> discussion o the merits o this case enabled the parties to pinpoint the proper issues that we now review.

%ntonio and Soledad are Solely <iable or the 0alue o the 5ertiliJers they $urchased on Credit through S$C+% We ind no ground to overturn the actual inding o the trial court and Court o %ppeals. &he records support the trial and appellate courts> inding that %ntonio and Soledad purchased on credit the ertiliJers through S$C+%. &he obligation to pay is solely that o %ntonio and Soledad>s since they ailed to prove that $N' was their guarantor or surety. We will not allow %ntonio and Soledad to adopt a new de ense at this very late stage o the case. &o permit them to do so would not only be un air to the other party but it would also be o ensive to the basic rules o air play, "ustice and due process.), &hus, we will not delve into %ntonio and Soledad>s new claim that $N' should be liable to S$C+% because $N' managed their arm. &he act that %ntonio and Soledad are introducing this unsubstantiated claim or the very irst time is proo that this de ense is "ust an a terthought. &otal %mount Due to S$C+% %ntonio and Soledad contest the $),-1,,,-:.-: and the legal interest the trial and appellate courts awarded to S$C+%. %ntonio and Soledad argue that the total claim o S$C+% in its complaint amounted to only $9;*,(:;.1(, which is the value o the unpaid ertiliJers. &he $9;*,(:;.1( should have been the basis o the award and not the$),-1,,,-:.-: which already includes the principal, interest, li=uidated damages and attorney>s ees. %ntonio and Soledad insist that there was a double imposition o interest when the trial and appellate courts ordered them to pay S$C+% $),-1,,,-:.-: with legal interest rom ? November )(**, the date o iling o the complaint until ull payment. %ntonio and Soledad implore us to correct this reversible error. %ntonio and Soledad raised the issue o double imposition o interest in their appeal be ore the Court o %ppeals but the appellate court did not pass upon this issue. We modi y the award made by the trial and appellate courts. We do not base our modi ication o the decisions o the two courts on %ntonio and Soledad>s theory o double imposition o interest, but on the ground that the trial and appellate courts awarded attorney>s ees twice. We also clari y the imposition o legal interest. &he records reveal that as o ,; %pril )(?,, the total claim o S$C+% against %ntonio and Soledad is$),-1,,,-:.-:.)1 While S$C+% alleged in the complaint that the unpaid ertiliJer account o %ntonio and Soledad was $9;*,(:;.1(, S$C+% however urther alleged in the complaint that2 it has been stipulated that in case o delay in the payment o the a oresaid obligation, de endants G%ntonio and SoledadH shall pay plainti GS$C+%H, aside rom the rate

o )D per month rom the date said obligation became overdue, another sum e=uivalent to twenty ive 6-:D7 percent o the amount as attorney>s ees and e#penses o collection plus 6);D7 percent o the indebtedness as li=uidated damages which, in either case, shall not be less than $-:; in addition to the costs o litigation.): &he terms and conditions o the contract embodied in the 5ertiliJer Order are also clear. %ntonio, on behal o Soledad, agreed to the ollowing terms2 I hereby agree and irmly bind mysel to pay or reimburse the Sugar $roducer>s +arFeting %ssociation, Inc., the prices or which these ertiliJers have been contracted or plus handling and delivery e#penses, ta#es and all other charges, incidental or otherwise, it being agreed and hereby stipulated that my ertiliJer account shall automatically become overdue i not paid on actual delivery o the ertiliJer ordered i delivery is made in ull and on actual delivery o each part o the whole order, i delivery is partially made, it being urther agreed and liFewise hereby stipulated that interest at the rate o one 6)D7 per cent a month shall be charged on all my overdue accounts beginning or e ective rom the date when my a oresaid ertiliJer accounts shall be considered as automatically overdue. Noti ication, correspondence or other communications rom the Sugar $roducer>s +arFeting %ssociation, Inc., to the corresponding planter or planters> association shall be considered and accepted as noti ication to the undersigned planter himsel and any act, gesture or representation by the planters association shall be considered as the personal actuations, gesture or representation by the undersigned planter himsel . ### In the event o the planter>s ailure to pay the herein ertiliJer account together with the corresponding e#penses, ta#es and other charges as they are considered as automatically due, the planter hereby binds himsel to urther pay the Sugar $roducer>s +arFeting %ssociation, Inc., an additional sum e=uivalent to twenty. ive 6-:D7 per cent o the total amount due, or and as attorney>s ees plus );D o the indebtedness as li=uidated damages, in either case not to be less than $-:;.;; in addition to costs o collection or suit irrespective o whether the case is settled "udicially or e#tra"udicially. ###)9 6Emphasis ours7 %ntonio and Soledad did not only bind themselves to pay the principal amount, they also promised to pay 6)7 the interest o )D per month on all the overdue accounts, 6-7 the additional sum o -:D o the total amount due as attorney>s ees, and 6,7 );D o the indebtedness as li=uidated damages which, in either case, shall not be less than $-:;. Since %ntonio and Soledad reely entered into the contract, the stipulations in the contract are binding on them. &he law allows a party to recover attorney>s ees under a written agreement. %rticle --;? o the Civil Code provides that an award o attorney>s ees is proper i the

parties stipulate it.)* &he parties in this case agreed in writing that %ntonio and Soledad are liable or -:D attorney>s ees. &he total amount inally ad"udged by the trial and appellate courts, which is $),-1,,,-:.-:, already includes the stipulated -:D attorney>s ees. Bet, the trial and appellate courts still made another award o );D attorney>s ees. We delete the separate award o );D attorney>s ees, as there is no basis in awarding attorney>s ees twice. &he trial and appellate courts also ailed to lay down the legal and e=uitable reasons or the second award o attorney>s ees. &he second award o attorney>s ees, which the parties did not stipulate, is not one o those cases enumerated in %rticle --;? that would "usti y the award o attorney>s ees. &he trial and appellate courts imposed legal interest on the $),-1,,,-:.-: without speci ying the legal rate o interest. In Eastern Shipping <ines, Inc. v. Court o %ppeals 63Eastern Shipping37,)? we laid down the ollowing guidelines on the imposition o legal interest2 I. When an obligation, regardless o its source, i.e., law, contracts, =uasi. contracts, delicts or =uasi.delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable or damages. &he provisions under &itle 80II on 3Damages3 o the Civil Code govern in determining the measure o recoverable damages. II. With regard particularly to an award o interest in the concept o actual and compensatory damages, the rate o interest, as well as the accrual thereo , is imposed, as ollows2 ). When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment o a sum o money, i.e., a loan or orbearance o money, the interest due is that which may have been stipulated in writing. 5urthermore, the interest due shall itsel earn legal interest rom the time it is "udicially demanded. In the absence o stipulation, the rate o interest shall be )-D per annum to be computed rom de ault, i.e., rom "udicial or e#tra"udicial demand under and sub"ect to the provisions o %rticle ))9( o the Civil Code. -. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or orbearance o money, is breached, an interest on the amount o damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion o the court at the rate o 9D per annum ### ,. When the "udgment o the court awarding a sum o money becomes inal and e#ecutory, the rate o legal interest, whether the case alls under paragraph ) or paragraph -, above, shall be )-D per annum rom such inality until its satis action, this interim

period being deemed to be by then an e=uivalent to a orbearance o credit. &he obligation in this case is not a loan or orbearance o money, but one that involves a contract where S$C+% did not receive ull payment or the ertiliJers that it purchased or %ntonio and Soledad. 'ased on %rticle --); o the Civil Code)( and Eastern Shipping, the court in its discretion may award interest at the rate o 9D per annum on the amount o damages. We, however, ind no ground to impose a legal interest o 9D per annum on the amount o damages awarded in this case. -; %ntonio and Soledad and S$C+% had already agreed in writing that all o the overdue accounts o %ntonio and Soledad should earn interest at the rate o )D per month or )-D per annum. S$C+% also made provisions or %ntonio and Soledad>s payment o -:D attorney>s ees and );D li=uidated damages in case o their de ault. S$C+% has undoubtedly amply protected itsel . &he stipulated interest in this case is )D per month or )-D per annum. %s o ,; %pril )(?,, the total account o %ntonio and Soledad amounted to $),-1,,,-:.-:. 5rom then on, the $),-1,,,-:.-: should have earned the stipulated interest o )D per month or )-D per annum. Once the "udgment in this case becomes inal and e#ecutory and the amount ad"udged is still not satis ied, legal interest at the rate o )-D per annum can then apply until ull payment. &he rate o )-D per annum is proper because the 3interim period rom the inality o "udgment awarding a monetary claim and until payment thereo , is deemed to be e=uivalent to a orbearance o credit.3-) &he actual base or the computation o this )-D interest is the amount due upon inality o this decision.-W4E!E5O!E, the appealed Decision dated -( November )((( o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. C0 No. 1)9;1 is %55I!+ED with +ODI5IC%&ION. $etitioners %ntonio and Soledad Consing are ordered to pay $),-1,,,-:.-: to Sugar $roducer>s Cooperative +arFeting %ssociation, Inc. with interest at )D per month or )-D per annum counted rom ,; %pril )(?, until the inality o this decision. % ter this decision becomes inal and e#ecutory, interest at )-D per annum shall be additionally imposed on the total obligation until ull payment. No costs. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) @nder !ule 1: o the )((* !ules o Court. $enned by %ssociate Eustice Conchita Carpio +orales with %ssociate Eustices 'ernardo $. %besamis and Edgardo $. CruJ, concurring. , $enned by Eudge Cicero @. Ouerubin. 1 Rollo, pp. ,;.,).

: 9

Ibid., p. -,. Ibid. * Ibid., p. -9. ? Ibid., pp. *:.*9. ( Ibid., p. ?,. ); ,?) $hil. 9)( 6-;;;7. )) /overning appeals by certiorari rom the Court o %ppeals to the Supreme Court. )$eople v. 'ugarin, ,,( $hil. :*; 6)((*7. ), CruJ v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. );?*,?, )* Eune )((1, -,, SC!% ,;). )1 !ecords, pp. )?.)(. ): Ibid., p.-. )9 E#hibits '.- and '.,, ibid. )* %!&. --;?. In the absence o stipulation, attorney>s ees and e#penses o litigation, other than "udicial costs, cannot be recovered e#cept2 6)7 When e#emplary damages are awardedI 6-7 When the de endant>s act or omission has compelled the plainti to litigate with third persons or to incur e#penses to protect his interestI 6,7 In criminal cases o malicious prosecution against the plainti I 617 In case o a clearly un ounded civil action or proceeding against the plainti I 6:7 Where the de endant acted in gross and evident bad aith in re using to satis y the plainti >s plainly valid, "ust and demandable claimI 697 In actions or legal supportI 6*7 In actions or the recovery o wages o household helpers, laborers and sFilled worFersI 6?7 In actions or indemnity under worFmen>s compensation and employer>s liability lawsI 6(7 In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising rom a crimeI 6);7 When at least double "udicial costs are awardedI 6))7 In any other case where the court deems it "ust and e=uitable that attorney>s ees and e#penses o litigation should be recovered. In all cases, the attorney>s ees and e#penses o litigation must be reasonable. )? /.!. No. (*1)-, )- Euly )((1, -,1 SC!% *?. )( %!&. --);. Interest may, in the discretion o the court, be allowed upon damages awarded or breach o contract. -; $ee /eneral Enterprises, Inc. v. <ianga 'ay <ogging Co., Inc., )-; $hil. *-; 6)(917. -) Eastern Shipping <ines, Inc. v. Court o %ppeals, supra, note )?. -$ee 0icente v. $lanters Development 'anF, /.!. No. ),9))-, -? Eanuary -;;,.

G.R. No. 163208

Au;u$, 13, 2008

HEIR" OF J*AN &ALDE1, " ". OTENCIANO MAL&AR '() LO*RDE" MAL&AR, petitioners, vs. THE HONORA+LE CO*RT OF A EAL" '() L.C. LO E1 RE"O*RCE", INC., respondents. DECI"ION +RION, J.4 &wo con licting resolutions were issued on the same date in the same case. &he irst resolution dismissed the case without pre"udice or violation o the provision against orum shopping. &he other re=uired the respondent 6petitioner herein7 to comment. W<', 7$ ,<% %::%6,, u()%0 ,<% u(7@u% 6706u8$,'(6%$ o: ,<7$ 6'$%, o: ,<%$% ,>7( 0%$olu,7o($G &his is the =uestion that the petitioners 4eirs o Euan 0aldeJ, Spouses $otenciano +alvar and <ourdes +alvar 6!eirs and spouses ,alvar7 pose or our consideration in this $etition or !eview on certiorariunder !ule 1: o the !ules o Court a ter the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 ruled that C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9 that the private respondent 6petitioner at the C%, and re erred to herein as 39ope+ Resources37 iled, was not e ectively dismissed.

&he heirs and spouses +alvar seeF to reverse the ollowing resolutions in the ollowing cases iled by <opeJ !esources be ore the C%2 D'A I( CA.G.R. " No. 76286 . 6)7 !esolution dated +ay :, -;;,) 6first ,a4 :, ;<<= Resolution7 which dismissed without pre"udice the petition or certiorari and prohibition on the ground that the veri ication and certi ication against orum shopping was not signed by a duly authoriJed representative o <.C. <opeJ !esourcesI 6-7 !esolution dated +ay :, -;;,- 6second ,a4 :, ;<<= Resolution7 which re=uired the heirs and spouses +alvar to ile their comment to C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9 and <opeJ !esources to recti y the de iciency in its non. orum shopping certi icationI 6,7 !esolution dated %ugust ), -;;, 6August 1, ;<<= Resolution7 which clari ied the con licting +ay :, -;;, resolutions, directing the heirs and spouses +alvar to ile their comment on C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9 within ten days, and <opeJ !esources to ile its reply to the comment. 617 !esolution dated %pril -, -;;11 6April ;, ;<<> Resolution7 which denied the motion or reconsideration iled by the heirs and spouses +alvar o the !esolution dated December )-, -;;, that granted them ); days rom notice to ile their commentI and D5A I( CA.G.R. " No. 7761/ . 6:7 !esolution dated Euly ):, -;;,: 6#ul4 1:, ;<<= Resolution7 re=uiring the heirs and spouses +alvar to comment on the petition or certiorari and prohibition and <opeJ !esources to ile its reply to the comment. &his resolution ordered <opeJ !esources to submit a true copy o the +ay :, -;;, !esolution dismissing its petition in C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9. THE ANTECEDENT" &he controversy has its roots in Civil Case No. ;;.9;): 6civil case7 entitled, 3,anila Construction Development Corporation of t!e %!ilippines v. $pouses Dela Rosa, et al.3. an action or =uieting o title and declaration o nullity o trans er certi icates o title be ore the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7, 'ranch *) o %ntipolo City. 9 &he heirs and spouses +alvar were among the plainti s* in the civil case. &he !&C granted them an in"unction order 6order7 dated December )9, -;;- and, subse=uently, a writ
,

o preliminary mandatory in"unction 6 rit7 dated +arch 9, -;;, to place them in possession o the parcel o land disputed in the case.? On +arch -1, -;;,, the sheri o the !&C together with several armed men implemented the order and rit in <opeJ !esources propertyI they tore down the ence that enclosed the <opeJ property although <opeJ !esources succeeded in maintaining possession. <opeJ !esources went to the C% to =uestion the application o the order and writ that the !&C issued in the civil case. Its petition or certiorari and prohibition was docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9 6first petition7 and was assigned to the Ninth Division.( 5or the reasons detailed below, <opeJ !esources iled another similar petition 6re)filed petition7 . docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. **9): and assigned to the Seventh Division); . a ter the irst petition was dismissed without pre"udice. %roceedings in CA)*.R. $% /o. ?@;A@ <opeJ !esources iled this petition or certiorari and prohibition be ore the C% on %pril ,, -;;,, alleging grave abuse o discretion and the commission o acts without or in e#cess o "urisdiction by the !&C when it deprived <opeJ !esources o its property without due process o lawI <opeJ !esources was not a party in Civil Case No. ;;.9;): where the assailed order and rit were grantedI also, the writ was en orced against <opeJ !esourcesK property although this property was not a part o the land disputed in the civil case.)) In its irst action on the irst petition, the C% issued on +ay :, -;;, the disputed con licting resolutions. %s previously mentioned, one resolution dismissed the petition it!out pre"udice or violation o the provision against orum shopping, while the other re=uired the heirs and spouses +alvar and other respondents to ile their comments to the petition while also re=uiring <opeJ !esources to recti y the de iciency in its non. orum shopping certi ication. <opeJ !esources and the heirs and spouses +alvar received the resolution o dismissal but the heirs and spouses +alvarKs co.respondents did not. <opeJ !esources received the resolution on +ay (, -;;, and re. iled the same petition with appropriate correction o the non. orum shopping de iciency on +ay -,, -;;,. &he re. iled petition was docFeted as CA)*.R. $% /o. ??@1: and was ra led to the Seventh Division o the C%. C% records show that the spouses +alvarKs co.respondents who did not receive the irst +ay :, -;;, resolution, received the second +ay :, -;;, !esolution re=uiring them to comment on the <opeJ !esources petition. 'ecause o the con lict in the contents o the two +ay :, -;;, resolutions, the C% issued on %ugust ), -;;, 6or ?9 days a ter the issuance o the con licting resolutions7 a !esolution clari iying its action in C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9 and recti ying what it labeled as a Kclerical errorK. &his resolution states2

It was also brought to Our attention by the Division ClerF, a ter scrutiny o the records, that there has been a clerical error in what was supposed to be delivered as thin copies or the three 6,7 thicF copies o the !esolution We actually promulgated on +ay :, -;;, # # # &he inadvertently delivered thin copy o the said resolution received by the petitionerKs counsel was the one dismissing the petition without pre"udice, and the same copy pertained to the dra t resolution which We did not approve. &he copy o the resolution received by private respondent Cristeta dela !osaKs counsel is the one re=uiring comment and which corresponds to Our actual !esolution dated +ay :, -;;,. &he oregoing e#plains why there is a re. iling o the petition with this Court, because o the inadvertently delivered copy o the dra t resolution received by the petitioner, dismissing the case without pre"udice. %s such, the error needs to be recti ied since the petition docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. **9): is actually the same as the case at bar.)&he Ninth Division duly urnished the ponente o the re. iled petition 6 rom the Seventh Division7 a copy o its %ugust ), -;;, resolution. &he heirs and spouses +alvar subse=uently sought a reconsideration o another resolution rom the Ninth Division dated December )-, -;;, that, among others, granted them ); days to ile their comment. &he C% denied the motion in its %pril -, -;;1 !esolution in light o its %ugust ), -;;, !esolution. %roceedings in CA)*.R. $% /o. ??@1: In response to the irst +ay :, -;;, !esolution dismissing its petition without pre"udice, <opeJ !esources opted to re. ile on +ay -,, -;;, a similar petition with corrections duly made or the non. orum shopping de iciency in the irst petition. &he Seventh Division, to which the re. iled petition was ra led, re=uired the heirs and spouses +alvar and the other respondents to ile their comment to the re. iled petition, while <opeJ !esources was ordered to submit a copy o the irst +ay :, -;;, !esolution dismissing C%. /.!. S$ No. *9-?9. In lieu o comment,), the heirs and spouses +alvar moved or the dismissal o the petition on two grounds2 first, the C% has no "urisdiction over the re. iled petition as an e#act petition in C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9 was earlier dismissed under the irst +ay :, -;;, !esolution and the dismissal had become inalI and second, even i the C% had "urisdiction, the re. iled petition should be dismissed by reason o litis pendentia because the appellate court has not terminated the proceedings in the irst petition. Subse=uently, the C%)1 resolved to cancel the ra le o C%./.!. S$ No. **9):): since the irst petition and the re. iled petition are one and the same. &he C%

also ordered that the contents o the rollo o C%./.!. S$ No. **9): to be incorporated with the rollo o C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9. THE I""*E" Dissatis ied with the above C% resolutions and arguing that both cases should be dismissed, the petitioners raise the ollowing issues2 ). whether the C% committed grave abuse o discretion in C%./.!.S$ No. *9-?9 when it issued on the same date the two con licting +ay :, -;;, resolutionsI -. whether the %ugust ), -;;, resolution is validI and ,. whether the re iling o the same petition be ore the C% constituted a palpable act o orum shopping "usti ying the dismissal o both petitions. THE CO*RTF" R*LING W% )%(y ,<% #%,7,7o( :o0 l'6H o: 8%07,. &he act that the Ninth Division o the C% committed a monumental error cannot be erased. 'ut the error was not in the courtKs intent on what to do with the orum shopping violation it ound. In both resolutions, what is clear is that the court intended to allow a recti ication o the de iciency in <opeJ !esourcesK non. orum shopping certi ication in view perhaps o what it perceived to be the merits that the ace o the petition showed. &hus, in the irst +ay :, -;;, resolution, the C% resolved to dismiss the petition but without pre"udice to its re. iling. In the second resolution, it ordered the iling o comment by the respondents, with the obligation on the part o <opeJ !esources to recti y the de iciency in its non. orum shopping certi ication. We have no doubt that it was within the C%Ks power and prerogative to issue what either resolution decreed without committing an abuse o discretion amounting to lacF or e#cess o "urisdiction. In the irst +ay :, -;;, !esolution, the C% correctly dismissed the petition or the de iciency it ound in the non. orum shopping certi ication. Section :, !ule * o the !evised !ules o Court provides that 35ailure to comply with the oregoing re=uirements shall not be curable by mere amendment o the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause or the dismissal o the case it!out pre"udice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and a ter hearing.3 On the other hand, the re=uirement speci ic to petitions iled with the appellate court simply provides as a penalty that the ailure o the petitioner to comply with the listed re=uirements, among them the need or a certi ication against

orum shopping, 3shall be su icient ground or the dismissal o the petition3. &hus, the Ninth Division correctly dismissed the petition it!out pre"udice. &hat the C% could also re=uire the respondents to comment, with the obligation on the part o the petitioner to undertaFe recti ication, is not without support rom established "urisprudence. In several cases,)9 we allowed initiatory pleadings or petitions with initially de ective veri ications and certi ications o non. orum shopping on the ground o substantial compliance.)* We reasoned that strict compliance with the re=uirement merely underscores its mandatory nature, in that, it cannot be dispensed with or its re=uirements altogether disregarded. )? &hus, we have held that the subse=uent submission o the re=uired documents 6such as the secretaryKs certi icate7 constituted substantial compliance with the procedural rules that "usti ied rela#ation o the re=uirements in the interest o "ustice. )( &hus, either way, the C% would have been correct. &o our mind, it is important to maFe this determination to establish that ot!er t!an t!e CABs mistaCe in releasing t o conflicting resolutions in the same case and on the same date, the C% action was legally above board. &his determination is particularly material or purposes o the grave abuse o discretion the petitioners impute against the Court o %ppeals or issuing two con licting resolutions in initially acting on the case. In the absence o any showing that the twin issuance was attended by partiality, or by hostility to one party as against another, or in open and patent disregard o the applicable laws, no grave abuse o discretion amounting to lacF or e#cess o "urisdiction e#ists in the C% action. &he twin issuance was, as the C% Ninth Division admitted, the result o a mistaFe. &he e#ercise o discretion in the C%Ks action came into play in the consideration o what action to taFe in light o the de iciency in the petitionKs certi ication against orum shopping. &hat a resolution that was not intended to be issued, was issued, does not at all involve an e#ercise o discretion, much less its abuse. 8ecause t!e mistaCe as on t!e part of t!e court, it is a7iomatic t!at none of t!e parties s!ould suffer for t!e mistaCe. &his is particularly true given that the parties all acted pursuant to the resolution they respectively received. &o be sure, <opeJ !esources could have iled a motion or reconsideration upon its receipt o the resolution o dismissal on +ay (, -;;,. &he option it tooF, however, was well within the legitimate choices it had and could not be legally aultedI it accepted the dismissal and chose to re. ile its petition, this time supplying the de iciency that tainted its irst petition. We note in this regard that the re. iling was done on +ay -,, -;;,, i.e., prior to the inality o the resolution o dismissal. &his prompt action indicates to us that while the order o dismissal technically lapsed to inality, such inality is in act legally immaterial since <opeJ !esources immediately acted on the condition that attended the dismissal, i.e. to re. ile the petition because the dismissal was without pre"udice. 'y this act, <opeJ !esources e ectively Fept its petition legally alive.

&o looF at the matter rom another perspective, the issuance o two con licting resolutions . one or dismissal, the other or the continuation o the case, with one canceling out the other . can only mean that no de inite, speci ic determination was made by the courtI at least, there was uncertainty on what the court really intended to do. @nder this situation, we ind it allacious to conclude that one resolution lapsed to inality while the other did not. In legal e ect, there was e ectively no de inite resolution that could have lapsed to inality because o the mistaFe the court committed. &his status continued until a clari ication was made by the issuing court. Even granting that the irst +ay :, -;;, !esolution became inal and e#ecutory, the rule on immutability o "udgment does not apply in cases where what is to be modi ied or altered involves2 6a7 the correction o clerical errorsI 6b7 the so.called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no pre"udice to any partyI 6c7 void "udgments Gsuch as a dismissal without pre"udice that was not intended to be issuedH and those where circumstances transpire a ter the inality that render the e#ecution or en orcement, as in this case, o the "udgment un"ust or ine=uitable. -; &o be sure, the rule does not apply in cases where a supervening event . such as the mistaFe undisputably committed by the court 6i.e., the unintended release o one o the resolutions, thus resulting in the con lict and con usion7 . tooF place. -) 5aced with the mistaFe it committed, the C% readily acFnowledged its lapse and acted to recti y it through its %ugust ), -;;, order. &hat C%./.!. No. S$ *9-?9 remained the viable case is only to be e#pected because it is the 3mother3 case that inadvertently gave rise to the re. iled case. &his can best be understood rom the point o view o , and appl4ing b4 analog4, the rules on consolidation which !ule ,) o the !evised !ules o Court provides. @nder the 0nternal Rules of t!e Court of Appeals, there may be consolidation at the instance o the Eustice to whom the case is assigned, and with the con ormity o the Eustice to whom the cases shall be consolidated, upon notice to the parties when the cases involve the same parties andAor related =uestions o act andAor law. Consolidated cases s!all pertain to t!e #ustice to !om t!e case it! t!e lo est docCet number is assigned, if t!e4 are of t!e same Cind.--Consolidation has to apply by analogy because o the unusual attendant circumstances that re=uired that the re. iled case be collapsed, not merely consolidated, to orm an integral part o the irst petition. 5or all the oregoing reasons and the act the C% can issue such orders or resolutions necessary in the e#ercise o its "urisdiction. we hold that the Ninth DivisionKs clari icatory resolution o %ugust ), -;;, is valid. &he C% never lost "urisdiction over the case despite the re. iling o the petitionI "urisdiction, once ac=uired, is not lost e#cept or reasons that are not present in this case and need not be ully discussed here. &he Si#th Division, to where the ponente o the re. iled petition was trans erred, ultimately removed all uncertainties when it ordered the cancellation o the ra le o the case and ordered the incorporation o the contents o its rollo with the rollo o the irst petition . C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9. &his move is liFewise valid under the circumstances as the re. iling was a direct o .shoot o the C%Ks mistaFeI it

carries the same "usti ication attendant to the remedial measures addressing the mistaFe. &he =uestion o whether <opeJ !esources orum shopped when it re. iled its petition is largely rendered moot and academic by the terms o the assailed +ay :, -;;, order which dismissed the case without pre"udice. <opeJ !esources, who cannot be blamed or the C%Ks mistaFe, only ollowed what the assailed order allowed. &hus, we cannot say that it orum shopped by iling another petition while the irst petition was pending. Inso ar as it was concerned, its irst petition had been dismissed without pre"udiceI hence, there was no bar, either by way o orum shopping, litis pendentia or res ad"udicata, to the petition it re. iled.-, We note that it has not been lacFing in good aith in its dealing with the appellate court in this regard. % ter its re. iled petition and a ter receipt o the %ugust ), -;;, !esolution o the Ninth Division, it immediately iled on %ugust )-, -;;, a +ani estation and +otion or Clari ication to seeF guidance on which o the two petitions should subsist. In an abundance o caution, it liFewise iled on %ugust -), -;;, a +ani estation and Compliance in the irst petition, attaching therewith the SecretaryKs Certi icate that the second +ay :, -;;, !esolution re=uired. It cannot be blamed i it acted with utmost caution as the circumstances under which it ound itsel were highly unusual and were not at all within the direct contemplation o the !ules. %s a inal note, we cannot help but be disturbed by the carelessness e#hibited in the handling o the con licting +ay :, -;;, resolutions. 4ad the C% e#ercised due care and attention in the per ormance o their duties, the present petition would have been avoided. &ruly, as public o icers, we are bound by our oath to bring to the discharge o our duties the prudence, caution, and attention which care ul men usually e#ercise in the management o their a airs.-1 &o do less a ects not only the substance o our actions, but the all.important perception o the public we serve o the Find o "ustice we dispense. &he image o a court o "ustice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, o icial or otherwise, o the people manning the courts . rom the "ustices, "udges, the clerFs o court, to the lowest.ranFed personnel. It is the duty o each one o us to maintain the "udiciaryKs good name and standing as a true temple o "ustice. -: WHEREFORE, in light o the oregoing, we hereby DEN! the petition and DIRECT the Court o %ppeals to resolve the petition or certiorari and prohibition in C%./.!. S$ No. *9-?9 with utmost dispatch. No costs. "O ORDERED.
Foo,(o,%$ X Designated %dditional +ember o the Second Division per Special Order No. :)- date Euly )9, -;;?. ) Rollo, pp. ,;.,). Id., pp. ,,.,1. , Id., pp. ,9.,*. 1 Id., pp. ,(. : Id., pp. *-.*,. 9 See pp.).1 o herein private respondentKs $etition or Certiorari and $rohibition 6With %pplication or the Issuance o a Writ o $reliminary In"unction %ndAOr &emporary !estraining Order7I rollo, pp. 1*.9*.

&he parties who iled complaints.in.intervention 6with application or writ o preliminary mandatory in"unction7 were North East $roperty 0entures, Spouses $otenciano +alvar and <ourdes +alvar and Spouses Euan 0aldeJ and %polinaria 0aldeJ. &he spouses 0aldeJK are represented in this petition by the heirs o Euan 0aldeJ. ? Rollo, p.1? ( Comprised o %ssociate Eustice 'ernie %de uin.de la CruJ, %ssociate Eustice $erlita &ria.&irona 6both retired7, and %ssociate Eustice 4aFim %bdulwahid 6as ponente7. ); Comprised o %ssociate Eustice !uben &. !eyes 6now a member o this Court7, %ssociate Eustice Elvi Eohn %suncion and %ssociate Eustice <ucas 'ersamin. )) CommentAOpposition 6!e2 $etition or !eview dated -9 +ay -;;17, pp. ,.1I rollo, pp. );).);-. )%ugust ), -;;, !esolutionI id., p. ,*. ), Comment on the $etitionI id., pp. *1.?1. )1 &he Si#th Division to where the ponente, Eustice !uben &. !eyes 6now o the Supreme Court7 trans erred. ): !esolution dated %ugust ,), -;;1I id., pp. )(;.)(). )9 &icar 0nternational Construction, 0nc. v. DE8 9easing and Dinance Corp., /.!. No. ):*)(:, %pril --, -;;:, 1:9 SC!% :??, :(9.:(*I Ateneo de /aga Eniversit4 v. ,analo, /.!. No. )9;1::, +ay (, -;;:, 1:: SC!% ,-?, ,,*I Funtington $teel %roducts, 0nc. v. /9RC, /.!. No. ):?,)), November )*, -;;1, 11- SC!% ::), ::(I *eneral ,illing Corp. v. /9RC, /.!. No. ):,)((, December )*, -;;-, ,(1 SC!% -;*, -;(I $!ipside 0ncorporated v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. )1,,**, 5ebruary -;, -;;), ,:- SC!% ,,1, ,19I 9o4ola v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. ))*)?9, Eune )(, )((:, -1: SC!% 11*, 1?,. )* (oung v. $eng, /.!. No. )1,191, +arch :, -;;,, ,(? SC!% 9-(, 91). )? 0bid, citing 9o4ola v. Court of Appeals, supra note )9, pp. 1?,.1?1. )( GacC) acC *olf H Countr4 Club v. /9RC, /.!. No. )1(*(,, %pril ):, -;;:, 1:9 SC!% -?;, -(1, citing #aro v. Court of Appeals, -** SC!% -?- 6-;;-7. -; $acdalan v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. )-?(9*, +ay -;, -;;1, 1-? SC!% :?9,:((. -) /atalia Realt4 0nc. v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. )-919-, November )-, -;;-, ,() SC!% ,*;, ,?*. -See2 Section ,, !ule , o the Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals. -, -imes -ransit Co., 0nc. v. $otelo, /.!. No. )9,*?9, 5ebruary )9, -;;:, 1:) SC!% :?*, :(?, and Development 8anC of t!e %!ilippines v. 9a Campana Development Corp., /.!. No. ),*9(1, Eanuary )*, -;;:, 11? SC!% ,?1, ,(-. -1 Elat),arrero v. -orio, #r., %.+. No. $.;).):)(, November )(, -;;,, 1)9 SC!% )**, )?,. -: 0d.

G.R. No. 13/630

"%#,%85%0 26, 2000

INTRAM*RO" TENNI" CL*+, INC. DITCA, HILI INE TENNI" A""OCIATION D HILTAA '() ITC TENNI" LA!ER", petitioners, vs. HILI INE TO*RI"M A*THORIT! D TAA, CL*+ INTRAM*RO", '() CO*RT OF A EAL", "%6o() D7=7$7o(,respondents. DECISION GON1AGA.RE!E", J.: &his petition or certiorari assails two resolutions o the Second Division o the Court o %ppeals which granted private respondent>s motion or e#ecution pending appeal and ordered the !egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch :; to issue the corresponding writ o e#ecution. &he antecedent acts are as ollows2 $rivate respondent $hilippine &ourism %uthority 63$&%37 owns the 0ictoria &ennis Courts located in Intramuros, +anila by virtue o $residential Decree No. )*9,. In a +emorandum o %greement 63+O%37 e#ecuted on Eune )), )(?*, the $&% trans erred the management, operation, administration and development o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts to petitioner $hilippine &ennis %ssociation 63$4I<&%37 or a period o ten 6);7 years) commencing on Eune ):, )(?*.- $etitioner Intramuros &ennis Club, Inc. 63I&C37 is an a iliate o $4I<&% and has or its members tennis players and enthusiasts who regularly use the acilities o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts. On Eune -9, )((:, and during the e ectivity o the +O%, $&% wrote a letter to $4I<&% enumerating alleged violations by $4I<&% o the terms and conditions o the +O% and demanding the surrender o the possession o the 0ictoria tennis courts on or be ore Euly -:, )((:., On %pril )), )((9, $&% wrote a second letter to $4I<&% re=uesting the latter to vacate the premises o said tennis courts to give way to $&%>s gol course e#pansion program with private respondent Club Intramuros. 1 On +ay *, )((9, petitioners instituted a case or 3preliminary in"unction, damages, and prayer or temporary restraining order3 with the !egional &rial Court o +anila, which was docFeted as Civil Case No. (9.*?-1?. &he petition alleged that $&%>s demand to vacate was a unilateral pre.termination o the +O%, under the terms o which $4I<&% was allowed the management o the tennis courts until Eune ):, )((*. It also alleged that by complying with $&%>s demand to vacate, petitioner I&C stands to sustain liability because it had prior commitments to use the 0ictoria &ennis Courts or two activities, namely, the International Wheelchair &ennis Clinic on +ay )1.)9, )((9 and the $hilippine National /ames on +ay -;.-:, )((9. &he other grounds cited by petitioners were2 the 0ictoria &ennis Courts are the oldest in

the country, and orm part o $hilippine history and cultural heritageI the 0ictoria &ennis Courts are one o the ew remaining public tennis courts in +etro +anila open to the less a luentI petitioners are maintaining the tennis courts at high cost, and unless the demolition is restrained, they will be unable to recoup their investmentsI the demolition will result in the displacement o the worFers in the tennis courtsI and, as players and aficionados o tennis, petitioners stand to lose the camaraderie that playing in 0ictoria &ennis Courts helped oster among them. &he temporary restraining order was granted on +ay --, )((9, and petitioners were allowed to retain possession o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts. &herea ter, or on Eune )*, )((9, the !&C also granted the writ o preliminary in"unction prayed or by petitioners, based upon a inding that $&% in pursuing the gol course e#pansion program was in e ect unilaterally pre.terminating the +O%. In the same order, it declared that 3petitioner I&C is an a iliate o $4I<&% that has a right to be protected.3: On Eune )9, )((*, private respondents iled a motion to dismiss, stating that in view o the e#piration o the +O% petitioners> cause o action was rendered moot and academic. 4owever, petitioners maintained that their petition was also an action or damagesI hence, there are other issues or resolution despite the termination o the +O%. &he !&C granted the motion to dismiss, inding that based on the allegations o the petition in relation to the relie s demanded, petitioners> only purpose was to stop $&% rom pursuing the gol course e#pansion program on account o the tennis activities that will utiliJe 0ictoria &ennis Courts as venue. It also ound that the evidence submitted by the parties at the trial revolved around the issue o whether the preliminary in"unction should be declared permanent or li ted. &his issue has resolved itsel when the +O% e#pired. &he !&C noted that by the terms o the +O% the contract between $&% and $4I<&% was actually one o lease ... and under the law on leases, upon the e#piration o the period o lease the lessor is entitled to be restored to the possession o the property. +oreover, the !&C declared, the petition be ore it cannot be considered an action or damages because based on standing case law the amount o damages must be stated in the complaint or purposes o determining "urisdiction and the appropriate amount o docFet ees.9 &he court did not taFe cogniJance o petitioners> claim or damages considering that the amount thereo was nowhere mentioned in the petition, whether in the prayer or in the body o said pleading. 4ence, the !&C ruled to li t the writ o preliminary in"unction and to declare private respondent $&% entitled to the possession o 0ictoria &ennis Courts. It urther declared that petitioners> action has become moot and academic by reason o the e#piration o the +O% upon which petitioners> rights were based.

$etitioners appealed to respondent court. While the case was pending therewith, private respondents iled a motion or e#ecution o "udgment pending appeal invoFing that under Section 1, !ule ,( o the )((* !evised !ules o Court "udgments in actions or in"unction are not stayed by appeals taFen there rom. &hus2 Sec. 1. #udgments not sta4ed b4 appeal. ... Eudgments in actions or in"unction, receivership, accounting and support, and such other "udgments as are now or may herea ter be declared to be immediately e#ecutory, shall be en orceable a ter their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taFen there rom, unless otherwise ordered by the trial court. On appeal there rom, the appellee court in its discretion may maFe an order suspending, modi ying, restoring or granting the in"unction, receivership, accounting, or award o support. 6@nderscoring supplied7 &he motion alleged that there was an urgent necessity on the part o private respondents to immediately taFe possession o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts 3by reason o its being heavily deteriorated and unsanitiJed because o Gpetitioners>H ailure to maintain its good condition.3 It appended a letter by a group o tennis players, addressed to &ourism Secretary +ina &. /abor, complaining about the state o the acilities and general uncleanliness o the tennis courts and appealing that 3the depredations committed by $4I<&% and its concessionaires3 be corrected. *&he motion also alleged that the appeal taFen by petitioners was rivolous and intended merely to delay the immediate e#ecution o the "udgment o the !&C. In their comment to the above motion, petitioners stated that private respondents> reliance on Section 1, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court was erroneous because that provision contemplates an instance where an action or in"unction was granted, not a situation as the one herein where the "udgment was or the li ting o an in"unction earlier issued. !ather, petitioners maintain that the applicable provision is Section -, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court, which accords the appellate court discretionary power to order e#ecution o a "udgment or inal order pending appeal, 3upon good reasons to be stated in a special order a ter due hearing.3 $etitioners urther contended that the deterioration and unsanitary conditions o 0ictoria &ennis Courts alleged by private respondents were unsubstantiated and do not constitute 3good reasons3 or the wielding by respondent court o its power o discretionary e#ecution. &hey maintained that their appeal is not merely dilatory, but poses several "usticiable issues including the claim or damages which was aborted by the !&C>s premature dismissal o the petition. &hus, respondent court should, in the e#ercise o its discretion whether or not to allow e#ecution pending appeal, lean towards the preservation o petitioners> right to appeal. In a resolution dated Euly (, )((?, the Second Division o respondent court ? tooF into consideration the ground advanced by private respondents, i.e., that the 0ictoria &ennis Courts are ill.maintained by $4I<&%. It granted the motion or e#ecution pending appeal, declaring that since the lease agreement under the +O% had already

e#pired and private respondents had made it clear that there will be no renewal o the said agreement, $&% as lessor is entitled to e#ercise all its rights o ownership and possession over the 0ictoria &ennis Courts. It also observed that the petitioners> appeal rom the order o the !&C was merely dilatory, and that the outcome o the appeal will not in any way alter the act o private respondents> entitlement to the possession and administration o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts.( &hus, the dispositive portion o respondent court>s resolution provides2 W4E!E5O!E, or the special reasons set orth above, the motion or e#ecution pending appeal is hereby /!%N&ED upon payment and approval o this court o a bond in the amount o $?;;,;;;.;;. SO O!DE!ED.); In their motion or reconsideration, petitioners argued that under Section -, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court respondent court should have conducted hearings to ascertain whether there were 3good reasons3 to issue the writ o e#ecution pending appeal. !espondent court denied their motion or lacF o merit,)) and declared that contrary to petitioners> asseverations, the determination o 3good reasons3 or allowing e#ecution pending appeal does not strictly re=uire a ormal or trial.type hearingI instead, the parties may be heard by way o pleadings. In the case o petitioners, their arguments against private respondents> motion or e#ecution pending appeal were heard when they iled their comment thereto. +oreover, under !ule ? o the !evised Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals ... Section ). Oral Argument. ... &he necessity or propriety o oral argument shall be determined by the Eustice assigned to study and report on the case and the oral argument shall be con ined to those matters which he may speci y. 4owever, in lieu o oral arguments, said Eustice may allow the parties to ile their respective memoranda within i teen 6):7 days rom notice. $etitioners also contended that the trial court had no "urisdiction to rule on $&%>s possessory rights over the tennis courts, because the appropriate action to determine those rights is unlaw ul detainer which is under the "urisdiction o +&Cs. !espondent court dismissed the argument stating that it was inconsistent o petitioners to now =uestion the !&C>s "urisdiction, considering that it was they who instituted the in"unction case be ore the !&CI thus, it appears that they were raising this argument merely because they ailed to secure the a irmative relie s that they sought rom that court. &hus, the September -,, )((? resolution o respondent court reads2 W4E!E5O!E, the motion or reconsideration is denied or lacF o merit. &he !egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch :; is hereby ordered to issue a Writ o

E#ecution pursuant to this court>s resolution dated Euly (, )((? granting the e#ecution pending appeal.)5rom the above resolutions o respondent court, petitioners iled the instant special civil action or certiorari. &he petition, iled on November )*, )((?, alleged that the Court o %ppeals committed grave abuse o discretion in the ollowing2 a. In granting private respondent>s +otion or E#ecution $ending %ppeal pursuant to an erroneous or incorrect provision o the !ules o CourtI b. In entertaining a 3special reason3 interposed by private respondents, which was not even inceptually o ered in evidenceI c. In considering . with un ounded bias, petitioners> pending appeal with said respondent court . as 3merely intended to delay3I d. In reasoning that the revised Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals can supersede the !ules o CourtI e. In assuming that possessory relie s automatically vest upon private respondents due to the dismissal o the in"unction caseI and . In directing the !&C +anila, 'ranch :;, to issue a Writ o E#ecution pursuant to the Euly (, )((? !esolution.), %nent the irst ground, petitioners allege that respondent court wrongly =uoted the provisions o Section -, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court,)1 and that the pertinent provisions are the second and third paragraphs which declare that a ter the trial court has lost "urisdiction, it is the appellate court in the e#ercise o its discretion and upon good reasons that may issue the motion or e#ecution pending appeal. &hey maintained that the 3special reason3 interposed by private respondents, i.e., that the 0ictoria &ennis Courts were ill.maintained, was a bare allegation that was not properly substantiated, because the letter o the tennis players to Secretary /abor was not ormally submitted in evidence in the trial court.): +oreover, they declared, there was no 3"udgment3 or 3 inal order3 to speaF o in the instant case because the !&C order dated %ugust :, )((* was still the sub"ect o an appeal that is pending with respondent court. &hey also assailed the conclusion o respondent court that the appeal was dilatory considering that petitioners had 3several causes o action which transcend the lease relationship3 in the +O%. &he ourth assignment o error, meanwhile, asserts that petitioners were entitled to a hearing under Section -, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court and respondent court erroneously dispensed thereo in avor o the provisions o the Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals that memoranda may be re=uired o the parties in lieu o a hearing. 5inally, petitioners argued that respondent court acted hastily and prematurely in ordering the trial court to issue a writ o e#ecution or private respondents to gain possession over the tennis

courts, when the dispositive portion o the !&C order li ting the preliminary in"unction made no mention o giving possession to private respondents. %s declared by petitioners, the dispositive portion o the !&C order dated %ugust :, )((* merely reads2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the motion to dismiss iled by $&% is hereby granted. &he bond posted by plainti is hereby declared released.)9 In response to petitioners> arguments, private respondents declared that no grave abuse o discretion may be imputed to respondent court or allowing e#ecution pending appeal to prosper. &he matter o 3good reasons3 as basis o an e#ecution pending appeal is a =uestion that lies within the sound discretion o respondent court, and its inding in the herein case as to the e#istence o such 3good reasons3 should be given respect and credence in the absence o evident bad aith.)* +oreover, e#ecution pending appeal is only a provisional remedy that respondent court allowed private respondents to avail o and should not be interpreted as an ad"udication on the merits o the main case still pending be ore respondent court.)? Shortly a ter the iling o the instant petition, or on October -), )((?, private respondents iled a motion or issuance o a writ o e#ecution with the !&C o +anila, 'ranch :;, pursuant to the resolutions o respondent court dated Euly (, )((? and September -,, )((?. &his motion, however, was not granted by the !&C which, in an order penned by then presiding "udge @rbano C. 0ictorio, Sr., suspended or held in abeyance the issuance o the writ o e#ecution because the records o Civil Case No. (9.*?-1? are still with respondent court and also 3in de erence to the Supreme Court3 where the instant petition is pending.)( In a second order which denied private respondents> motion or reconsideration, Eudge 0ictorio additionally noted that since the principal cause o action in Civil Case No. (9.*?-1? was or the issuance o a writ o preliminary in"unction and the same has been cancelled or revoFed by the !&C on %ugust :, )((*, there was nothing more or the !&C to e#ecute. @ndaunted by these developments, private respondents iled with the !&C a Second +otion or Issuance o Writ o E#ecution With <eave o Court on November )), )(((. $rivate respondents reasoned that the mere pendency o a special civil action or certiorari, commenced in relation to a case pending e#ecution be ore a lower court, cannot prevent the said lower court rom e ecting e#ecution in the absence o a writ o in"unction rom a higher court restraining it rom doing so, and in the absence o a inal determination rom the Supreme Court that the Court o %ppeals gravely abused its discretion in ordering the !&C to issue the writ o e#ecution.-; &his motion was granted on 5ebruary 1, -;;; by Eudge Concepcion S. %larcon.0ergara, who assumed o ice as presiding "udge o !&C +anila, 'ranch :; a ter the retirement o Eudge 0ictorio.-) &hus, a writ o e#ecution was issued on 5ebruary )*, -;;; ordering the Sheri o !&C +anila, 'ranch :; to cause

petitioners to vacate the premises o 0ictoria &ennis Courts and to place private respondents in possession o the same.-$etitioners attempted to secure be ore this Court a restraining order against the implementation o the above writ o e#ecution, arguing that such implementation would render the instant petition moot and academic. &he Court, however, denied their motion in a resolution dated +arch ):, -;;;. In their memorandum dated +ay -*, -;;;, private respondents in ormed the Court that on +arch ), -;;; they had gained actual control and possession o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts.-, &hus, they submit that the instant petition is now moot and academic. $reliminarily, we ind that the petition was not rendered moot or illusory by the act that e#ecution was e ected and possession o the tennis courts restored to private respondents. &he resolution o the instant petition re=uires a determination o whether respondent Court o %ppeals gravely abused its discretionary power to order e#ecution pending appeal as prescribed in Section -, !ule ,( o the )((* !evised !ules o Court, and where such grave abuse o discretion is established the e#ecution pending appeal pursuant to the resolutions o respondent court may be voided. &hus, the Court inds that the petition presents a live and "usticiable controversy. Section -, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court reads ... Discretionar4 e7ecution. ... 6a7 E7ecution of a "udgment or final order pending appeal. ... On motion o the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party iled in the trial court while it has "urisdiction over the case and is in possession o either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time o the iling o such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order e#ecution o a "udgment or inal order even be ore the e#piration o the period to appeal. % ter the trial court has lost "urisdiction, the motion or e#ecution pending appeal may be iled in the appellate court. Discretionary e#ecution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order a ter due hearing. 'ased on the oregoing provisions, respondent court may order e#ecution pending appeal sub"ect to the ollowing conditions2 6)7 there must be a "udgment or inal orderI 6-7 the trial court must have lost "urisdiction over the caseI 6,7 there must be 3good reasons3 to allow e#ecutionI and 617 such good reasons must be stated in a special order a ter due hearing.

@ndoubtedly, the !&C order dated %ugust :, )((* which granted private respondents> motion to dismiss and li ted the writ o preliminary in"unction is a 3 inal order3 within the contemplation o Section -, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court. $etitioners maintain that the said !&C order could not be the proper sub"ect o e#ecution because it was still appealed to respondent court, but this merely con uses the concept o a 3 inal3 "udgment or order rom one which has 3become inal3 6or to use the more established term, 3 inal and e#ecutory37 ... a distinction that is de inite and settled. % 3 inal3 "udgment or order is one that inally disposes o a case, leaving nothing more or the court to do in respect thereto ... such as an ad"udication on the merits which, on the basis o the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations o the parties are and which party is in the right, or a "udgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground o res "udicata or prescription, or instance.-1 It is to be distinguished rom an order that is 3interlocutory3, or one that does not inally dispose o the case, such as an order denying a motion to dismiss under !ule )9 o the !ules o Court, or granting a motion or e#tension o time to ile a pleading. %s such, only inal "udgments or orders 6as opposed to interlocutory orders7 are appealable. Now, a 3 inal3 "udgment or order in the sense "ust described becomes 3 inal and e#ecutory3 upon e#piration o the period to appeal there rom where no appeal has been duly per ected or, an appeal there rom having been taFen, the "udgment o the appellant court in turn becomes inal. It is called a 3 inal and e#ecutory3 "udgment because e#ecution at such point issues as a matter o right.-: 'y its provisional nature, the remedy o e#ecution pending appeal re=uires only a 3 inal3 "udgment or order 6as distinguished rom an 3interlocutory3 order7 and not a 3 inal and e#ecutory3 "udgment or order. In the instant case, the !&C order dated %ugust :, )((* which granted private respondents> motion to dismiss, li ted the writ o preliminary in"unction and held private respondents entitled to possess the 0ictoria &ennis Courts is a inal order within the contemplation o Section -, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court, inasmuch as it maFes an ad"udication on the merits o the case and dismisses petitioners> action. $etitioners, in act, impliedly recogniJed the inality o this !&C order when they iled an ordinary appeal 6and not a petition or certiorari7 there rom with respondent court. %ddressing petitioners> argument that the dispositive portion o the !&C order dated %ugust :, )((* only provides that private respondents> motion to dismiss is granted and does not order private respondents to regain possession o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts, su ice it to say that although as a rule, e#ecution must con orm to the dispositive portion o a decision, the other parts o the decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio decidendi o the court.-9 In act, a closer looF at the !&C order shows that the dispositive portion consists o two paragraphs, thus ...

%ccordingly, the writ o preliminary in"unction is hereby li ted and de endant is entitled to possess the 0ictoria &ennis Court. W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the motion to dismiss iled by $&% is hereby granted. &he bond posted by plainti is hereby declared released. 6@nderscoring supplied7-* &hus, petitioners> representation that the !&C order did not intend to award possession to private respondents o the disputed property as a result o the li ting o the preliminary in"unction is blatantly without basis. It is also not contested that at the time the motion or e#ecution pending appeal was iled, the !&C had already lost "urisdiction over the case as petitioners> appeal had already been per ected and the records o the case transmitted to respondent court. On the matter o hearing, we uphold respondents> position that respondent court did not gravely abuse its discretion in granting the motion or e#ecution pending appeal without a ull.blown or trial.type hearing. We have interminably declared that due process basically entails the opportunity to be heard, and we hold that the same principle underlies the provision on hearing in Section - o the abovecited !ule ,(. &he records o the instant case clearly disclose that petitioners have iled their comment-? to private respondents> motion or e#ecution pending appeal, and their arguments as embodied in said comment did in act orm part o the discussion o respondent court in its assailed resolution o Euly (, )((?.1 p!i1 &hus, the only issue remaining is whether respondent court gravely abused its discretion in inding good reasons to grant private respondents> motion or e#ecution pending appeal. E#ecution o a "udgment pending appeal is an e#ception to the general rule that only a inal "udgment may be e#ecuted.-( &hus, the e#istence o 3good reasons3 is essential or it is what con ers discretionary power on a court to issue a writ o e#ecution pending appeal.,; &hese reasons must be stated in a special order ... or unless they are divulged, it would be di icult to determine whether "udicial discretion has been properly e#ercised in the case.,) /ood reasons consist o compelling circumstances "usti ying immediate e#ecution lest "udgment becomes illusory, or the prevailing party a ter the lapse o time be unable to en"oy it, considering the tactics o the adverse party who may have apparently no case but to delay. ,- &here must be superior circumstances demanding urgency which will outweigh the in"ury or damages should the losing party secure a reversal o the "udgment.,, Were it otherwise, e#ecution pending appeal may well become a tool o oppression and ine=uity instead o an instrument o solicitude and "ustice.,1

In light o these considerations, the Court has been very discriminating in the allowance o such e#ceptional e#ecution. &hus, mere allegations that the appeal is dilatory,,: or that the bond or the early e#ecution has been duly paid,,9 or that the corporation seeFing e#ecution is in inancial distress,* ... were held insu icient grounds to merit e#ecution pending appeal. On the other hand, where the goods sub"ect o the "udgment stand to perish or deteriorate during the pendency o the appeal,,? or the award o actual damages is or an amount which is i#ed and certain,,( the Court ound that 3good reasons3 e#isted or e#ecution pending appeal to prosper. %t the same time, it must also be remembered that the determination o the e#istence o 3good reasons3 is also a discretionary power, and the reviewing court will not inter ere with the e#ercise o this discretion absent a showing o grave abuse thereo .1; In the present case, we ind that respondent court was well within its discretion in issuing its =uestioned resolutions, which clearly set out the reasons or granting private respondents> motion or e#ecution pending appeal. &he observation on the deteriorating and unsanitary conditions o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts came rom tennis players who regularly use the said courts, and there is no indication that the letter was contrived or abricated simply to procure or private respondents the restoration o possession o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts. We ind no merit to petitioners> contention that the letter is inadmissible because it was not among those ormally o ered in evidence during trial at the !&C ... the letter was dated November );, )((* and it could not have ormed part o the evidence in trial at the time the parties ormally rested their cases on Eune )), )((9.1) 0erily, it could only have been submitted in evidence be ore respondent court, while the case was on appeal therewith. +ore importantly, $4I<&% no longer had any legal right to the possession and management o the 0ictoria &ennis Courts because the lease agreement between $&% and $4I<&% had already e#pired on Eune ):, )((*. Obviously, $&% as the lessor and owner o the tennis courts had every right to regain possession thereo ... and it also had every reason to be alarmed at the complaint iled by the tennis players with the Department o &ourism because it would be held accountable as owner and administrator o the tennis courts or the ill conditions o the said tennis courts. %s also observed by respondent court, 3a ter all, upon the e#piration o the lease agreement, the plainti s.appellants 6petitioners herein7 were no longer obliged to properly maintain the property.31Clearly, the restoration o $&% into the possession and management o 0ictoria &ennis Courts is in order, being a necessary conse=uence o the li ting o the preliminary in"unction and the termination o the +O% or lease agreement, and does not pre"udice in any way the resolution o the other issues in petitioners> pending appeal with respondent court such as their claim or damages rom $&% which petitioners admit to be independent o the terms o the +O%. &hus, we ind that respondent court did not gravely abuse its discretion in inding 3good reasons3 or allowing private respondents> motion or e#ecution pending appeal.

+oreover, "udgments in actions or in"unction are not stayed by the pendency o an appeal taFen there rom.1,&his rule has been held to e#tend to "udgments decreeing the dissolution o a writ o preliminary in"unction, which are immediately e#ecutory. 11 4owever, we modi y respondent court>s indings to the e#tent that it held petitioners> appeal pending therewith to be clearly dilatory, and cited this as one o the reasons or allowing e#ecution pending appeal. &his assumption prematurely "udges the merits o the main case on appeal,1: and e#cept in cases where the appeal is patently or un=uestionably intended to delay it must not be made the basis o e#ecution pending appeal i only to protect and preserve a duly e#ercised right to appeal. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DIS+ISSED. &he validity o the writ o e#ecution issued and implemented pursuant to the resolutions o the Court o %ppeals dated Euly (, )((? and September -,, )((? is S@S&%INED. No costs. SO O!DE!ED. +elo, 6Chairman7, 0itug, $anganiban, and $urisima, EE., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ ) $aragraph :6b7 o the +O% provides2 3Within a period o ive 6:7 years a ter the implementation o the above.mentioned development, $4I<&% shall continue to manage, operate, administer and develop the 0ictoria &ennis Courts and its premises. $4I<&% is hereby given the option to resume its management thereo or another period o ive 6:7 years upon mutual agreement o the parties.3 6Rollo, 1-.7 !&C Order dated Eune )*, )((9I Rollo, )):. , !&C Order dated %ugust :, )((*I Rollo, )19. 1 0bid. : !&C Order dated Eune )*, )((9I Rollo, )):. 9 Citing +anchester Development Corporation vs. Court o %ppeals, )1( SC!% :9-. * %nne# 3'3 to +otion or E#ecution o Eudgment $ending %ppealI Rollo, )*,.)*1. ? &he resolution was penned by %ssociate Eustice Eubulo /. 0erJola, and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices Emeterio C. Cui 6Chairman7 and %rtemio /. &u=uero. ( C% !esolution dated Euly (, )((?I Rollo, )?*. ); 0bid., )??. )) $er !esolution dated September -,, )((?. )Rollo, -;;. ), $etitionI Rollo, )(.-:. )1 In its resolution dated Euly (, )((?, the Court o %ppeals declared2 Section -, !ule ,( provides, 3on motion o the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party the court may, in its discretion, order e#ecution to issue even be ore the e#piration o the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order.3 &he citation o Section -, !ule ,( is not a =uotation but a paraphrasing o some pertinent provisions rom di erent paragraphs o said section. ): 0bid., -;.-). )9 !&C OrderI Rollo, )1(. )* Comment to $etitionI Rollo, -)9. )? 0bid., -)*. )( 0bid., -1?.-:;. -; Citing Santiago vs. 0as=ueJ, -)* SC!% 9,,. -) $etitioners> @rgent +otion or Issuance o %ppropriate In"unctive !elie sI Rollo, -1). -Rollo, -*1.-*9.

-, -1

+emorandum o $rivate !espondentsI Rollo, ,),. $uertollano vs. Intermediate %ppellate Court, ):9 SC!% )??I Investments, Inc. vs. Court o %ppeals, )1* SC!% ,,1. -: Investments, Inc. vs. Court o %ppeals, supra. -9 Olac vs. Court o %ppeals, -), SC!% ,-). -* !&C Order dated %ugust :, )((*I Rollo, )1(. -? Rollo, )*:.)?1. -( Diesel Construction Company, Inc. vs. Eollibee 5oods Corporation, /.!. No. ),9?;:, Eanuary -?, -;;;. ,; $<D& vs. /enovea, -;) $hil. ?9-. ,) !adio Communications o the $hilippines, Inc. vs. <antin, ),1 SC!% ,(:I %sturias vs. 0ictoriano, (? $hil. :?). ,Basuda vs. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. ))-:9(, %pril )-, -;;;. ,, +aceda vs. Development 'anF o the $hilippines, /.!. No. ),:)-?, %ugust -9, )(((I Ong vs. Court o %ppeals, -;, SC!% ,?. ,1 0d. ,: International School +anila vs. Court o %ppeals, ,;( SC!% 1*1I Ong vs. Court o %ppeals, supraI $<D&vs. /enovea, supra. ,9 International School +anila vs. Court o %ppeals, supra. ,* Diesel Construction Company, Inc. vs. Eollibee 5oods Corporation, supra. ,? Basuda vs. Court o %ppeals, supraI 'ell Carpets International &rading Corporation vs. Court o %ppeals, )?: SC!% ,:I 5ederation o @nited Namarco Distributors, Inc. vs. National +arFeting Corporation, 1 SC!% ?9*. ,( !adio Communications o the $hilippines, Inc. vs. <antin, supra. 1; 0d. 1) E#hibits 3I3 and 3E3 o $etition 65ormal O ers o Evidence7, Rollo, ?(.(:I !&C Order dated Eune )), )((9,Rollo, (9.(*. 1C% !esolution dated Euly (, )((?I Rollo, )?*. 1, Sec. 1, !ule ,(, !evised !ules o Court. 11 Crisostomo vs. Securities and E#change Commission, )*( SC!% )19I See also De ensor.Santiago vs. 0as=ueJ, -)* SC!% 9,,. 1: International School +anila vs. Court o %ppeals, ,;( SC!% 1*1I Ong vs. Court o %ppeals, supraI $<D&vs. /enovea, supra.

In an Order)) dated ;9 5ebruary )((:, the !&C denied the +otion or New &rial. It e#plained that when 5ernandeJ went to the Court o %ppeals and iled a +otion or E#tension o &ime to 5ile $etition or !eview, and the Court o %ppeals accordingly acted on the same by granting the e#tension sought, "urisdiction o the Court o %ppeals over the parties and the sub"ect matter had already attached. 5ernandeJ iled a motion or reconsideration which the trial court denied in its Order dated )1 December )((:.)-5ernandeJ iled a +otion to !econsider the Order, while Olivares moved or the e#ecution o the "udgment o the !&C citing Section -) o the !evised !ules on Summary $rocedure. ), In an Order dated ,; Eanuary )((9, the !&C granted the +otion or E#ecution and denied the +otion or !econsideration.)1 % writ o e#ecution was in act issued by the !&C on ,) Eanuary )((9.): &his prompted 5ernandeJ to ile a $etition or Certiorari, $rohibition and ,andamus with prayer or the issuance o a writ o preliminary in"unction and temporary restraining order, docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. ,(9::, be ore the Court o %ppeals.)9 &he Court o %ppeals, in a resolution dated )1 5ebruary )((9 temporarily restrained the respondents rom proceeding with the en orcement o the writ o e#ecution, 3so as not to render the petition moot and ine ectual pending uller consideration thereo , as well as or the preservation o the rights o the parties.3 )* In a decision)?dated )9 +ay )((*, the Court o %ppeals denied the $etition and a irmed the stance o the !&C. It ruled2 When petitioner herein elected to ile be ore this Court a motion or e#tension o time to ile petition or review, he in e ect opted to appeal the adverse decision o the !egional &rial Court o +anila to the Court o %ppeals. &his is so because appeal to this Court is per ected by petition or review, where "udgment was rendered by the !egional &rial Court in the e#ercise o appellate "urisdiction. &his CourtKs assumption o appellate "urisdiction resulted initially in the issuance o the resolution granting petitioner an e#tension o i teen 6):7 days within which to ile the petition or review. Since this Court ac=uired appellate "urisdiction, the only proper thing or the court below to do was to deny the motion or new trial.)( 5ernandeJ iled a +otion or !econsideration which the Court o %ppeals denied in a resolution dated ), October )((*.-; 4ence, this petition. In a resolution o this Court dated -9 Eanuary )((?,-) respondents were re=uired to ile their Comment on the $etition. $rivate respondent Olivares submitted her Comment on -9 5ebruary )((?.-- 5ernandeJ, in turn, was directed to ile his

G.R. No. 13109-

M'y 16, 200/

ATT!. JE"*" F. FERNANDE1, petitioner, vs. HON. CO*RT OF A EAL" '() CONCE CION OLI&ARE", respondents. DECISION CHICO.NA1ARIO, J.4 &he undisputed acts o this case show that a Complaint dated -, Eanuary )((, or unlaw ul detainer docFeted as Civil Case No. )1;(:, was iled by private respondent Concepcion Olivares against the herein petitioner Eesus 5ernandeJ. ) &he +etropolitan &rial Court o +anila 6+e&C7, 'ranch 80, dismissed the Complaint or lacF o su icient cause o action.Olivares appealed to the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o +anila, 'ranch 19, and the latter reversed the +e&C, ordering 5ernandeJ to pay rental arrearages, attorneyKs ees, litigation e#penses and costs, in a decision dated ;- +ay )((1.1 On -? Eune )((1, 5ernandeJ received a copy o the decision. On )- Euly )((1 or )1 days a ter receipt o the decision, he iled a +otion or !econsideration. : On -( November )((1, 5ernandeJ received an order denying his motion or reconsideration.9 On ;) December )((1, 5ernandeJ iled with the Court o %ppeals a +otion or E#tension o &ime to 5ile $etition or !eview which was granted. * Said resolution was received by 5ernandeJ on )- December )((1. In the meantime, on ;( December )((1, 5ernandeJ iled a +otion or New &rial,? docFeted as Civil Case No. (,.9*;,1, be ore the !&C o +anila, 'ranch 19, citing newly discovered evidence o receipts proving his rental payments. In view o his +otion or New &rial, 5ernandeJ, thru counsel, iled on -( December )((1 in the Court o %ppeals a +otion to Withdraw his $etition 5or !eview( which the court duly noted in its resolution dated )( Eanuary )((:.);

!eply.-, % ter the submission o 5ernandeJKs reply, -1 the parties were then re=uired by this Court, in a resolution-: dated ;- December )((?, to submit their respective memoranda. &he only issue-9 submitted or resolution in this case is2 W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E +E!E 5I<IN/ 'B $E&I&IONE! O5 % +O&ION 5O! E8&ENSION O5 &I+E &O 5I<E $E&I&ION 5O! !E0IEW 6W4IC4 IN&EN&ION GsicH W%S <%&E! WI&4D!%WN7, %@&O+%&IC%<<B DI0ES&ED &4E !E/ION%< &!I%< CO@!& 6!&C7 O5 I&S E@!ISDIC&ION O0E! &4E C%SE, %S &O EN&E!&%IN % +O&ION 5O! NEW &!I%<. In general, in order or a Court to have authority to dispose o the case on the merits, it must ac=uire "urisdiction over the sub"ect matter and over the parties.-* Eurisdiction over the sub"ect matter, or the "urisdiction to hear and decide a case, is con erred by law.-? Eurisdiction over the person, on the other hand, is ac=uired by service o summons or by voluntary appearance.-( %t irst glance and mind ul o the rule that the iling o motions seeFing a irmative relie , such as the motion or e#tension o time to ile petition or review iled by 5ernandeJ in this case, is considered voluntary submission to the "urisdiction o the court,; it may seem at once apparent that the Court o %ppeals had in act ac=uired "urisdiction over his person. It has been repeatedly held that an appearance in whatever orm, without e#pressly ob"ecting to the "urisdiction o the court over the person, is a submission to the "urisdiction o the court over the person. 4e may appear by presenting a motion, or e#ample, and unless by such appearance he speci ically ob"ects to the "urisdiction o the court, he thereby gives his assent to the "urisdiction o the court over his person.,) %s we are dealing here with the "urisdiction o an appellate court, additional rules are re=uired or "urisdiction to attach therein, to wit2 6)7 the petitioner must have invoFed the "urisdiction o the Court o %ppeals within the time or doing soI,- 6-7 he must have iled his petition or review liFewise within the time or doing soI,, 6,7 he must have paid the necessary docFet eesI,1 and 617 the other parties must have per ected their appeals in due time.,: &he !ule re=uires that in an appeal by way o $etition 5or !eview, the appeal is deemed per ected as to the petitioner upon the timely iling o the petition and the payment o docFet and other law ul ees.,9 In the discussion o the Committee on the revision o the !ules o Court, it was emphasiJed that to per ect the appeal, the party has to ile the petition or review and to pay the docFet ees within the prescribed period. &he law and its intent are clear and une=uivocal that the petition is per ected upon its iling and the payment o the docFet ees.

&hus, it may be argued, and rightly so, that the Court o %ppeals has not yet ac=uired "urisdiction over the case because 5ernandeJ merely iled a motion or e#tension o time to ile petition but not the petition itsel . Withal, sans the petition, it cannot be said that the Court o %ppeals has ac=uired "urisdiction over the case as to say that the trial court is without authority to act on a motion or new trial. It is a#iomatic that i a statute is clear, plain and ree rom ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.,* Indeed, when the law speaFs in clear and categorical language, there is no room or interpretation, vacillation or construction, but only or application.,? On this point we ully agree in the position taFen by 5ernandeJ that when he iled the motion or e#tension o time to ile petition or review, "urisdiction o the Court o %ppeals had not yet attached, such that his ailure to ile the petition itsel would normally have the e ect o rendering the decision o the lower court inal and e#ecutory. ,( &he conse=uential =uestion is2 what is the legal e ect o the iling by 5ernandeJ o a motion or new trial be ore the trial courtT %ssuming that 5ernandeJ iled his motion or new trial on time, we hold that the trial court still had "urisdiction to rule on the matter as the "urisdiction it originally ac=uired had not yet been lost. &he appellate "urisdiction o the trial court is to be "u#taposed with its residual "urisdiction as set orth in !ule 1-, Section ?6a7, ,rd paragraph o the !ules o Court. 'e ore the Court o %ppeals gives due course to a $etition or !eview, the !&C retains "urisdiction or speci ied instances enumerated therein, to wit2 6)7 &o issue orders or the protection and preservation o the rights o the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, such as, the appointment o a receiver, and the issuance o writs o preliminary attachment or preliminary in"unction. 6-7 &o approve compromises. 6,7 &o permit appeals o indigent litigants. 617 &o order e#ecution pending appeal in accordance with section - o !ule ,(. 6:7 &o allow withdrawal o the appeal.1; &he residual "urisdiction o the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost "urisdiction over the case or the sub"ect matter involved in the appeal. &his stage is reached upon the per ection o the appeals by the parties or upon the approval o the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal

o the original records or the records on appeal.1) Considering that no appeal was per ected in this case and the records o the case have not yet been transmitted to the Court o %ppeals, the case has not as yet attained the residual "urisdiction stage so as to say that the trial court already lost the "urisdiction it irst ac=uired and that it is le t with only its residual powers. &he oregoing considered, the inevitable recourse would have been to remand this case to the trial court or hearing on his motion or new trial. Such is not to be, however. So much has been said by the parties over the issue o whether or not "urisdiction attaches to the Court o %ppeals upon the iling o a motion or e#tension o time to ile petition or review thereby divesting the court o origin the power to rule on a motion or new trial. %s shall be hereunder shown, however, it turns out that the unraveling o this issue is =uite peripheral and that the resolution o this case hinges on another matter totally di erent rom that raised by the parties. 5rom the records o the case, the ultimate issue to be tacFled concerns the proper computation o the period to ile a motion or new trial. !ule ,*, Section ) o the !evised !ules o Court providing or the period to ile a motion or new trial in relation to !ule 1), Section , is in point. !ule ,*. . . . Section ). *rounds of and period for filing motion for ne trial or reconsideration. U Within the period or taFing an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the "udgment or inal order and grant a new trial or one or more o the ollowing causes materially a ecting the substantial rights o said party. !ule 1) . . . . Sec. ,. %eriod of ordinar4 appeal. U &he appeal shall be taFen within i teen 6):7 days rom notice o the "udgment or inal order appealed rom. Where a record on appeal is re=uired, the appellant shall ile a notice o appeal and a record on appeal within thirty 6,;7 days rom notice o the "udgment or inal order. &he period o appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion or new trial or reconsideration. No motion or e#tension o time to ile a motion or new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.

It is without =uestion that 5ernandeJ received a copy o the !&C Decision on -? Eune )((1. 5ourteen 6)17 days a ter the receipt o the decision or speci ically on )Euly )((1, he iled a motion or reconsideration. &his motion was denied by the !&C and the Order o denial was received by 5ernandeJ on -( November )((1. %pplying !ule ,*, Section ) o the !evised !ules o Court, he had only one 6)7 day le t to ile a motion or new trial since a motion or new trial should be iled within the period to appeal, that is, within i teen 6):7 days rom notice o the "udgment. 1- &he motion or new trial suspends the running o the period to appeal but does not e#tend the time within which an appeal must be per ected.1, 4ence i denied, a movant, liFe 5ernandeJ in this case has only the balance o the reglementary period within which to appeal.11 It bears repeating that 5ernandeJ received a copy o the !&C decision on -? Eune )((1. %pplying !ule 1), Section , o the !evised !ules o Court, he had i teen 6):7 days rom receipt o the !&C decision to ile a motion or new trial or reconsideration. 4e iled a motion or reconsideration ourteen 6)17 days a ter receipt o the decision. &he motion was denied and he had only the remaining one 6)7 day to ile a motion or new trial which day ell on ;) December )((1. Since ,; November )((1 was a holiday, 5ernandeJ had up to ;) December )((1 to ile the motion or new trial. E#tant rom the records, instead o a motion or new trial, he iled be ore the Court o %ppeals on ;) December )((1 the motion or e#tension o time to ile petition or review. &herea ter, and pending the resolution o his motion be ore the Court o %ppeals, 5ernandeJ went bacF to the !&C and iled on ;( December )((1 a motion or new trial. %pplying the oregoing, 5ernandeJKs motion or new trial was iled out o time. &he i teen 6):7.day period or iling a motion or new trial cannot be e#tended. %s early as the case o Fabalu4as v. #ap+on,1: cited in /aguiat v. 0ntermediate Appellate Court,19 and reiterated in -ung C!in Fui v. Rodrigue+,1* motions or e#tension o time to ile a motion or new trial or reconsideration may no longer be iled be ore all courts, lower than the Supreme Court. &he rule in Fabalu4as applies even i the motion is iled be ore the e#piration o the period sought to be e#tended because the i teen 6):7 days period or iling a motion or new trial or reconsideration with said court is non.e#tendible. &hus, motions or e#tension o time to ile a motion or new trial or reconsideration may be iled only in connection with cases pending be ore the Supreme Court, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the e#tension re=uested. No such motion may be iled be ore any lower courts.1? IN S@+, considering that a motion or new trial must be iled during the period or iling an appeal and that such period cannot be e#tended, 5ernandeJ, by iling his motion or new trial beyond the period to appeal, had unwittingly sealed his ate and stripped himsel o any urther relie . WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED or lacF o merit. &he !egional &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch 19, is ordered to e#ecute the decision dated ;- +ay )((1 in Civil Case No. (,.9*;,1.

"O ORDERED. %uno, 5C!airman6, Austria),artine+, Calle"o, $r., and -inga, ##., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ ) %nne# D, C% !ollo, pp. --.-9. %nne# 5, C% !ollo, pp. ,).,1. , !ollo, p. -:. 1 %nne# C, C% !ollo, pp. ,:.1-. : %nne# 4, C% !ollo, pp. 1,.1?. 9 %nne# I, !ollo, p. 1(. * %nne# D, C% !ollo, p. :*. ? %nne# C, !ollo, pp. ,9.1*. ( C% !ollo, p. ?). ); %nne# E, C% !ollo, p. ?,. )) %nne# C, C% !ollo, pp. -;.-). )%nne# ', C% !ollo, p. )(. ), SEC. -). Appeal. U &he "udgment or inal order shall be appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the same in accordance with Section -- o 'atas $ambansa 'lg. )-(. &he decision o the regional trial court in civil cases governed by this !ule, including orcible entry and unlaw ul detainer, shall be immediately e#ecutory, without pre"udice to a urther appeal that may be taFen there rom. Section ); o !ule *; shall be deemed repealed. )1 %nne# 5, C% !ollo, pp. )9.)*. ): C% !ollo, p. (). )9 C% !ollo, pp. )).):. )* C% !ollo, p. (,. )? $enned by %ssociate Eustice 5ermin %. +artin, Er., with Eustices !uben &. !eyes and Omar @. %min concurring. )( !ollo, p. ,). -; !ollo, pp. ,1.,:. -) !ollo, p. :?. -!ollo, pp. :(.9*. -, !ollo, p. 9*. -1 !ollo, pp. *1.*?. -: !ollo, pp. ?*.??. -9 +emorandum or $etitioner, p. :I !ollo, p. )-1. -* %ntiporda, Er. v. /architorena, /.!. no. ),,-?(, -, December )(((, ,-) SC!% ::). -? Sumndad v. 4arrigan, /.!. No. ),-,:?, )- %pril -;;-, ,?) SC!% ?. -( %ng $ing v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. )-9(1*, ): Euly )(((, ,); SC!% ,1,I +elendres, Er. v. Comelec,/.!. No. )-((:?, -: November )(((, ,)( SC!% -9-. ,; 4ongFong and Shanghai 'anF v. Catalan, /.!. No. )(:(;, )? October -;;1I citing Oaminal v. Castillo,/.!. No. ):-**9, ;? October -;;,, 1), SC!% )?(. ,) 5ores v. Murbito, ,* $hil *19 6)()?7, cited in 0illareal v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. );*,)1, )1 September )((?, -(: SC!% :)). ,!ule 1), Section , o the !evised !ules o Court. ,, !ule 1). . . . Sec. -. +odes o appeal. U ... 6b7 $etition or review. U &he appeal to the Court o %ppeals in cases decided by the !egional &rial Court in the e#ercise o its appellate "urisdiction shall be by petition or review in accordance with !ule 1-. !ule 1-. . . . Sec. ?. $er ection o appealI e ect thereo . U D'A *#o( ,<% ,78%ly :7l7(; o: ' #%,7,7o( :o0 0%=7%> '() ,<% #'y8%(, o: ,<% 6o00%$#o()7(; )o6H%, '() o,<%0 l'>:ul :%%$, the appeal is deemed per ected as to the petitioner. &he !egional &rial Court loses "urisdiction over the case upon the #%0:%6,7o( o: ,<% '##%'l$ iled in due time and the e#piration o the time to appeal o the other parties.

4owever, be ore the Court o %ppeals gives due course to the petition, the !egional &rial Court may issue orders or the protection and preservation o the rights o the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals o indigent litigants, order e#ecution pending appeal in accordance with Section - o !ule ,(, and allow withdrawal o the appeal. ,1 0bid. ,: +inutes o the meeting o the !ules o Court !evision Committee, )? September )((), p.)). ,9 .!epublic v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. );,??-, -: November )((?, -(( SC!% )(((. ,* <and 'anF o the $hils. v. Court o %ppeals, /.!.No. ))?*)-, ;: Euly )((9, -:? SC!% 1;1I Caguioa v. <aviNa, %.+. No. !&E.;;.)::,, -; November -;;;, ,1: SC!% 1(. ,? &eodoro v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. )1;*((, ); September -;;-, ,?? SC!% :-*. ,( II 5eria and Noche, Civil $rocedure %nnotated, pp. )*-.)*, 6-;;) Ed.7. 1; Paton v. $alanca, /.!. No. ):))1(, ;* September -;;1, citing Macate v. Comelec, /.!. No. )119*?, ;) +arch -;;), ,:, SC!% 11). 1) !egalado, 5lorenJ, !emedial <aw Compendium, p. ,** 6)((* Ed7. 1Cf. De las %las v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. <.,?;;9, )9 +ay )(*?, ?, SC!% -;;. 1, !ule --, Section - o the !evised !ules o Court provides2 SEC&ION -. Effect of interruption. U Should an act be done which e ectively interrupts the running o the period, the allowable period a ter such interruption shall start to run on the day a ter notice o the cessation o the cause thereo . &he day o the act that caused the interruption shall be e#cluded in the computation o the period. 6See also II 5eria and Noche, Civil $rocedure %nnotated, p. )91 and pp. :;,.:;1 6-;;) Ed.7. 11 /.!. No. *;?(:, ,; +ay )(?), )1- SC!% -;?. 1: /.!. No. *,?,9, )? %ugust )(??, )91 SC!% :;:. 19 /.!. No. )1)(,?, ;- %pril -;;), ,:9 SC!% ,)I %rgel v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. )-??;:, )October )(((, ,)9 SC!% :)), cited in %matorio v. $eople, /.!. No. ):;1:,, )1 5ebruary -;;,, ,(* SC!% 11:. 1* I 5eria and Noche, Civil $rocedure %nnotated, p. 9-( 6-;;) Ed.7.

G.R. No. 1/0327

Ju(% 18, 2003

RE *+LIC OF THE HIL"., 0%#0%$%(,%) 5y ,<% "%60%,'0y o: D%#'0,8%(, o: E(=70o(8%(, '() N',u0'l R%$ou06%$, ,<% R%;7o('l E?%6u,7=% D70%6,o0, DDENR R%;7o( IIA '() MARION &. A+*NDO, "R., Co($%0=',7o( O::76%0 DDENR R%;7o( IIA, $etitioners, vs. MARIL!N A. ERALTA, RO"IE A. LA&ALAN, GRACE A. RE!E", AL+ERTO +. ALONDA!, MERC! +. ALONDA!, RICHELIE* +. ALONDA!, A1*CENA +. ALONDA! AND JANETA A. +AL*RAN, '() ,<% R%;7$,%0 o: D%%)$ o: D'='o C7,y, !espondents. DECISION CALLEJO, "R., J.: &his is a petition or review on certiorari o the Decision) o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. :,11; which upheld the orders, dated 5ebruary :, )((( and +ay 9, )(((, o the !egional &rial Court o Davao City, 'ranch ),.&he %ntecedents On September -9, )((1, +arilyn %. $eralta, !osie %. <avalan, /race %. !eyes, %lberto '. %londay, +ercy '. %londay, !ochelieu '. %londay, %Jucena '. %londay, 'enedicto '. %londay, and Eaneta %. 'aluran iled a complaint or recovery o possession and ownership o real property with the !egional &rial Court o Davao City, 'ranch ),, against the de endants !epublic o the $hilippines, the !egional E#ecutive Director o !egion 8I o the Department o Environment and Natural !esources 6DEN!7 and the Conservation O icer in said region. &he plainti s alleged therein, inter alia, that they are the heirs o 'enedicto '. %londay who applied or and was granted 4omestead $atent No. 0.))-11 by the then Secretary o %griculture and Natural !esources 6DEN!7 over <ot ,:9) with an area o -,*,?(? s=uare metersI the said lot was a portion o <ot -(?? o the /uiang Cadastre located in /uiang, Davao City and that on the basis o said patent, 'enedicto %londay was issued Original Certi icate o &itle No. $.-*: over the said property by the !egister o DeedsI they purchased the said property rom their ather 'enedicto and were issued on %pril -:, )(?? &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. &. ),1-,) in their namesI the property was allegedly alienable and disposable property within $ro"ect ).', certi ied on Eanuary ),, )(,) as per <C +ap No. )1)- approved by the Director o 'ureau o 5orestry, as con irmed by the letter o the petitioner !egional Director, dated 5ebruary ):, )((1I they had been in possession o the said property as owner thereo since November )(9: and that some time in )(9(, o icers o the 'ureau o 5orest Development 6'5D7 sought his permission to use a portion o said property with an area o ive hectaresI the '5D caused the construction o a big concrete building on said portion o the propertyI on Eune -?, )(*), 'enedicto>s lawyer wrote a letter to the '5D demanding that it vacate the said portion o his property on which the building was constructed but said letter was ignoredI on

5ebruary -1, )(*(, 5orest Conservation O icer +arion %bundio, Sr. asFed permission rom 'enedicto to allow the '5D to install on a portion o the sub"ect property consisting o twenty. ive s=uare meters a small generator to provide electricity to the e#isting building and compound o the $hilippine Eagles %cclimatiJation and 'reeding CenterI 'enedicto did not give his assent to these re=uests o the a orenamed government o icials despite which they still caused the construction o the building and installation o the generator unitI the plainti s demanded that the de endants vacate the property on Euly )1, )((1 but the latter re used. &he plainti s prayed that a ter due proceedings "udgment be rendered in their avor and that the de endants be ordered to vacate the sub"ect property and pay the plainti s damages and litigation e#penses. &he plainti s appended as anne#es to their petition copies o the a oresaid title and letters o the '5D o icials. In their answer to the complaint, the de endants, through the O ice o the Solicitor /eneral 6OS/7, interposed the special and a irmative de enses that2 6a7 the complaint did not state a cause o action against themI 6b7 the building constructed by the de endants was within the perimeter o the +t. %po National $arF, a orest reserve under $roclamation No. :(, as amended, o the $resident o the $hilippines, and not on the plainti s> propertyI 6c7 the installation o a generator unit did not push throughI 6d7 $ro"ect ).', under which the sub"ect property was declassi ied as alienable and disposable property per <and Classi ication +ap No. )1)-, should not prevail over $roclamation No. :(, as amendedI 6e7 the suit was against the State which cannot be sued without its consentI 6 7 the plainti s ailed to e#haust all administrative remedies be ore iling their complaint., &he de endants prayed that the complaint be dismissed. &he parties iled their respective pre.trial brie s. % ter the re=uisite pre.trial con erence, the !&C issued an Order, dated %ugust -(, )((:, constituting a panel o commissioners composed o Engineer !odericF !. Calapardo, as &eam <eader, and /regorio Cenabre and Engineer !ogelio Mantua, as members, to conduct a relocation survey and determine i the respondents> property is part o the +t. %po National $arF. % ter the survey, the panel submitted its report to the trial court, dated November *, )((:, stating that2 3the land in case is (-,-)9 s=uare meters within the certi ied %lienable and Disposable 6% L D7 <ands while the remaining portion o )1:,9?- s=uare meters is within the +t. %po National $arF !eservation.31 In their comment on the report, the plainti s claimed that the survey team altered the boundary line o their property in the course o the survey and that the team did not taFe into account $ro"ect ).' per <and Classi ication +ap No. )1)- approved by the Director o the 'ureau o 5orestry. &he de endants, on the other hand, insisted that the survey team did not alter the boundary line o the property and that it tooF into account $ro"ect ).' and <and Classi ication +ap No. )1)- in conducting the survey and preparing its report. On motion o the plainti s and with the con ormity o the de endants, through %ssistant Solicitor /eneral %urora $. CorteJ, the !&C issued an order on +arch *, )((* declaring that there were no actual issues involved in the

case and that it would decide the case on the basis o the pleadings and memoranda o the parties as well as the commissioners> report. On +ay 9, )((*, the !&C rendered "udgment in avor o the plainti s and against the de endants inding and declaring that the property occupied by the de endants was part o the plainti s> property. &he !&C ordered the de endants to vacate the property, restore possession thereo to the plainti s and remove all the improvements thereon made by them. &he decretal portion o the decision reads2 In view o all the oregoing, "udgment is hereby rendered sustaining the validity and legality o the plainti >s right o ownership and possession over that parcel o land covered by &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. &.),1-,) o the !egistry o Davao City. De endants are hereby ordered to vacate the portion o land covered by &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. &.),1-,) o the !egistry o Deeds o Davao City alluded to by the plainti s and to restore peace ul possession o the same to them. De endants are urther ordered to remove all the improvements they have introduced thereon. : &he !&C declared that the report o the panel did not taFe into account $roperty ).' or <C +ap )1)-I hence, the said report had no probative weight. %ccording to the !&C, the torrens title o the property prevails over the relocation survey o the panel o commissioners and that the Director o 5orestry declassi ied the respondents> property pursuant to Section )?-* o the )(?* !evised %dministrative Code. On +ay ,;, )((*, ive days be ore the e#piration o the period to ile an appeal, the de endants iled, through registered mail, a motion or the reconsideration o the !&C decision. On Eune )), )((*, the !&C issued e# parte an order e#punging the said motion or reconsideration on the ground that it was a mere scrap o paper or ailure o the de endants to incorporate any notice o hearing as re=uired by Sections 1 and :, !ule ): o the !ules o Court. @naware o the Eune )), )((* Order o the !&C, the de endants iled on Euly )1, )((* a +ani estation with Notice o 4earing on +otion or !econsideration dated Euly *, )((* appending thereto a notice o hearing o their +ay ,;, )((* +otion or !econsideration. In the meantime, on Euly )?, )((*, the de endants received a copy o the Eune )), )((* Order o the trial court e#punging their motion or reconsideration. On Euly --, )((*, the de endants iled their notice o appeal rom the decision o the court. &he plainti s, or their part, iled a motion to dismiss the appeal o the de endants on the ground that their +ay ,;, )((* +otion or !econsideration was a mere scrap o paperI hence, the motion did not toll the running o the reglementary period or appeal. &hus, the de endants allegedly ailed to per ect their appeal rom the decision o the court within the reglementary period. On %ugust )), )((*, the !&C received the de endants> notice o appeal. +eanwhile, the presiding "udge o 'ranch ), retired, and or a time, the said !&C branch remained vacant. On Eanuary -?, )(((, the !&C, through the newly.

appointed "udge, issued an order giving due course to the de endants> appeal declaring that they still had a period o ive days rom Euly )?, )((* when they received a copy o the order e#punging their notice o appeal or until Euly -,, )((* within which to per ect their appeal rom the Eune )), )((* Order. Since the de endants iled their notice o appeal on Euly --, )((*, they had per ected their appeal within the reglementary period. &he !&C urther declared that although the de endants> +ay ,;, )((* +otion or !econsideration was de ective, the !ules o Court should be liberally construed. &he !&C orthwith directed the branch clerF o court to orward the records o the case to the Court o %ppeals. On 5ebruary :, )(((, however, the !&C issued an e# parte order dismissing the de endants> appeal on its inding that in light o "urisprudence brought to its attention, they ailed to per ect their appeal within the reglementary period. When the de endants received the 5ebruary :, )((( Order o the !&C, they iled a motion or reconsideration thereo , set or hearing on 5ebruary )(, )(((. On 5ebruary ?, )(((, the !&C issued an order declaring that the hearing set on 5ebruary )(, )((( was mooted by its Order dated 5ebruary :, )((( which dismissed the de endants> appeal. &he plainti s iled on 5ebruary );, )((( a motion or e#ecution, claiming that the !&C decision had become inal and e#ecutory. On 5ebruary )?, )(((, the !&C issued an order granting the plainti s> motion and ordered the issuance o a writ o e#ecution. &he de endants iled a +otion or !econsideration dated 5ebruary -9, )((( o the 5ebruary :, )((( Order o the !&C dismissing their appeal and their opposition to the issuance o a writ o e#ecution. &he de endants were unaware that in the interim, the !&C had already granted the plainti s> motion or a writ o e#ecution on 5ebruary )?, )(((. &he plainti s opposed the de endants> +otion or !econsideration dated 5ebruary -9, )(((. On +ay 9, )(((, the !&C issued an order denying the de endants> motion or reconsideration and at the same time denying the plainti s> motion or e#ecution on the ground that public policy prohibited the issuance o a writ o e#ecution against the government. &he !&C recalled the writ o e#ecution it earlier issued. &herea ter, the de endants, now the petitioners, iled with the Court o %ppeals a petition or certiorari under !ule 9: o the )((* !ules o Court, as amended, or the nulli ication o the 5ebruary :, )((( and +ay 9, )((( Orders o the !&C alleging that the2 I !ES$ONDEN& CO@!& CO++I&&ED /!%0E %'@SE O5 DISC!E&ION %+O@N&IN/ &O <%CP O! E8CESS O5 E@!ISDIC&ION IN ISS@IN/ I&S O!DE! D%&ED 5E'!@%!B :, )((( %ND O!DE! D%&ED +%B 9, )(((. II

!ES$ONDEN& CO@!& CO++I&&ED /!%0E %'@SE O5 DISC!E&ION %+O@N&IN/ &O <%CP O! E8CESS O5 E@!ISDIC&ION IN S@S&%ININ/ &4E 0%<IDI&B %ND <E/%<I&B O5 OWNE!S4I$ O5 $!I0%&E !ES$ONDEN&S O0E! % $%!CE< O5 <%ND CO0E!ED 'B &!%NS5E! CE!&I5IC%&E O5 &I&<E NO. ),1-,).9 On %pril -*, -;;), the C% rendered its decision denying due course and dismissing the petition or certiorari. &he appellate court held that petitioners> +ay ,;, )((* +otion or !econsideration o the !&C decision did not comply with Section :, !ule ): o the !ules o Court, as amendedI hence, a mere scrap o paper which did not toll the running o the reglementary period or appeal. &hus, the !&C decision had already become inal and e#ecutory. %ccording to the appellate court, the !&C did not commit any grave abuse o discretion in dismissing the petitioners> appeal therein. %s such, they were not entitled to a writ o certiorari. &he C% urther held that the petitioners, through the negligence o the OS/, ailed to per ect their appeal. &he C% opined that to nulli y the title o respondents over the sub"ect property, the petitioners should have instituted a petition or reversion, and not a petition or certiorari under !ule 9: o the )((* !ules o Court, as amended. &he petitioners iled the instant petition or review on certiorari seeFing to reverse and set aside the decision o the C%. &he petitioners allege that the appellate court committed reversible error in inding and declaring that they ailed to per ect their appeal rom the decision o the trial court within the reglementary period. &he C% liFewise allegedly erred when it held that the !&C did not commit grave abuse o its discretion amounting to e#cess or lacF o "urisdiction when it dismissed the petitioners> appeal via its 5ebruary :, )((( Order. &he petitioners contend that by dismissing their petition, the C% thereby sustained the validity o the respondents> title despite strong evidence that the said property is part o the public orest and, there ore, inalienable. &he petitioners urther argue that even i their notice o appeal was belatedly iled, the rule on per ection o appeals should be suspended and that their appeal should be given due course on grounds o e=uity and substantial "ustice. &hey submit that i their appeal is not reinstated, the !epublic o the $hilippines will be deprived o a part o the +t. %po National $arF consisting o no less than )1:,9?s=uare meters. &he petitioners cite the ruling o this Court in !epublic v. Court o %ppeals.* &he petition is meritorious. &he Court agrees with the C% that the OS/ was negligent when it iled on +ay ,;, )((* the de ective motion or reconsideration. Section -, !ule ,* o the !ules o Court provides that a motion or reconsideration or a motion or a new trial shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds there or, a written notice o which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party. Such written notice is that prescribed in Sections 1 and :, !ule ): o the !ules o Court. @nder Section 1, paragraph - o said rule, a notice o hearing on a motion shall be served by the

movant to all the parties concerned at least three days be ore the date o hearing.1 p!i1 Section : o the same rule re=uires that the notice o hearing shall be directed to the parties concerned and shall state the time and place o the hearing o the motion. &he re=uirements, ar rom being merely technical and procedural as claimed by the petitioners, are vital elements o procedural due process. ? Since the !ules o Court do not i# any period within which the said party may ile his reply or opposition, the trial court would have no way o determining whether the adverse party agrees or ob"ects to the motion and, i he ob"ects, to hear him on his ob"ection. 4ence, the need or the movant to set the time and place o hearing o its motion.( &he re=uirements entombed in Sections 1 and : o !ule ): o the !ules o Court are mandatory and non.compliance therewith is atal and renders the motion pro ormaI a worthless piece o paper which the clerF o court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon.); In cases o motions or a new trial or or the reconsideration o a "udgment, the running o the period or appeal is not tolled by the mere iling or pendency o said motion.)) In this case, the petitioners, through the OS/, received on +ay -;, )((* the decision o the !&CI hence, they had until Eune 1, )((* within which to ile their motion or reconsideration or or a new trial or to per ect their appeal rom said adverse decision. %lthough the petitioners iled the motion or reconsideration dated +ay ,;, )((* within the reglementary period, said motion ailed to comply with Sections 1 and : o !ule ):. &he records show that there is no proo that the respondents were actually served with a copy o said motion, as re=uired by Section );, !ule ), o the !ules o Court.1avvp!i1 &he OS/ did not bother to ile an amended motion or reconsideration containing the re=uirements o Sections 1 and : o !ule ): o the !ules o Court. &he OS/ o ered no valid "usti ication or its ailure to comply with Sections 1 and :, !ule ): o the !ules o Court e#cept the sel .serving claim o Solicitor Evaristo +. $adilla that his omission was sheer inadvertence, caused by heavy pressure o worF in preparing numerous pleadings and in the almost daily attendance in court or naturaliJation cases and those or nullity o marriage, among others. Other than the bare aced allegations o Solicitor $adilla, he o ered no speci ic details as to what pleadings he prepared and the hearings he attended which prevented him rom complying with Sections 1 and : o !ule ): o the !ules o Court. +oreover, i Solicitor $adilla was able to prepare within the reglementary period the +ay ,;, )((* +otion or !econsideration, he o ered no valid "usti ication or his ailure to incorporate in said motion or append thereto a simple one.paragraph notice o hearing which could have been accomplished in a ew minutes. What is so nettlesome is that the +ay ,;, )((* +otion or !econsideration o petitioners was signed not only by Solicitor $adilla but also by %ssistant Solicitor /eneral %urora $. Cortes. Even i Solicitor $adilla, through his negligence, ailed to incorporate in said motion or reconsideration the re=uisite notice o hearing, the %ssistant Solicitor /eneral should have noticed the omission be ore she a i#ed her signature thereon and sought the immediate recti ication thereo by Solicitor $adilla be ore said motion

was iled. She did not. She o ered no valid e#planation or her au# pas either. &he general rule is that the clients are bound by the mistaFes and negligence o their counsel.)In a case o recent vintage, the Court tooF to tasF the OS/ or its lacFadaisical attitude and complacency in the handling o its cases or the government and reminded the OS/ that2 R "ust liFe other members o the 'ar, the canons under the Code o $ro essional !esponsibility apply with e=ual orce on lawyers in government service in the discharge o their o icial tasFs. &hese ethical duties are rendered even more e#acting as to them because, as government counsel, they have the added duty to abide by the policy o the State to promote a high standard o ethics in public service. 5urthermore, it is incumbent upon the OS/, as part o the government bureaucracy, to per orm and discharge its duties with the highest degree o pro essionalism, intelligence and sFill and to e#tend prompt, courteous and ade=uate service to the public.), &rite to state, this Court is impelled to do so anew in this case. 1 p!i1 &he C% cannot be aulted or ruling that having lost their right o appeal through the negligence o the OS/ the petitioners are not entitled to a writ o certiorari under !ule 9: o )(?* !ules o Civil $rocedure.)1 4owever, prescinding rom all the oregoing, this Court grants not only petitioners> plea that it suspend its own rule on the per ection o appeals but also directs the reopening o the trial o the case or the parties to adduce their respective evidence. &he Court e#cepts this case rom the said rule in the interest o "ustice, to avert a grave miscarriage o "ustice to the State through the negligence o the OS/. &he State has the right to adduce its evidence, testimonial and documentary. Courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party o this right but, instead, a ord every party litigant the amplest opportunity or the proper and "ust disposition o its cause, ree rom the constraints o technicalities.): &he trial court no less declared in its Eanuary -?, )((( Order that although the petitioners> +ay ,;, )((* +otion or !econsideration was de ective, the !ules o Court should be liberally construed only to maFe a volte ace and issue e# parte an order dismissing the appeal o the petitioners and canceling the hearing on the petitioners> motion or reconsideration set on 5ebruary )(, )(((. What is involved in this case is a portion o land consisting o no less than )1:,9?s=uare meters or less than i teen hectares which they claim is part o the +t. %po National $arF as shown by the relocation survey o the panel o commissioners. &he case is one o public interest. I the a oresaid property is, indeed, part o the orest reserve as claimed by the petitioners but their right to adduce their evidence is oreclosed by the dismissal o the present petition, the said property would be orever lost to the pre"udice o the State. In !epublic v. Imperial,)9 this Court held that2

&he need, there ore, to determine once and or all whether the lands sub"ect o petitioner>s reversion e orts are oreshore lands constitutes good and su icient cause or rela#ing procedural rules and granting the third and ourth motions or e#tension to ile appellant>s brie . $etitioner>s appeal presents an e#ceptional circumstance impressed with public interest and must then be given due course. )* &he trial court rendered "udgment in avor o the respondents as it ordered the petitioners to vacate that portion o the sub"ect property occupied by them and to return possession thereo to the respondents, without re=uiring the parties to adduce evidence on the actual issues o 6a7 whether or not the property covered by the title o the respondents is part o the +t. %po National $arF 6a orest reserve7I 6b7 whether or not the building constructed by the petitioners is inside the orest reserveI and 6c7 whether or not the petitioners installed a generator unit in the respondents> property. It bears stressing that the trial court ormed a panel o commissioners to conduct a relocation survey o the sub"ect property. &he panel o commissioners ound that )1:,9?- s=uare meters which is a portion o the +t. %po National $arF had been included in the respondents> title to the sub"ect property. &he trial court ignored this and did not even bother to receive the parties> respective evidence on the said report. &he panel o commissioners was not even called to testi y on its indings. &he appellate court will be able to review on appeal the decision o the trial court and ascertain whether there has been a travesty o "ustice to the gross pre"udice o the State. &he respondents will not su er substantial pre"udice i the trial is reopened. &he records show that the trial court denied respondents> motion or a writ o e#ecution although the trial court had dismissed the appeal o the petitioners. &he respondents did not even assail the order o the trial court. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. :,11; is !E0E!SED %ND SE& %SIDE. &he Orders o the !egional &rial Court o Davao City, 'ranch ),, dated 5ebruary :, )((( and +ay :, )((( in Civil Case No. -,,)9?.(1 are SE& %SIDE. &he said !egional &rial Court is DI!EC&ED to reopen the trial to enable the parties to adduce their respective evidence. &he O ice o the Solicitor /eneral is hereby directed to represent the petitioners during the trial. No costs. SO O!DE!ED. Davide, Er., C.E., 'ellosillo, $uno, 0itug, $anganiban, Ouisumbing, Bnares.Santiago, Sandoval./utierreJ, Carpio, %ustria.+artineJ, Corona, Carpio.+orales, and %Jcuna, EE., concur.
Foo,(o,%$

$enned by %ssociate Eustice 'ienvenido <. !eyes, with %ssociate Eustices Eubulo /. 0erJola and +arina <. 'uJon, concurring. $enned by Eudge Isaac /. !abillo, Er. , Id. at (1.(*. 1 !ollo, p. 11. : !ollo, p. ));. 9 Id. at 99. * -(- SC!% -1, 6)((?7. ? Ibasan v. !epublic o the $hilippines, (* SC!% );; 6)(?;7. ( +anila Surety L 5idelity Co., Inc. v. 'ath Construction L Company, )1 SC!% 1,: 6)(9:7. ); $allada v. !&C o Palibo, %Flan, 'r. ), ,;1 SC!% 11; 6)(((7. )) 'anF o the $hilippine Islands o Palibo, %Flan, 'ranch ), v. 5ar East +olasses Corporation, )(? SC!% 9?( 6)(()7. )%daJa v. 'arinaga, );1 SC!% 9?1 6)(?)7. ), 5ar East Shipping Company v. Court o %ppeals, -(* SC!% ,; 6)((?7. )1 National Irrigation %dministration v. Court o %ppeals, ,)? SC!% -:: 6)(((7. ): Sapad v. Court o %ppeals, ,1? SC!% ,;1 6-;;;7. )9 ,;, SC!% )-* 6)(((7. )* Ibid.

G.R. No. 1//-/1

A#07l 1-, 200-

EO LE OF THE HILI INE", petitioner, vs. DA&ID ". ODILAO, JR., respondent. DECISION A*"TRIA.MARTINE1, J.4 'e ore us is a petition or review on certiorari iled by the $eople o the $hilippines assailing the Decision) o the Court o %ppeals dated September -*, -;;- in C%. /.!. S$ No. *))(? which directed Eudge Caminade o the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o Cebu City 6'ranch 97, to de er the proceedings in Criminal Case No. C'@. ::-?, until the petition or review o the reinvestigation report o the O ice o the City $rosecutor is resolved by the Department o Eustice 6DOE7. &he antecedent acts are as ollows. 4erein respondent David S. Odilao, Er. together with Enri=ue Samonte and +ario Bares, was charged with Esta a in an In ormation- iled by the %sst. City $rosecutor 5eliciano with the !&C o Cebu City, to wit2 &he undersigned $rosecutor I o Cebu City, accuses David Odilao, Er., Enri=ue Samonte and +ario Bares o the crime o ES&%5%, committed as ollows2

&hat sometime during the latter part o )((*, and or sometime prior or subse=uent thereto, in the City o Cebu, $hilippines, and within the "urisdiction o this 4onorable Court, the said accused, conniving, con ederating and mutually helping with one another, having received in trust rom &rans Eagle Corporation a lu#ury car Fnown as 3Eeep CheroFee Sport 1wd3 valued at $),)((,:-;.;; with the agreement that they would sign the document o sale i they are interested to buy the same and with the obligation to return the said car to &rans Eagle Corporation i they are not interested, the said accused, once in possession o the said lu#ury car, ar rom complying with their obligation, with deliberate intent, with intent to gain, with un aith ulness and grave abuse o con idence, did then and there misappropriate, misapply and convert into their own personal use and bene it the same or the amount o $),)((,:-;.;; which is the e=uivalent value thereo , and inspite o repeated demands made upon them to let them comply with their obligation to return the lu#ury car, they have ailed and re used and instead denied to have received the lu#ury car Fnown as 3Eeep CheroFee Sport 1WD3 and up to the present time still ail and re use to do so, to the damage and pre"udice o &rans Eagle Corporation in the amount a orestated. CON&!%!B &O <%W. % warrant o arrest against respondent was then issued by the E#ecutive Eudge. @pon motion o respondent, the E#ecutive Eudge issued an Order , dated September -?, -;;; directing the O ice o the City $rosecutor to conduct reinvestigation o the case with a caveat that the reinvestigation will be terminated within ten days rom receipt o the order and therea ter, submit appropriate recommendation to it. In the meantime the E#ecutive Eudge countermanded the service o the warrant o arrest. 'ased on his reinvestigation report1 dated October )*, -;;; which ound no probable cause, %sst. City $rosecutor Capacio iled with the trial court a +otion to Dismiss: dated October -;, -;;;. On October -*, -;;;, private complainant Carmen /. 'ugash iled an urgent motion to disregard the reinvestigation report. 9 On November ,, -;;;, private complainant iled with the DOE a petition or review* seeFing the reversal o the !einvestigation !eport. In an Order dated October ,;, -;;;, the trial court de erred the arraignment until the petition or review would have been inally resolved by the Department o Eustice.? On 5ebruary -;, -;;), the trial court issued another order holding in abeyance the resolution o the motion to dismiss until the DOE shall have resolved the petition or review. ( +ore than one year later, private complainant iled with the trial court on +arch )1, -;;-, a +otion to Suspend !esolution o the +otion to Dismiss.); &herea ter, the trial court, acting on the prosecution>s motion to dismiss iled on October -;, -;;;

and private complainant>s motion to disregard the reinvestigation report, issued an Order)) dated +ay -), -;;-, 6)7 denying the motion to dismissI and 6-7 declaring the motion to disregard the reinvestigation report to be moot and academic, rationaliJing that 3GtHhe !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure which was approved on December ), -;;; vests now authority to the trial court to rule on the presence or absence o probable cause. I the Court inds probable cause it will issue orthwith a warrant o arrest otherwise it will dismiss the case.3 !espondent iled a motion or reconsideration)- which was denied in the Order), dated Eune ),, -;;- o the !&C which liFewise directed the implementation o the e#isting warrant o arrest against him. !espondent went up to the Court o %ppeals by iling a petition or certiorari and prohibition,)1 docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. ())(?, against the $eople o the $hilippines, $residing Eudge Caminade and private complainant Carmen 'ugash. On September -*, -;;-, the Court o %ppeals rendered a Decision): granting the petition and directing the trial court to de er the proceedings until the petition or review be ore the DOE has been resolved. 4ence, the $eople o the $hilippines iled the instant petition or review on certiorari seeFing the reversal o the Court o %ppeal>s decision. $etitioner, represented by the O ice o the Solicitor /eneral 6OS/7, claims2 I &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S CO++I&&ED !E0E!SI'<E E!!O! IN NO& 5INDIN/ &4%& &4E &!I%< CO@!& W%S E@S&I5IED IN !ESO<0IN/ &4E +O&ION &O DIS+ISS 5I<ED 'B &4E O55ICE O5 &4E CI&B $!OSEC@&O! DES$I&E &4E $ENDENCB O5 % $E&I&ION 5O! !E0IEW 'E5O!E &4E DE$%!&+EN& O5 E@S&ICE. II &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S CO++I&&ED !E0E!SI'<E E!!O! IN NO& 5INDIN/ &4%& &4E &!I%< CO@!& W%S E@S&I5IED IN DI!EC&IN/ &4E I+$<E+EN&%&ION O5 &4E W%!!%N& O5 %!!ES& %5&E! 5INDIN/ $!O'%'<E C%@SE. III &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S CO++I&&ED !E0E!SI'<E E!!O! IN /!%N&IN/ &4E INE@NC&ION SO@/4& 'B &4E !ES$ONDEN& W4IC4 ENEOINED &4E &!I%< CO@!& 5!O+ I+$<E+EN&IN/ &4E W%!!%N& O5 %!!ES& %ND 5!O+ 5@!&4E! COND@C&IN/ $!OCEEDIN/S IN &4E C%SE @N&I< &4E $E&I&ION 5O! !E0IEW

O5 &4E !EIN0ES&I/%&ION !E$O!& O5 &4E CI&B $!OSEC@&O! IS !ESO<0ED 'B &4E DE$%!&+EN& O5 E@S&ICE. On December )), -;;-, we issued a !esolution)9 re=uiring respondent to ile his comment on the petition. In compliance therewith respondent iled his CommentAOpposition to $etitioner>s %pplication or &emporary !estraining Order andAor Writ o $reliminary In"unction,)* which we duly noted. !espondent alleges2 a. &he $etition or !eview on Certiorari iled by the O ice o the Solicitor /eneral, and wherein the %pplication or &emporary !estraining Order andAor Writ o $reliminary In"unction is incorporated, is atally de ective, hence both $etition and %pplication should be dismissed and denied, respectivelyI and b. $etitioner.applicant ailed to ade=uately and su iciently show that it is entitled to the issuance o the temporary restraining order andAor writ o preliminary in"unction, while on the other hand, it is undeniable that the issuance o the temporary restraining order andAor writ o preliminary in"unction would undeniably cause irreparable damage to the person and rights o herein respondent. @nFnown to us, however, while herein petition was pending our resolution, private complainant 'ugash iled a motion or reconsideration be ore the Court o %ppeals, seeFing reversal o its Decision dated September -*, -;;-. &he Court o %ppeals granted private complainant>s motion or reconsideration per its !esolution dated Eune )-, -;;,, thereby reversing its own Decision dated September -*, -;;-. In said !esolution, the Court o %ppeals ruled that the trial court>s Orders dated +ay -), -;;- and Eune ),, -;;-, denying the prosecution>s motion to dismiss together with the implementation o the warrant o arrest against herein respondent is valid, pursuant to Section )), !ule ))9 o the !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure which provides that the suspension o arraignment shall not be more than si#ty days rom the iling o the petition or review o the resolution o the prosecutor. It should be emphasiJed that the !esolution o Eune )-, -;;, was issued by the Court o %ppeals despite the pendency o the petition or review on certiorari be ore us. We were only apprised o such development when respondent urnished us with a copy o his 0ery @rgent +otion or !econsideration)? iled with the Court o %ppeals, where he sought reconsideration o its !esolution dated Eune )-, -;;,. &he records do not show whether the Court o %ppeals had resolved said motion. !espondent liFewise iled with us an @rgent +ani estation)( dated Eune )9, -;;,, in orming us that the DOE, acting on private complainant Carmen 'ugash>s petition or review, has issued a !esolution-; dated +ay -*, -;;,, denying the petition or reviewI in e ect, sustaining the iling o the motion to dismiss by the %ssistant City $rosecutor.

+eanwhile, on October 9, -;;,, we received petitioner>s Consolidated !eply and Comment,-) praying that the !esolution o the Court o %ppeals dated Eune )-, -;;,, inding the trial court>s Orders to be valid, be a irmed and that a temporary restraining order andAor preliminary in"unction be issued to restrain respondent and any person acting in his behal rom implementing the Court o %ppeals> decision dated September -*, -;;- which directed the trial court to de er the proceedings be ore it until the DOE shall have resolved the petition or review iled be ore the DOE. &he main issue brought be ore us is whether or not the trial court was correct in denying the prosecution>s motion to dismiss the esta a case and ordering the implementation o the warrant o arrest against herein respondent. &he petition is impressed with merit. 5irst, let us dispose o respondent>s argument that the petition should be dismissed or ailure to comply with the re=uirements o a proper veri ication and proo o serviceI and that the petition was prematurely iled because it was iled even be ore we issued a resolution granting the motion or e#tension o time to ile the petition. With regard to the veri ication, we are convinced that the veri icationAcerti ication appearing in the petition or review, although re erring to a 3motion or e#tension to ile3 is a valid veri icationAcerti ication o the petition or review. &he phrase 3motion or e#tension to ile3 was merely a typographical error committed through sheer inadvertence. %s to the re=uirement o attaching an a idavit o service to the petition, a perusal o the rollo o this case will readily show that such an a idavit o service had been attached to the petition.-+oreover, the OS/ may not be aulted in iling the petition or review be ore its receipt o our !esolution dated November -:, -;;- granting the motion or e#tension o time. 4ad petitioner waited to receive a resolution granting its motion or e#tension be ore iling the petition, the e#tended period or iling would have, by then, e#pired. &hus, there was nothing irregular with the procedure taFen by petitioner, rather, such was the most prudent thing or it to have done. We now come to the cru# o the petition. Section 9 6a7, !ule ))- o the !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure, which tooF e ect on December ), -;;;, provides thus2 SEC. 9. G!en arrant of arrest ma4 issue. U 6a7 'y the !egional &rial Court. U Within ten 6);7 days rom the iling o the complaint or

in ormation, the "udge shall personally evaluate the resolution o the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. 4e may immediately dismiss the case i the evidence on record clearly ails to establish probable cause. I he inds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant o arrest, or a commitment order i the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the "udge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or in ormation was iled pursuant to section * o this !ule. In case o doubt on the e#istence o probable cause, the "udge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within ive 6:7 days rom notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty 6,;7 days rom the iling o the complaint or in ormation. ... $ursuant to the a ore=uoted rule, the "udge o the trial court is mandated to personally evaluate the resolution o the prosecutor and its supporting evidence to determine whether probable cause e#ists and pursuant to its own indings, either dismiss the case immediately i no probable cause e#ists, or to issue the warrant o arrest in the absence o probable cause. Even be ore the e ectivity o the a ore=uoted rule, the Court enunciated the ollowing ruling in Crespo vs. ,ogul,-, to wit2 &he preliminary investigation conducted by the iscal or the purpose o determining whether a prima acie case e#ists warranting the prosecution o the accused is terminated upon the iling o the in ormation in the proper court. In turn, as above stated, the iling o said in ormation sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the iscal ind it proper to conduct a reinvestigation o the case, at such stage, the permission o the Court must be secured. % ter such reinvestigation the inding and recommendations o the iscal should be submitted to the Court or appropriate action. While it is true that the iscal has the =uasi "udicial discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be iled in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever disposition the iscal may eel should be proper in the case therea ter should be addressed or the consideration o the Court. &he only =uali ication is that the action o the Court must not impair the substantial rights o the accused or the right o the $eople to due process o law. Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the iscal or a review by the Secretary o Eustice whereby a motion to dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the e#ercise o its discretion may grant the motion or deny it and re=uire that the trial on the merits proceed or the proper determination o the case.

4owever, one may asF, i the trial court re uses to grant the motion to dismiss iled by the iscal upon the directive o the Secretary o Eustice will there not be a vacuum in the prosecutionT . . . &he answer is simple. &he role o the iscal or prosecutor as We all Fnow is to see that "ustice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction o the person accused be ore the Courts. &hus, in spite o his opinion to the contrary, it is the duty o the iscal to proceed with the presentation o evidence o the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arrive at its own independent "udgment as to whether the accused should be convicted or ac=uitted. . . . &he rule there ore in this "urisdiction is that once a complaint or in ormation is iled in Court any disposition o the case as its dismissal or the conviction or ac=uittal o the accused rests in the sound discretion o the Court. %lthough the iscal retains the direction and control o the prosecution o criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. &he Court is the best and sole "udge on what to do with the case be ore it. &he determination o the case is within its e#clusive "urisdiction and competence. % motion to dismiss the case iled by the iscal should be addressed to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter i this is done be ore or a ter the arraignment o the accused or that the motion was iled a ter a reinvestigation or upon instructions o the Secretary o Eustice who reviewed the records o the investigation. &hus, in %ere+ vs. Fagono4 Rural 8anC, 0nc.,-1 the Court held that the trial court "udge>s 3reliance on the prosecutor>s averment that the Secretary o Eustice had recommended the dismissal o the case against the petitioner was, to say the least, an abdication o the trial court>s duty and "urisdiction to determine a prima faciecase, in blatant violation o this Court>s pronouncement in Crespo vs. ,ogul . . .3 &his was reiterated in $olar -eam Entertainment, 0nc. vs. Fon. Rolando Fo ,-: where the Court held thus2 It bears stressing that the court is however not bound to adopt the resolution o the Secretary o Eustice since the court is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits o the case, and may either agree or disagree with the recommendation o the Secretary o Eustice. !eliance alone on the resolution o the Secretary o Eustice would be an abdication o the trial court>s duty and "urisdiction to determine prima facie case. Evidently, when the trial court issued the Orders dated +ay -), -;;- and Eune ),, -;;-, respectively, the trial court "udge was merely per orming his mandated duty to personally determine the e#istence o probable cause and thus arrive at a resolution o the motion to dismiss. 4aving ound probable cause, the trial court acted well

within its authority in denying said motion to dismiss and, since in the present case, a warrant o arrest had already been issued and only the service thereo had been countermanded, the trial court "udge was also correct in ordering the implementation o the previously issued warrant o arrest. 0erily, the proceedings in the criminal case pending in the trial court had been held in abeyance long enough. @nder Section )), !ule ))9 o the !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure, the suspension o arraignment o an accused in cases where a petition or review o the resolution o the prosecutor is pending at either the Department o Eustice or the O ice o the $resident 3shall not e#ceed si#ty days counted rom the iling o the petition with the reviewing o ice.3 %lthough in this case, at the time that the trial court de erred the arraignment in its Order dated October ,;, -;;;, the !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure had not yet taFen e ect and there was as yet no prescribed period o time or the suspension o arraignment, we believe that the period o one and a hal years rom October ,;, -;;; to Eune ),, -;;-, when the trial court ordered the implementation o the warrant o arrest, was more than ample time to give private complainant the opportunity to obtain a resolution o her petition or review rom the DOE. Indeed, with more than three years having elapsed, it is now high time or the continuation o the trial on the merits in the criminal case below as the si#ty.day period counted rom the iling o the petition or review with the DOE, provided or in Section )), !ule ))9 o the !evised !ules o Criminal $rocedure now applicable to the case at bar, had long lapsed. %lthough it is clear that the Court o %ppeals earlier erred in granting the petition or certiorari and prohibition iled be ore it by herein respondent, the Court o %ppeals remedied such error by reversing its Decision dated September -*, -;;- in its !esolution dated Eune )-, -;;,, and sustained the trial court>s Orders dated +ay -), -;;- and Eune ),, -;;- denying the prosecution>s motion to dismiss. 4owever, it cannot be avoided that we remind the Court o %ppeals o the provisions o Section ):, !ule 0I o the -;;- Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals 6e ective %ugust --, -;;-7, which e#plicitly provides thus2 SEC. ):. Effect of Diling an Appeal in t!e $upreme Court. . No motion or reconsideration or rehearing shall be acted upon i the movant has previously iled in the Supreme Court a petition or review on certiorari or a motion or e#tension o time to ile such petition. I such petition or motion is subse=uently iled, the motion or reconsideration pending in this Court shall be deemed abandoned. We are, there ore, =uite perple#ed why the Court o %ppeals did not act in accord with the a ore=uoted !ule and instead resolved the motion or reconsideration o its Decision dated September -*, -;;-, iled by private complainant, despite service on

it o a copy o the +otion 5or E#tension &o 5ile $etition 5or !eview dated October ):, -;;-, iled by the OS/. %t the very least, prudence dictates that the Court o %ppeals should have irst re=uired private complainant to secure the con ormity o the OS/I or re=uired the latter to comment on the motion or reconsideration o the private complainant. &he positions taFen by the O ice o the Solicitor /eneral and private complainant 'ugash are practically identical. In any event, the Court o %ppeals ought not to have acted on the said motion or reconsideration o private complainant 'ugash. It should have considered said motion which, in the irst place, was without the con ormity o the OS/, the representative o petitioner $eople o the $hilippines, as having been abandoned by the iling o herein petition by the OS/, pursuant to the a ore=uoted Section ):, !ule 0I o the -;;- Internal !ules o the Court o %ppeals. Nevertheless, in the interest o speedy and orderly administration o "ustice, we deem it e#pedient to uphold in the present petition, the Orders dated +ay -), -;;- and Eune ),, -;;-, o the !&C denying the motion to dismiss o the assistant city prosecutor and directing the implementation o the warrant o arrest against respondent, or being in accordance with our rulings in Crespo vs. ,ogul, %ere+ vs. Fagono4 Rural 8anC, 0nc. and $olar -eam Entertainment, 0nc. vs. Fon. Rolando Fo , as we have discussed in the early part o our decision. W4E!E5O!E, the petition is GRANTED. &he Court o %ppeals> Decision dated September -*, -;;- isRE&ER"ED and "ET A"IDE. Its !esolution dated Eune )-, -;;, correcting its own error is AFFIRMED withADMONITION that the Court o %ppeals should act with more circumspection and comply with its -;;- Internal !ules. &he Orders dated +ay -), -;;- and Eune -,, -;;- o the !egional &rial Court o Cebu City 6'ranch 97 areAFFIRMED and the said !egional &rial Court is directed to proceed, with immediate dispatch, with the arraignment o herein respondent and trial on the merits o Criminal Case No. C'@.::-?,. "O ORDERED. %uno, 'uisumbing, Calle"o, $r., and -inga, ##., concur
Foo,(o,%$ ) $enned by %ssociate Eustice ElieJer !. De los Santos and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !oberto %. 'arrios and Danilo '. $ine. !ollo, pp. 9;.9). , !ollo, p. 9-. 1 !ollo, pp. 9,.9(. : !ollo, p. *;.

9 *

See page 1 o the Order dated +ay -), -;;-, !ollo, p. (:. !ollo, pp. *,.(). ? See page 1 o the Order dated +ay -), -;;-, !ollo, p. (:. ( See paragraph ) o +otion to Suspend !esolution o the +otion to Dismiss, !ollo, p. *). ); !ollo, pp. *).*-. )) !ollo, pp. (-.);1. )!ollo, pp. );:.))1. ), !ollo, pp. )):.))*. )1 !ollo, pp. ))?.)-9. ): !ollo, pp. ::.:(. )9 !ollo, pp. )-*.)-?. )* !ollo, pp. )*?.-;(. )? !ollo, pp. -:?.-91 )( !ollo, pp. -,(.-1:. -; !ollo, pp. -19.-:) -) !ollo, pp. -?:.,-). -!ollo, p. :1. -, ):) SC!% 19-, 19(.1*) 6)(?*7. -1 ,-* SC!% :??, :(* 6-;;;7. -: ,,? SC!% :)), :)? 6-;;;7.

vs. HON. CO*RT OF A EAL", HEIR" OF +ERNARDO DEL M*NDO, ('8%ly4 FE, CORA1ON, JO"EFA, "AL&ADOR '() CARMEN, 'll $u0('8%) DEL M*NDO, LAND +AN3 OF THE HILI INE" AND HON. ANTONIO N. RO"ALE", 0%$7)7(; Ju);%, +0'(6< -3, R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0,, Ro?'$, O07%(,'l M7()o0o,!espondent. DECISION CORONA, J.4 $etitioners Domingo Neypes, <uJ 5austino, !ogelio 5austino, <olito 0ictoriano, Eacob Obania and Domingo Cabacungan iled an action or annulment o "udgment and titles o land andAor reconveyance andAor reversion with preliminary in"unction be ore the !egional &rial Court, 'ranch 1,, o !o#as, Oriental +indoro, against the 'ureau o 5orest Development, 'ureau o <ands, <and 'anF o the $hilippines and the heirs o 'ernardo del +undo, namely, 5e, CoraJon, Eose a, Salvador and Carmen. In the course o the proceedings, the parties 6both petitioners and respondents7 iled various motions with the trial court. %mong these were2 6)7 the motion iled by petitioners to declare the respondent heirs, the 'ureau o <ands and the 'ureau o 5orest Development in de ault and 6-7 the motions to dismiss iled by the respondent heirs and the <and 'anF o the $hilippines, respectively. In an order dated +ay )9, )((*, the trial court, presided by public respondent Eudge %ntonio N. !osales, resolved the oregoing motions as ollows2 6)7 the petitioners> motion to declare respondents 'ureau o <ands and 'ureau o 5orest Development in de ault was granted or their ailure to ile an answer, but denied as against the respondent heirs o del +undo because the substituted service o summons on them was improperI 6-7 the <and 'anF>s motion to dismiss or lacF o cause o action was denied because there were hypothetical admissions and matters that could be determined only a ter trial, and 6,7 the motion to dismiss iled by respondent heirs o del +undo, based on prescription, was also denied because there were actual matters that could be determined only a ter trial.) &he respondent heirs iled a motion or reconsideration o the order denying their motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial court could very well resolve the issue o prescription rom the bare allegations o the complaint itsel without waiting or the trial proper.

G.R. No. 1-1/2- "%#,%85%0 1-, 200/ DOMINGO NE! E", L*1 FA*"TINO, ROGELIO FA*"TINO, LOLITO &ICTORIANO, JACO+ O+ANIA AND DOMINGO CA+AC*NGAN, $etitioners, In an order- dated 5ebruary )-, )((?, the trial court dismissed petitioners> complaint on the ground that the action had already prescribed. $etitioners allegedly received a copy o the order o dismissal on +arch ,, )((? and, on the ):th day therea ter or on +arch )?, )((?, iled a motion or reconsideration. On Euly ), )((?, the trial court

issued another order dismissing the motion or reconsideration , which petitioners received on Euly --, )((?. 5ive days later, on Euly -*, )((?, petitioners iled a notice o appeal1 and paid the appeal ees on %ugust ,, )((?. II On %ugust 1, )((?, the court a quo denied the notice o appeal, holding that it was iled eight days late.: &his was received by petitioners on Euly ,), )((?. $etitioners iled a motion or reconsideration but this too was denied in an order dated September ,, )((?.9 0ia a petition or certiorari and mandamus under !ule 9: o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, petitioners assailed the dismissal o the notice o appeal be ore the Court o %ppeals. In the appellate court, petitioners claimed that they had seasonably iled their notice o appeal. &hey argued that the ):.day reglementary period to appeal started to run only on Euly --, )((? since this was the day they received the inal order o the trial court denying their motion or reconsideration. When they iled their notice o appeal on Euly -*, )((?, only ive days had elapsed and they were well within the reglementary period or appeal.* On September )9, )(((, the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 dismissed the petition. It ruled that the ):.day period to appeal should have been recFoned rom +arch ,, )((? or the day they received the 5ebruary )-, )((? order dismissing their complaint. %ccording to the appellate court, the order was the 3 inal order3 appealable under the !ules. It held urther2 $er orce the petitioners> tardy appeal was correctly dismissed or the 6$7er ection o an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is "urisdictional and non.compliance with such legal re=uirement is atal and e ectively renders the "udgment inal and e#ecutory. ? $etitioners iled a motion or reconsideration o the a orementioned decision. &his was denied by the Court o %ppeals on Eanuary 9, -;;;. In this present petition or review under !ule 1: o the !ules, petitioners ascribe the ollowing errors allegedly committed by the appellate court2 I &4E 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S E!!ED IN DIS+ISSIN/ &4E $E&I&IONE!S> $E&I&ION 5O! CE!&IO!%!I %ND +%ND%+@S %ND IN %55I!+IN/ &4E O!DE! O5 &4E 4ON. E@D/E %N&ONIO N. !OS%<ES W4IC4 DIS+ISSED &4E $E&I&IONE!S> %$$E%< IN CI0I< C%SE NO. C.,9 O5 &4E !E/ION%< &!I%< CO@!&, '!%NC4 1,, !O8%S, O!IEN&%<

+INDO!O, E0EN %5&E! &4E $E&I&IONE!S 4%D $%ID &4E %$$E%< DOCPE& 5EES.

&4E 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S <IPEWISE E!!ED IN !@<IN/ %ND %55I!+IN/ &4E DECISION O! O!DE! O5 &4E !ES$ONDEN& 4ON. %N&ONIO +. !OS%<ES &4%& $E&I&IONE!S> %$$E%< W%S 5I<ED O@& O5 &I+E W4EN $E&I&IONE!S !ECEI0ED &4E <%S& O! 5IN%< O!DE! O5 &4E CO@!& ON E@<B --, )((? %ND 5I<ED &4EI! NO&ICE O5 %$$E%< ON E@<B -*, )((? %ND $%ID &4E %$$E%< DOCPE& 5EE ON %@/@S& ,, )((?. III &4E 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S 5@!&4E! E!!ED IN !@<IN/ &4%& &4E WO!DS 35IN%< O!DE!3 IN SEC&ION ,, !@<E 1), O5 &4E )((* !@<ES O5 CI0I< $!OCED@!E WI<< !E5E! &O &4E G5I!S&H O!DE! O5 !ES$ONDEN& E@D/E 4ON. %N&ONIO +. +O!%<ES D%&ED 5E'!@%!B )-, )((? INS&E%D O5 &4E <%S& %ND 5IN%< O!DE! D%&ED E@<B ), )((? CO$B O5 W4IC4 W%S !ECEI0ED 'B $E&I&IONE!S &4!O@/4 CO@NSE< ON E@<B --, )((?. I0. &4E 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S 5IN%<<B E!!ED IN 5INDIN/ &4%& &4E DECISION IN &4E C%SE O5 DENSO, INC. 0. I%C, )1? SC!% -?;, IS %$$<IC%'<E IN &4E INS&%N& C%SE &4E!E'B I/NO!IN/ &4E $EC@<I%! 5%C&S %ND CI!C@+S&%NCES O5 &4IS C%SE %ND &4E 5%C& &4%& &4E S%ID DECISION W%S !ENDE!ED $!IO! &O &4E EN%C&+EN& O5 &4E )((* !@<ES O5 CI0I< $!OCED@!E.( &he oregoing issues essentially revolve around the period within which petitioners should have iled their notice o appeal. 5irst and oremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part o due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be e#ercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions o law. &hus, one who seeFs to avail o the right to appeal must comply with the re=uirements o the !ules. 5ailure to do so o ten leads to the loss o the right to appeal.); &he period to appeal is i#ed by both statute and procedural rules. '$ )-(,)) as amended, provides2 Sec. ,(. %ppeals. U &he period or appeal rom inal orders, resolutions, awards, "udgments, or decisions o any court in all these cases shall be i teen 6):7 days counted rom the notice o the inal order, resolution, award, "udgment, or decision

appealed rom. $rovided, however, that in habeas corpus cases, the period or appeal shall be 61?7 orty.eight hours rom the notice o "udgment appealed rom. # # # !ule 1), Section , o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure states2 SEC. ,. $eriod o ordinary appeal. Y T<% '##%'l $<'ll 5% ,'H%( >7,<7( :7:,%%( D1/A )'y$ :0o8 ,<% (o,76% o: ,<% Bu);8%(, o0 :7('l o0)%0 '##%'l%) :0o8. Where a record on appeal is re=uired, the appellant shall ile a notice o appeal and a record on appeal within thirty 6,;7 days rom the notice o "udgment or inal order. &he period to appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion or new trial or reconsideration. No motion or e#tension o time to ile a motion or new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. 6emphasis supplied7 'ased on the oregoing, an appeal should be taFen within ): days rom the notice o "udgment or inal order appealed rom. % inal "udgment or order is one that inally disposes o a case, leaving nothing more or the court to do with respect to it. It is an ad"udication on the merits which, considering the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations o the parties areI or it may be an order or "udgment that dismisses an action.)%s already mentioned, petitioners argue that the order o Euly ), )((? denying their motion or reconsideration should be construed as the 3 inal order,3 not the 5ebruary )-, )((? order which dismissed their complaint. Since they received their copy o the denial o their motion or reconsideration only on Euly --, )((?, the ):.day reglementary period to appeal had not yet lapsed when they iled their notice o appeal on Euly -*, )((?. What there ore should be deemed as the 3 inal order,3 receipt o which triggers the start o the ):.day reglementary period to appeal S the 5ebruary )-, )((? order dismissing the complaint or the Euly ), )((? order dismissing the +!T In the recent case o 'uelnan v. &FD %!ilippines, 0nc.,), the trial court declared petitioner 'uelnan non.suited and accordingly dismissed his complaint. @pon receipt o the order o dismissal, he iled an omnibus motion to set it aside. When the omnibus motion was iled, )- days o the ):.day period to appeal the order had lapsed. 4e later on received another order, this time dismissing his omnibus motion. 4e then iled his notice o appeal. 'ut this was liFewise dismissed Y or having been iled out o time. &he court a quo ruled that petitioner should have appealed within ): days a ter the dismissal o his complaint since this was the inal order that was appealable under the !ules. We reversed the trial court and declared that it was the denial of t!e motion for reconsideration o an order o dismissal o a complaint which constituted the final order as it was what ended the issues raised there.

&his pronouncement was reiterated in the more recent case o Apu4an v. Faldeman et al.)1 where we again considered the order denying petitioner %puyan>s motion or reconsideration as the inal order which inally disposed o the issues involved in the case. 'ased on the a orementioned cases, we sustain petitioners> view that t!e order dated #ul4 1, 1IIA den4ing t!eir motion for reconsideration was the final order contemplated in the !ules. We now come to the ne#t =uestion2 i Euly ), )((? was the start o the ):.day reglementary period to appeal, did petitioners in act ile their notice o appeal on timeT @nder !ule 1), Section ,, petitioners had 1: da4s from notice of "udgment or final order to appeal the decision o the trial court. On the ):th day o the original appeal period 6+arch )?, )((?7, petitioners did not ile a notice o appeal but instead opted to ile a motion or reconsideration. %ccording to the trial court, the +! only interrupted the running o the ):.day appeal period.): It ruled that petitioners, having iled their +! on the last day o the ):.day reglementary period to appeal, had only one 6)7 day le t to ile the notice o appeal upon receipt o the notice o denial o their +!. $etitioners, however, argue that they were entitled under the !ules to a fres! period of 1: da4s from receipt of t!e Jfinal orderJ or t!e order dismissing t!eir motion for reconsideration. In 'uelnan and Apu4an, both petitioners iled a motion or reconsideration o the decision o the trial court. We ruled there that they only had the remaining time o the ):.day appeal period to ile the notice o appeal. We consistently applied this rule in similar cases,)9 premised on the long.settled doctrine that the per ection o an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also "urisdictional.)* &he rule is also ounded on deep.seated considerations o public policy and sound practice that, at risF o occasional error, the "udgments and awards o courts must become inal at some de inite time i#ed by law.)? $rior to the passage o '$ )-(, !ule 1), Section , o the )(91 !evised !ules o Court read2 Sec. ,. 4ow appeal is taFen. Z A##%'l 8'y5% ,'H%( 5y $%0=7(; u#o( ,<% ')=%0$% #'0,y '() :7l7(; >7,< ,<% ,07'l 6ou0, >7,<7( ,<70,y D30A )'y$ :0o8 (o,76% o: o0)%0 o0 Bu);8%(,, ' (o,76% o: '##%'l, '( '##%'l 5o(), '() ' 0%6o0) o( '##%'l. &he time during which a motion to set aside the "udgment or order or or new trial has been pending shall be deducted, unless such motion ails to satis y the re=uirements o !ule ,*. 'ut where such motion has been iled during o ice hours o the last day o the period herein provided, the appeal must be per ected within the day ollowing that in

which the party appealing received notice o the denial o said motion.)( 6emphasis supplied7 %ccording to the oregoing provision, the appeal period previously consisted o ,; days. '$ )-(, however, reduced this appeal period to ): days. In the deliberations o the Committee on Eudicial !eorganiJation-; that dra ted '$ )-(, the raison dK etre behind the amendment was to shorten the period o appeal-) and enhance the e iciency and dispensation o "ustice. We have since re=uired strict observance o this reglementary period o appeal. Seldom have we condoned late iling o notices o appeal,-- and only in very e#ceptional instances to better serve the ends o "ustice. In /ational Gater orCs and $e erage Aut!orit4 and Aut!orit4 v. ,unicipalit4 of 9ibmanan,-, however, we declared that appeal is an essential part o our "udicial system and the rules o procedure should not be applied rigidly. &his Court has on occasion advised the lower courts to be cautious about not depriving a party o the right to appeal and that every party litigant should be a orded the amplest opportunity or the proper and "ust disposition o his cause, ree rom the constraint o technicalities. In de la Rosa v. Court of Appeals,-1 we stated that, as a rule, periods which re=uire litigants to do certain acts must be ollowed unless, under e#ceptional circumstances, a delay in the iling o an appeal may be e#cused on grounds o substantial "ustice. &here, we condoned the delay incurred by the appealing party due to strong considerations o airness and "ustice. In setting aside technical in irmities and thereby giving due course to tardy appeals, we have not been oblivious to or unmind ul o the e#traordinary situations that merit liberal application o the !ules. In those situations where technicalities were dispensed with, our decisions were not meant to undermine the orce and e ectivity o the periods set by law. 'ut we hasten to add that in those rare cases where procedural rules were not stringently applied, there always e#isted a clear need to prevent the commission o a grave in"ustice. Our "udicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict en orcement o procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the ull opportunity or the "ust and proper disposition o his cause.-: &he Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all courts.-9 It has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal or even establish new rules or a more simpli ied and ine#pensive process, and the speedy disposition o cases. In the rules governing appeals to it and to the Court o %ppeals, particularly !ules 1-,-* 1,-? and 1:,-( the Court allows e#tensions o time, based on "usti iable and compelling reasons, or parties to ile their appeals. &hese e#tensions may consist o ): days or more. &o standardiJe the appeal periods provided in the !ules and to a ord litigants air opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a resh period

o ): days within which to ile the notice o appeal in the !egional &rial Court, counted rom receipt o the order dismissing a motion or a new trial or motion or reconsideration. ,; 4ence orth, this 3 resh period rule3 shall also apply to !ule 1; governing appeals rom the +unicipal &rial Courts to the !egional &rial CourtsI !ule 1- on petitions or review rom the !egional &rial Courts to the Court o %ppealsI !ule 1, on appeals rom =uasi."udicial agencies,) to the Court o %ppeals and !ule 1: governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court.,- &he new rule aims to regiment or maFe the appeal period uni orm, to be counted rom receipt o the order denying the motion or new trial, motion or reconsideration 6whether ull or partial7 or any inal order or resolution. We thus hold that petitioners seasonably iled their notice o appeal within the resh period o ): days, counted rom Euly --, )((? 6the date o receipt o notice denying their motion or reconsideration7. &his pronouncement is not inconsistent with !ule 1), Section , o the !ules which states that the appeal shall be taFen within ): days rom notice o "udgment or inal order appealed rom. &he use o the dis"unctive word 3or3 signi ies disassociation and independence o one thing rom another. It should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies.,, 4ence, the use o 3or3 in the above provision supposes that the notice o appeal may be iled within ): days rom the notice o "udgment or within ): days rom notice o the 3 inal order,3 which we already determined to re er to the Euly ), )((? order denying the motion or a new trial or reconsideration. Neither does this new rule run counter to the spirit o Section ,( o '$ )-( which shortened the appeal period rom ,; days to ): days to hasten the disposition o cases. &he original period o appeal 6in this case +arch ,.)?, )((?7 remains and the re=uirement or strict compliance still applies. -!e fres! period of 1: da4s becomes significant onl4 !en a part4 opts to file a motion for ne trial or motion for reconsideration. In this manner, the trial court which rendered the assailed decision is given another opportunity to review the case and, in the process, minimiJe andAor recti y any error o "udgment. While we aim to resolve cases with dispatch and to have "udgments o courts become inal at some de inite time, we liFewise aspire to deliver "ustice airly. In this case, the new period o ): days eradicates the con usion as to when the ):. day appeal period should be counted U rom receipt o notice o "udgment 6+arch ,, )((?7 or rom receipt o notice o 3 inal order3 appealed rom 6Euly --, )((?7. &o recapitulate, a party litigant may either ile his notice o appeal within ): days rom receipt o the !egional &rial Court>s decision or ile it within ): days rom receipt o the order 6the 3 inal order37 denying his motion or new trial or motion or reconsideration. Obviously, the new ):.day period may be availed o onl4 i either

motion is iledI otherwise, the decision becomes inal and e#ecutory a ter the lapse o the original appeal period provided in !ule 1), Section ,. $etitioners here iled their notice o appeal on Euly -*, )((? or ive days rom receipt o the order denying their motion or reconsideration on Euly --, )((?. 4ence, the notice o appeal was well within the resh appeal period o ): days, as already discussed.,1 We deem it unnecessary to discuss the applicability o Denso 5%!ilippines6, 0nc. v. 0AC,: since the Court o %ppeals never even re erred to it in its assailed decision. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision o the Court o %ppeals RE&ER"EDand "ET A"IDE. %ccordingly, let the records o this case be remanded to the Court o %ppeals or urther proceedings. No costs. "O ORDERED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) 3E#h. ',3 !ecords, p. ,*. 3E#h. E,3 !ecords, p. 1*. , 3E#h. /,3 !ecords, pp. :9.:*. 1 3E#h. 4,3 !ecords, p. :?. : 3E#h. I,3 !ecords, pp. 9).9-. &he trial court received the notice o appeal dated Euly -*, )((? on Euly ,), )((?. %ccording to the court, it was eight days late, counted rom Euly -,, )((?, which was the last day to ile the notice since petitioners had one 6)7 day le t to ile it. 9 3E#h. P,3 !ecords, pp. 9*.9(. * !ollo, p. 1). ? $enned by Eustice !oberto %. 'arrios and concurred in by Eustices /odardo O. Eacinto and Eriberto @. !osario, Er. o the )9th Division. ( !ollo, p. )-. ); ,.A. $antander Construction, 0nc. v. Lenaida &illanueva, /.!. No. ),91**, November );, -;;1. )) &he Eudiciary !eorganiJation %ct o )(?;. )0ntramuros -ennis Club, 0nc. 50-C6 et al. v. %!ilippine -ourism Aut!orit4, et al., /.!. No. ),:9,;, -9 September -;;;, ,1) SC!% (;. ), /.!. No. )1:()), Euly *, -;;1. )1 /.!. No. )-((?;, September -;, -;;1. ): $upra. )9 8anC of America v. *eroc!i, /.!. No. *,-);, ); 5ebruary )((1, -,; SC!% (I Da4rit v. %!ilippine 8anC of Communications, 1,: $hil. )-; 6-;;-7I *allego v. $pouses *alang, /.!. No. ),;--?, Euly -*, -;;1. )* 8%0 Data $4stems Corp. v. Fon. Court of Appeals and Commissioner of 0nternal Revenue , ,-1 $hil. -9* 6)((97. )? 8orre v. Court of Appeals, No. <.:*-;1, )1 +arch )(??, ):? SC!% :9). )( %ppeals rom the Court o 5irst Instance 6now !&C7 and the Social Security Commission to the Court o %ppeals. -; Created by virtue o E#ecutive Order No. 9)). -) +!. +I<<O!%2 +r. SpeaFer, although I am a +ember o the committee I have been granted permission to asF =uestions about some unresolved matters and I would liFe to begin with the period o appeal. @nder Section ,(, +r. SpeaFer, the period or appeal rom inal orders, resolutions, awards, "udgments or decisions o any court in all cases shall be i teen days. &his is very good because it will shorten the period to appeal. @nder our rules today, the period to appeal is ,; days. # # # 65ebruary -, )(?), !ecord o the 'atasan, 0olume I0, p. -;;1.7

--

Ramos v. 8agasao, No. <.:)::-, -? 5ebruary )(?;, (9 SC!% ,(:I Republic v. Court of Appeals, No. <.,),;,.;1, ,) +ay )(*?, ?, SC!% 1:,I Olacao v. /ational 9abor Relations Commission, /.!. No. ?),(;, -( %ugust )(?(, )** SC!% ,?. -, No. <.-*)(*, -? %pril )(?;, (* SC!% ),?. -1 ,1: $hil. 9*? 6)((*7. -: Allied 8anCing Corp. and %acita E4 v. $pouses Eser"ose, /.!. No )9)**9, October --, -;;1. -9 %rticle 0III, Section : 6:7, )(?* Constitution. -* $etition or !eview rom the !egional &rial Courts to the Court o %ppeals. -? %ppeals rom 6the Court o &a# %ppeals and7 Ouasi.Eudicial %gencies to the Court o %ppeals. !% (-?- elevated the Court o &a# %ppeals to the level o a collegiate court with special "urisdiction. -( %ppeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court. ,; !ule --, Section ). 4ow to compute time Y In computing any period o time prescribed or allowed by these !ules, or by order o the court, or by any applicable statute, the day o the act or event rom which the designated period o time begins to run is to be e#cluded and the date o per ormance included # # #. 6)((* !ules o Civil $rocedure7 ,) 'e ore the e ectivity o !% (-?- 6%N %C& E8$%NDIN/ &4E E@!ISDIC&ION O5 &4E CO@!& O5 &%8 %$$E%<S GC&%H, E<E0%&IN/ I&S !%NP &O &4E <E0E< O5 % CO<<E/I%&E CO@!& WI&4 S$ECI%< E@!ISDIC&ION %ND EN<%!/IN/ I&S +E+'E!S4I$7 on +arch ,;, -;;1, decisions or rulings o the C&% were appealable to the Court o %ppeals under !ule 1: o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure. With the passage o the new law, Section )( thereo provides that a party adversely a ected by a decision or ruling o the Court o &a# %ppeals en banc may ile with the Supreme Court a veri ied petition or review oncertiorari pursuant to !ule 1: o the )((* !ules o $rocedure. ,%s ar as !ule 9: 6$etition or Certiorari, +andamus and $rohibition7 is concerned, Section , thereo , as amended by SC %dm. +emo. No. ;;.-.;,, states that no e#tension o time shall be granted e#cept or compelling reason and in no case e#ceeding ): days. ,, Matindig v. %eople, *1 $hil. 1: 6)(1-7 as cited in %gpalo, Statutory Construction, ,rd Edition 6)((:7. ,1 !ules o procedure may be applied retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time o their passage. 6&alen+uela v. Court of Appeals, 1)9 $hil. -?( G-;;)H as cited in %gpalo, Statutory Construction, )((: Edition, p. -(17 ,: No. <.*:;;;, -* 5ebruary )(?*,)1? SC!% -?;.

$etitioner seeFs to set aside the %ugust --, )((* Decision o the Court o %ppeals 1 in C%./! S$ No. 1,-(,, the dispositive portion o which reads2 2 W4E!E5O!E, GiHn view o all the oregoing considerations, the petition or certiorari and prohibition is granted. &he Order dated October 1, )((9, o public respondent is hereby SE& %SIDE and public respondent is ordered to desist rom urther proceeding with the hearing o the +otion or !econsideration. &he Decision dated Euly )?, )((9, o public respondent is declared inal and e#ecutory. -!e Dacts $etitioner %nnie &an, doing business under the name and style 3%E L & &rading,3 leased a portion o the ground loor o her building, more speci ically described as Stall No. 9-,, Carva"al Street, 'inondo, +anila, in avor o 'loomberry E#port +anu acturing, Inc. &he lease was or a period o ive years starting on 5ebruary )*, )((: and ending on 5ebruary )*, -;;;, at a monthly rental o $-;,;;; or the irst three years. 3 5or several alleged violations o the lease contract, petitioner iled against private respondent a complaint or e"ectment, docFeted as Civil Case No. )1?*(?.C0. - %s its rental payment was re used by petitioner, private respondent instituted on Euly ),, )((: a case or consignation, docFeted as Civil Case No. )1??)1.C0. / &he two cases were consolidated. In due course, the +etropolitan &rial Court 6+&C7 o +anila, 'ranch I, rendered on 5ebruary ), )((9 a Decision 6 which disposed as ollows2 7 W4E!E5O!E, in Civil Case No. )1?*(?.C0 or GbHreach o GcHontract, ailure to pay rentals on time, encroachment on the ad"acent premises without the consent o GpetitionerH, GsheH ailed to substantiate her case with that degree o proo re=uired by law. 5or this reason, e#cept or the costs o suit, this Court hereby orders the dismissal o the complaint o GpetitionerH. &he counterclaim and damages sought by Gprivate respondent areH liFewise ordered dismissed. &he case or consignation in Civil Case No. )1??)1.C0 has become moot and academic or ailure o GpetitionerH to appeal the decision o the +etropolitan G&rialH court, 'ranch ):, +anila, allowing the Gprivate respondentH to consign rental payments to the Court o +anila. 'esides, the GcHomplaint or consignation being in con ormity with law, Gprivate respondentH is allowed to continue consigning with this Court all rentals that Gmay beH due. On appeal, the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o +anila, 'ranch -, in its Decision dated Euly )?, )((9, a irmed the a orementioned +&C Decision thus2

G.R. No. 13031- "%#,%85%0 22, 1998 ANNIE TAN, petitioner, vs. CO*RT OF A EAL" '() +LOOM+ERR! EI ORT MAN*FACT*RING, INC., respondents.

ANGANI+AN, J.: 'e ore a trial court, a motion or reconsideration that does not contain the re=uisite notice o hearing does not toll the running o the period o appeals. It is a mere scrap o paper which the trial court and the opposite party may ignore. -!e Case

W4E!E5O!E, inding no cogent reasons to disturb the "oint decision dated 5ebruary ), )((9 o the +etropolitan &rial Court o +anila, 'ranch ), the Court sustains and a irms in toto the said decision. !espondent Court related the incidents that ensued, as ollows2 8 . . . G5Hrom the Decision o the G!&CH dated Euly )?, )((9, GpetitionerH iled a +otion or !econsideration o the a oresaid decision. &he +otion or !econsideration did not contain any notice o hearing as re=uired under Section :, !ule ): o the !evised !ule o Court. On %ugust -,, )((9, Gprivate respondentH iled an e7)parte +otion or Entry o Eudgment upon the ground that said motion or reconsideration is a mere scrap o paper which should not merit the attention o the G!&CH and in support thereo , cited the case o -raders Ro4al 8anC vs. Court of Appeals, -;? SC!% )((. G$rivate respondentH contends that since the +otion or !econsideration is a mere scrap o paper aside rom being pro forma, said +otion or !econsideration did not toll the period o appealGIH hence, the Decision dated Euly )?, )((9, had become inal and e#ecutory. On September ,, )((9, GpetitionerH iled a +otion to Set or 4earing the +otion or !econsideration which was vehemently opposed by Gprivate respondentH on September -,, )((9. On October 1, )((9, Gthe !&CH issued an Order granting the motion to set or hearing GpetitionerKsH +otion or !econsideration and setGtingH the hearing G orH October -), )((9, at ?2,; oKclocF in the morning. On October -;, )((9, Gprivate respondentH iled a +otion or !econsideration o the Order dated October 1, )((9, which was set or hearing on October -:, )((9. On November )), )((9, Gthe !&CH issued an Order denying Gprivate respondentKsH +otion or !econsideration. 4ence, the $etition or Certiorari and $rohibition. . . . . In the assailed Decision, !espondent Court o %ppeals reversed the trial courtKs setting or hearing petitionerKs +otion or !econsideration. -!e Ruling of t!e Court of Appeals

!espondent Court held that the trial court acted with grave abuse o discretion in setting or hearing petitionerKs +otion or !econsideration, notwithstanding the act that said +otion contained no notice o hearing. Citing a litany o cases, it ruled that petitionerKs ailure to comply with the mandatory provisions o Sections 1 and :, !ule ): o the !ules o Court, reduced her motion to a mere scrap o paper which did not merit the attention o the court. !espondent Court also held that those cases in which the Court allowed a motion or reconsideration that had not been set or hearing Z *alve+ v. Court of Appeals, 9 -amargo v. Court of Appeals 10 and 'ue v. 0ntermediate Appellate Court 11 Z were inapplicable. !espondent Court held that the acts in *alve+ drastically di er rom those in the present case. *alve+ involved a motion to withdraw the in ormation Z not a motion or reconsideration Z that was iled e7 parte be ore the arraignment o the accused. In that case, the Court held that there was no imperative need o notice and hearing because, first, the withdrawal o an in ormation rests on the discretion o the trial courtI and, second, the accused was not placed in "eopardy. On the other hand, the sub"ect o the present controversy is a motion or reconsideration directed against the Decision o the !&CI thus, the motion a ects the period to per ect an appeal. 'ue is not applicable either. In said case, the trial court, set the +otion or !econsideration 6+!7 or hearing, which was actually attended by the counsel or the adverse party. &his was not so in the case at barI petitionerKs +! was set or hearing, because she belatedly moved or it upon the iling o private respondentKs +otion or Entry o Eudgment. <iFewise, the present case di ers rom -amargo, wherein the application o the a oresaid mandatory provisions was suspended. &he Court did so in order to give substantial "ustice to the petitioner and in view o the nature o the issues raised which were ound to be highly meritorious. 4ence, this petition. 12 -!e 0ssue In her +emorandum, 13 petitioner presents a airly accurate statement o the main issue to be resolved2 1Whether . . . the omission GthroughH inadvertence o a notice o hearing o a motion or reconsideration iled with the trial court . . . is a atal de ect which did not stop the running o the period to appealG,H thus rendering the assailed decision inal GandH e#ecutory. -!e CourtBs Ruling

&he petition is devoid o merit. $ole 0ssueN Omission of /otice of Fearing Datal $etitioner admits the categorical and mandatory character o the directives in Sections 1 and : o !ule ): o the !ules o Court, which read2 1/ Sec. 1. 4earing o motion. Z E#cept or motions which the court may act upon without pre"udicing the rights o the adverse party, every written motion shall be set or hearing by the applicant. Every written motion re=uired to be heard and the notice o the hearing thereo shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three 6,7 days be ore the date o hearing, unless the court or good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. 61a7 Sec. :. Notice o hearing. Z &he notice o hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall speci y the time and date o the hearing which must not be later than ten 6);7 days a ter the iling o the motion. 6:a7 In De la %eOa v. De la %eOa, 16 the Court presented a resume o earlier decisions regarding the necessity o the notice o hearing in motions or reconsideration2 In %o"as v. *o+o)Dadole, 17 we had occasion to rule on the issue o whether a motion or reconsideration without any notice o hearing tolls the running o the prescriptive period. In %o"as, petitioner received copy o the decision in Civil Case No. ,1,; o the !egional &rial Court o &agbilaran on ): %pril )(?9. &he decision being adverse to him petitioner iled a motion or reconsideration. 5or ailing to mention the date when the motion was to be resolved as re=uired in Sec. :, !ule ):, o the !ules o Court, the motion or reconsideration was denied. % second motion or reconsideration met the same ate. On - Euly )(?9 petitioner iled a notice o appeal but the same was denied or being iled out o time as 3the motion or reconsideration which the Court ruled as pro forma did not stop the running o the ):.day period to appeal.3 18 In resolving the issue o whether there was grave abuse o discretion in denying petitionerKs notice o appeal, this Court ruled Z

Sec. 1 o !ule ): o the !ules o Court re=uires that notice o motion be served by the movant on all parties concerned at least three 6,7 days be ore its hearing. Section : o the same !ule provides that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place or the hearing o the motion. % motion which does not meet the re=uirements o Section 1 and : o !ule ): o the !ules o Court is considered a worthless piece o paper which the clerF has no right to receive and the court has no authority to act upon. Service o copy o a motion containing notice o the time and place o hearing o said motion is a mandatory re=uirement and the ailure o the movant to comply with said re=uirements renders his motion atally de ective. 19 In /e #apan ,otors, 0nc. v. %eruc!o, 20 de endant iled a motion or reconsideration which did not contain any notice o hearing. In a petition or certiorari, we a irmed the lower court in ruling that a motion or reconsideration that did not contain a notice o hearing was a useless scrap o paper. We held urther Z @nder Sections 1 and : o !ule ): o the !ules o Court, . . . a motion is re=uired to be accompanied by a notice o hearing which must be served by the applicant on all parties concerned at least three 6,7 days be ore the hearing thereo Section 9 o the same rule commands that 36n7o motion shall be acted upon by the Court, without proo o service o the notice thereo . . . .3 It is there ore patent that the motion or reconsideration in =uestion is atally de ective or it did not contain any notice o hearing. We have already consistently held in a number o cases that the re=uirements o Sections 1, : and 9 o !ules ): o the !ules o Court are mandatory and that ailure to comply with the same is atal to movantKs cause. In $embrano v. Ramire+, 22 we declared that Z 6%7 motion without notice o hearing is a mere scrap o paper. It does not toll the running o the

period o appeal. &his re=uirement o notice o hearing e=ually applies to a motion or reconsideration. Without such notice, the motion is pro forma. %nd a pro forma motion or reconsideration does not suspend the running o the period to appeal. In 0n re Almacen, 23 de endant lost his case in the lower court. 4is counsel then iled a motion or reconsideration but did not noti y the adverse counsel o the time and place o hearing o said motion. &he Court o %ppeals dismissed the motion or the reason that 3the motion or reconsideration dated Euly :, )(99 does not contain a notice o time and place o hearing thereo and is, there ore a useless piece o paper which did not interrupt the running o the period to appeal, and, conse=uently, the appeal was per ected out o time.3 When the case was brought to us, we reminded counsel or the de endant that Z %s a law practitioner who was admitted to the bar as ar bacF as )(1), %tty. %lmacen Fnew Z or ought to have Fnown Z that G orH a motion or reconsideration to stay the running o the period o appeal, the movant must not only serve a copy o the motion upon the adverse party . . . but also noti y the adverse party o the time and place o hearing . . . . %lso, in ,anila $uret4 and Didelit4 Co., 0nc. v. 8at! Construction and Compan4, 2- we ruled Z &he written notice re erred to evidently is that prescribed or motions in general by !ule ):, Sections 1 and : 6 ormerly !ule -97, which provide that such notice shall state the time and place o hearing and shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three days in advance. %nd according to Section 9 o the same !ule no motion shall be acted upon by the court without proo o such notice. Indeed, it has been held that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece o paper. &he reason is obviousI unless the movant sets the time and place o hearing the court would have no way to determine whether that party agrees to or ob"ects to the motion, and i he ob"ects, to hear him on his ob"ection, since

the !ules themselves do not i# any period within GwhichH he may ile his reply or opposition. 2/ In ine, the abovecited cases con irm that the re=uirements laid down in Sec. : o !ule ): o the !ules o Court that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place or the hearing o the motion, are mandatory. I not religiously complied with, they render the motionpro forma. %s such the motion is a useless piece o paper that will not toll the running o the prescriptive period. 5or ailing to attach a notice o hearing to the +otion or !econsideration, petitioner pro ers the ollowing e#cuses2 6)7 her ormer counselKs messenger, due to an honest mistaFe, inadvertently omitted the ourth page o the motion containing the crucial Notice o 4earingI and 6-7 because o the pressure o worF, her ormer counsel was unable to ollow up such motion until the day said counsel re=uested the setting o a hearing. 26 We are not in the least convinced. Dirst, it is un air to place the blame or such omission on the messenger. &he burden o preparing a complete pleading alls on counselKs shoulders, not on the messengerKs. &he counsel is ultimately responsible or the acts or omissions o his agents. 4ence, the messengerKs conduct can neither "usti y the counselKs mistaFe nor warrant a departure rom the mandate o the a oresaid procedural rules. $econd, it is incredible that the ourth page containing the Notice o 4earing was le t behind due to honest mistaFe. In act, there was no such page. $etitionerKs claim is belied by the ollowing pertinent, portions o the sub"ect +otion or !econsideration2 27 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, it is respect ully prayed that the 4onorable Court cause a urther !E0IEW and !ECONSIDE!%&ION o its decision on the above.captioned consolidated cases. OueJon City or +anila, %ugust )-, )((9. 6Sgd.7 %N/E<IN% %!%NDI%. 0I<<%N@E 0%

Counsel or $lainti . %ppellant ,(.< &. +orato %venue, OueJon City I'$ No. 1;*1:; 9. -9.(9 $&! No. --*;), ).:. (9 +anila Copy urnished2 %tty. %rnel MaragoJa Dolendo Counsel or De endant !m. 1;?, 1), 5irst @nited 'ldg. Escolta, +anila &he normal practice is to note, at the end o the pleading, that a copy was urnished to the adverse party. &hus, petitionerKs motion ended e#actly at the bottom o the third page as evidenced by the 3copy. urnished3 notation. It is sa e to conclude that there was no accidental or e#cusable neglect in not including a ourth page in this case. In other words, petitionerKs counsel simply ailed to include a notice o hearing. Dinall4, the act that petitionerKs ormer counsel calendared the motion or hearing or %ugust -,, )((9 28 belies the e#cuse that an alleged ourth page had been le t behind. In the irst place, i a notice o hearing had been included in the +otion or !econsideration, there would have been no need or petitioner to ile the +otion to set the time and date o hearing. What is clear is that said counsel iled the latter +otion, only a ter private respondent had submitted its +otion or Entry o Eudgment 29 Z with copy urnished petitionerKs counsel 30 Z on the ground that petitionerKs +otion or !econsideration was a mere scrap o paper that did not stop the period or appeal.

$etitioner pleads or liberal construction o the rule on notice o hearing, citing -amargo, *alve+ and 'ue. In rebuttal, we adopt by re erence the C%Ks e#cellent dis=uisition, cited earlier, on why these cases are inapplicable. $etitioner urther alleges that, first, the nonadmission o her +otion or !econsideration would result in a miscarriage o "ustice, as the main case 6e"ectment7, which was tried under summary procedure, had been unnecessarily prolongedI and, second, the tenant lessee would be occupying the premises without paying rentals. She also relies on %eople v. 9eviste, 31 in which the Court held2 While it is true that any motion that does not comply with the re=uirements o !ule ):, !ules o Court should not be accepted or iling and, i iled, is not entitled to "udicial cogniJance, the Supreme Court has liFewise held that where rigid application o the rule will result in mani est ailure or miscarriage o "ustice, technicalities may be disregarded in order to resolve the case. <iberal construction o this rule has been allowed by this Court in the ollowing cases2 6)7 where a rigid application will result in a mani est ailure or miscarriage o "ustice, 32 especially i a party success ully shows that the alleged de ect in the =uestioned inal and e#ecutory "udgment is not apparent on its ace or rom the recitals contained thereinI 33 6-7 where the interest o substantial "ustice will be servedI 3- 6,7 where the resolution o the motion is addressed solely to the sound and "udicious discretion o the courtI 3/ and 617 where the in"ustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree o his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 36 $etitioner has ailed to demonstrate that the case at bar alls under any o these e#ceptions. 5inally, petitioner claims that she will be deprived o property without due process, as private respondent has accumulated $,1?,?;; in unpaid rentals and accrued interests. We disagree. $etitioner can obtain proper payment o rentals through a motion or e#ecution in the case below. &he +&C may have dismissed her e"ectment case, but it did not e#culpate private respondent rom its liabilities. $etitioner is, there ore, not being deprived o her property without due process. Indeed, there is no miscarriage o "ustice to speaF o . 4aving ailed to observe very elementary rules o procedure which are mandatory, petitioner caused her own predicament. &o e#culpate her rom the compulsory coverage o such rules is to undermine the stability o the "udicial process, as the bench and bar will be con ounded by such irritating uncertainties as when to obey and when to ignore the !ules. We have to draw the line somewhere. 37

W4E!E5O!E, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is %55I!+ED. Costs against the petitioner. SO O!DE!ED. Davide, #r., 8ellosillo, &itug and 'uisumbing, ##., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ ) Special &enth Division, composed o EE. Demetrio /. Demetria, ponenteI 4ector <. 4o ileNa, acting chairmanI and !omeo E. Calle"o, concurring. - C% Decision, p. );I rollo, p. 1(. , +&C Decision, pp. ).-I C% rollo, pp. )*.)?. 1 C1 rollo, p. 1. : 0bid. 9 $enned by Eudge +a. !uby '. Camarista. * +&C Decision, p. -,I C% records, p. ,?. ? C% Decision, pp. -.,I rollo, pp. 1).1-. ( -,* SC!% 9?:, 9(*, October -1, )((1. ); -;( SC!% :)?, :--, Eune ,, )((-. )) )9( SC!% ),*, )1:, Eanuary ),, )(?(. )- &he case was deemed submitted or resolution upon the CourtKs receipt o the +emorandum or the private !espondent on +ay --, )((?. ), Submitted by %tty. %ngelina %randia.0illanueva as counsel or petitioner who replaced %tty. 0icente 4. !eyes. %tty. %rnel MaragoJa Dolendo represented private respondent. )1 Rollo, p. )1). ): +emorandum or $etitioner, pp. :.9I rollo, pp. )1).)1-. )9 -:? SC!% -(?, ,;).,;1, Euly :, )((9, per 'ellosillo, E. )* )(- SC!% :*:, December -), )((;. )? 0d., p. :**. )( 0d., pp. :**.:*?, citing 5ecundo v. 'erma"en, )?; SC!% -,:, December )?, )(?(I New Eapan +otors, Inc. v. $erucho, *1 SC!% )1, November :, )(*9I 5ilipinas 5abricators L Sales, Inc. v. +agsino, ):* SC!% 19(, Eanuary -(, )(??. -; $upra. -) 0d., p. )(, citing Omico +ining Industrial Corp. v. 0alle"os, 9, SC!% -?:, +arch -:, )(*:I %ndrada v. Court o %ppeals, 9; SC!% ,*(, October ,;, )(*1I Sacdalan v. 'autista, :9 SC!% )*:, +arch -*, )(*1I Cledera v. Sarmiento, ,( SC!% ::-, Eune );, )(*). -- )99 SC!% ,;, September -?, )(??. -, ,) SC!% :9-, 5ebruary )?, )(*;. -1 )1 SC!% 1,:, Eune -1, )(9:. -: 0d., pp. 1,*.1,?. -9 +emorandum or petitioner, p. -I rollo, p. ),?. -* C% rollo, p. :1. -? 0bid., pp. :(.9). -( 0d., pp. ::.:?. ,; 0d., p. :?. ,) -:: SC!% -,?, -1*, +arch -?, )((9, per $anganiban, E. ,- /oldloop $roperties, Inc. v. Court o %ppeals, -)- SC!% 1(?, :;1.:;:, %ugust )), )((-I <egarda v. Court o %ppeals, )(: SC!% 1)?, 1-9.1-*, +arch )?, )((). ,, 'alangcad v. Eustices o the Court o %ppeals, 5ebruary )-, )((-. ,1 &amago v. C%, supra, p. :--. ,: /alveJ v. C%, supra, pp. 9(9.*;-. ,9 /alang v. Court o %ppeals, )(( SC!% 9?,, 9?(, Euly -(, )((). ,* Cf. Cledera v. Sarmiento, ,( SC!% ::-, Eune ,;, )(*).

included in the will properties which no longer belonged to her. $etitioners prayed that the letters testamentary issued to respondent be withdrawn and the estate o the decedent disposed o under intestate succession.( G.R. No. 1/6021 "%#,%85%0 23, 200/ C!NTHIA C. ALA+AN, FRANCI" COLLADO, JO"E . COLLADO, J*DITH RO&IDO, CLARITA RO&IDO, ALFREDO RO&IDO, MAN*EL RO&IDO, JR., LORNA DINA E. RO&IDO, "E&ERO ARENGA, JR., "ERGIO ARENGA, ED*ARDO ARENGA, CAROL ARENGA, R*TH +A+A"A, NORMA HIJA"TRO, DOLORE" M. FLORE", ANTONIO MARIN, JR., JO"E MARIN, "R., '() MATHILDE MARIN, $etitioners, vs. CO*RT OF A EAL" '() FRANCI"CO H. RO&IDO, !espondent. DECISION T7(;', J.4 &his is a petition or review o the Resolutions) o the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 in C%./.!. S$ No. 9(--),- dismissing petitioners> petition or annulment o "udgment. On ? November -;;;, respondent 5rancisco $rovido 6respondent7 iled a petition, docFeted as S$ $roc. No. ;;.),:, or the probate o the 9ast Gill and -estament, o the late Soledad $rovido Elevencionado 63decedent37, who died on -9 October -;;; in Eaniuay, Iloilo.1 !espondent alleged that he was the heir o the decedent and the e#ecutor o her will. On ,; +ay -;;), the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7, 'ranch 9?, in $.D. +on ort North, Dumangas, Iloilo, rendered its Decision,: allowing the probate o the will o the decedent and directing the issuance o letters testamentary to respondent.9 +ore than our 617 months later, or on 1 October -;;), herein petitioners iled a motion or the reopening o the probate proceedings. * <iFewise, they iled an opposition to the allowance o the will o the decedent, as well as the issuance o letters testamentary to respondent,? claiming that they are the intestate heirs o the decedent. $etitioners claimed that the !&C did not ac=uire "urisdiction over the petition due to non.payment o the correct docFet ees, de ective publication, and lacF o notice to the other heirs. +oreover, they alleged that the will could not have been probated because2 6)7 the signature o the decedent was orgedI 6-7 the will was not e#ecuted in accordance with law, that is, the witnesses ailed to sign below the attestation clauseI 6,7 the decedent lacFed testamentary capacity to e#ecute and publish a willI 617 the will was e#ecuted by orce and under duress and improper pressureI 6:7 the decedent had no intention to maFe a will at the time o a i#ing o her signatureI and 697 she did not Fnow the properties to be disposed o , having On )) Eanuary -;;-, the !&C issued an Order); denying petitioners> motion or being unmeritorious. !esolving the issue o "urisdiction, the !&C held that petitioners were deemed noti ied o the hearing by publication and that the de iciency in the payment o docFet ees is not a ground or the outright dismissal o the petition. It merely re=uired respondent to pay the de iciency. )) +oreover, the !&C>s Decision was already inal and e#ecutory even be ore petitioners> iling o the motion to reopen.)$etitioners therea ter iled a petition), with an application or preliminary in"unction with the C%, seeFing the annulment o the !&C>s Decision dated ,; +ay -;;) and Order dated )) Eanuary -;;-. &hey claimed that a ter the death o the decedent, petitioners, together with respondent, held several con erences to discuss the matter o dividing the estate o the decedent, with respondent agreeing to a one.si#th 6)A97 portion as his share. $etitioners allegedly dra ted a compromise agreement to implement the division o the estate. Despite receipt o the agreement, respondent re used to sign and return the same. $etitioners opined that respondent eigned interest in participating in the compromise agreement so that they would not suspect his intention to secure the probate o the will.)1 &hey claimed that they learnt o the probate proceedings only in Euly o -;;), as a result o which they iled their motion to reopen the proceedings and admit their opposition to the probate o the will only on 1 October -;;). &hey argued that the !&C Decision should be annulled and set aside on the ground o e#trinsic raud and lacF o "urisdiction on the part o the !&C.): In its Resolution)9 promulgated on -? 5ebruary -;;-, the C% dismissed the petition. It ound that there was no showing that petitioners ailed to avail o or resort to the ordinary remedies o new trial, appeal, petition or relie rom "udgment, or other appropriate remedies through no ault o their own.)* +oreover, the C% declared as baseless petitioners> claim that the proceedings in the !&C was attended by e#trinsic raud. Neither was there any showing that they availed o this ground in a motion or new trial or petition or relie rom "udgment in the !&C, the C% added. )? $etitioners sought reconsideration o the Resolution, but the same was denied by the C% or lacF o merit.)( $etitioners now come to this Court, asserting that the C% committed grave abuse o discretion amounting to lacF o "urisdiction when it dismissed their petition or the alleged ailure to show that they have not availed o or resorted to the remedies o new trial, appeal, petition or relie rom "udgment or other remedies through no ault o their own, and held that petitioners were not denied their day in court during the proceedings be ore the !&C.-; In addition, they assert that this Court has yet to

decide a case involving !ule 1* o the !ules o Court and, there ore, the instant petition should be given due course or the guidance o the bench and bar.-) 5or his part, respondent claims that petitioners were in a position to avail o the remedies provided in !ules ,* and ,?, as they in act did when they iled a motion or new trial.-- +oreover, they could have resorted to a petition or relie rom "udgment since they learned o the !&C>s "udgment only three and a hal months a ter its promulgation.-, !espondent liFewise maintains that no e#trinsic raud e#ists to warrant the annulment o the !&C>sDecision, since there was no showing that they were denied their day in court. $etitioners were not made parties to the probate proceedings because the decedent did not institute them as her heirs.-1 'esides, assuming arguendothat petitioners are heirs o the decedent, lacF o notice to them is not a atal de ect since personal notice upon the heirs is a matter o procedural convenience and not a "urisdictional re=uisite.-: 5inally, respondent charges petitioners o orumUshopping, since the latter have a pending suit involving the same issues as those in S$ No. ;;.),:, that is S$ No. ))?)-9 iled be ore 'ranch -,, !&C o /eneral Santos City and subse=uently pending on appeal be ore the C% in C%./.!. No.*1(-1.-* It appears that one o the petitioners herein, Dolores +. 5lores 635lores37, who is a niece o the decedent, iled a petition or letters o administration with the !&C o /eneral Santos City, claiming that the decedent died intestate without any issue, survived by ive groups o collateral heirs. 5lores, armed with a Special $ower o %ttorney rom most o the other petitioners, prayed or her appointment as administratri# o the estate o the decedent. &he !&C dismissed the petition on the ground o lacF o "urisdiction, stating that the probate court in Eaniuay, Iloilo has "urisdiction since the venue or a petition or the settlement o the estate o a decedent is the place where the decedent died. &his is also in accordance with the rule that the irst court ac=uiring "urisdiction shall continue hearing the case to the e#clusion o other courts, the !&C added.-? On ( Eanuary -;;-, 5lores iled a /otice of Appeal -( and on -? Eanuary -;;-, the case was ordered orwarded to the C%.,; $etitioners maintain that they were not made parties to the case in which the decision sought to be annulled was rendered and, thus, they could not have availed o the ordinary remedies o new trial, appeal, petition or relie rom "udgment and other appropriate remedies, contrary to the ruling o the C%. &hey aver that respondent>s o er o a alse compromise and his ailure to noti y them o the probate o the will constitute e#trinsic raud that necessitates the annulment o the !&C>s "udgment. ,) &he petition is devoid o merit. Section ,* o the !ules o Court allows an aggrieved party to ile a motion or new trial on the ground o raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence. &he same

!ule permits the iling o a motion or reconsideration on the grounds o e#cessive award o damages, insu iciency o evidence to "usti y the decision or inal order, or that the decision or inal order is contrary to law.,- 'oth motions should be iled within the period or taFing an appeal, or i teen 6):7 days rom notice o the "udgment or inal order. +eanwhile, a petition or relie rom "udgment under Section , o !ule ,? is resorted to when a "udgment or inal order is entered, or any other proceeding is therea ter taFen, against a party in any court through raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence. Said party may ile a petition in the same court and in the same case to set aside the "udgment, order or proceeding. It must be iled within si#ty 69;7 days a ter the petitioner learns o the "udgment and within si# 697 months a ter entry thereo .,, % motion or new trial or reconsideration and a petition or relie rom "udgment are remedies available only to parties in the proceedings where the assailed "udgment is rendered.,1 In act, it has been held that a person who was never a party to the case, or even summoned to appear therein, cannot avail o a petition or relie rom "udgment.,: 4owever, petitioners in this case are mistaFen in asserting that they are not or have not become parties to the probate proceedings. @nder the !ules o Court, any e#ecutor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate may, at any time a ter the death o the testator, petition the court having "urisdiction to have the will allowed. ,9 Notice o the time and place or proving the will must be published or three 6,7 consecutive weeFs, in a newspaper o general circulation in the province,,* as well as urnished to the designated or other Fnown heirs, legatees, and devisees o the testator. ,? &hus, it has been held that a proceeding or the probate o a will is onein rem, such that with the corresponding publication o the petition the courtKs "urisdiction e#tends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement o the estate o the decedent. ,( $ublication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has or its ob"ect to bar inde initely all who might be minded to maFe an ob"ection o any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication o such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with "urisdiction to hear and decide it.1; &hus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition or probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a conse=uence o the publication o the notice o hearing. %s parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners could have validly availed o the remedies o motion or new trial or reconsideration and petition or relie rom "udgment. In act, petitioners iled a motion to reopen, which is essentially a motion

or new trial, with petitioners praying or the reopening o the case and the setting o urther proceedings. 4owever, the motion was denied or having been iled out o time, long a ter the Decision became inal and e#ecutory. Conceding that petitioners became aware o the Decision a ter it had become inal, they could have still iled a petition or relie rom "udgment a ter the denial o their motion to reopen. $etitioners claim that they learned o theDecision only on 1 October -;;), or almost our 617 months rom the time the Decision had attained inality. 'ut they ailed to avail o the remedy. 5or ailure to maFe use without su icient "usti ication o the said remedies available to them, petitioners could no longer resort to a petition or annulment o "udgmentI otherwise, they would bene it rom their own inaction or negligence.1) Even casting aside the procedural re=uisite, the petition or annulment o "udgment must still ail or ailure to comply with the substantive re=uisites, as the appellate court ruled. %n action or annulment o "udgment is a remedy in law independent o the case where the "udgment sought to be annulled was rendered.1- &he purpose o such action is to have the inal and e#ecutory "udgment set aside so that there will be a renewal o litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies o new trial, appeal, petition or relie rom "udgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no ault o the petitioner,1, and is based on only two grounds2 e#trinsic raud, and lacF o "urisdiction or denial o due process. 11% person need not be a party to the "udgment sought to be annulled, and it is only essential that he can prove his allegation that the "udgment was obtained by the use o raud and collusion and he would be adversely a ected thereby. 1: %n action to annul a inal "udgment on the ground o raud lies only i the raud is e#trinsic or collateral in character.19 5raud is regarded as e#trinsic where it prevents a party rom having a trial or rom presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the "udgment itsel but to the manner in which it is procured. &he overriding consideration when e#trinsic raud is alleged is that the raudulent scheme o the prevailing litigant prevented a party rom having his day in court.1* &o sustain their allegation o e#trinsic raud, petitioners assert that as a result o respondent>s deliberate omission or concealment o their names, ages and residences as the other heirs o the decedent in his petition or allowance o the will, they were not noti ied o the proceedings, and thus they were denied their day in court. In addition, they claim that respondent>s o er o a alse compromise even be ore the iling o the petition prevented them rom appearing and opposing the petition or probate.

&he Court is not convinced. %ccording to the !ules, notice is re=uired to be personally given to Fnown heirs, legatees, and devisees o the testator.1? % perusal o the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir o the decedent. $etitioners, as nephews and nieces o the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs1( who are entitled to be noti ied o the probate proceedings under the !ules. !espondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition or probate, or to personally noti y them o the same. 'esides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so noti ied, the purported in irmity is cured by the publication o the notice. % ter all, personal notice upon the heirs is a matter o procedural convenience and not a "urisdictional re=uisite.:; &he non.inclusion o petitioners> names in the petition and the alleged ailure to personally noti y them o the proceedings do not constitute e#trinsic raud. $etitioners were not denied their day in court, as they were not prevented rom participating in the proceedings and presenting their case be ore the probate court. One other vital point is the issue o orum.shopping against petitioners. 5orum. shopping consists o iling multiple suits in di erent courts, either simultaneously or successively, involving the same parties, to asF the courts to rule on the same or related causes andAor to grant the same or substantially same relie s, :) on the supposition that one or the other court would maFe a avorable disposition.:- Obviously, the parties in the instant case, as well as in the appealed case be ore the C%, are the same. 'oth cases deal with the e#istence and validity o the alleged will o the decedent, with petitioners anchoring their cause on the state o intestacy. In the probate proceedings, petitioners> position has always been that the decedent le t no will and i she did, the will does not comply with the re=uisites o a valid will. Indeed, that position is the bedrocF o their present petition. O course, respondent maintains the contrary stance. On the other hand, in the petition or letters o administration, petitioner 5lores prayed or her appointment as administratri# o the estate on the theory that the decedent died intestate. &he petition was dismissed on the ground o lacF o "urisdiction, and it is this order o dismissal which is the sub"ect o review in C%./.!. No. *1(-1. Clearly, there ore, there is orum.shopping. +oreover, petitioners ailed to in orm the Court o the said pending case in their certi ication against orum. shopping. Neither have they done so at any time therea ter. &he Court notes that even in the petition or annulment o "udgment, petitioners ailed to in orm the C% o the pendency o their appeal in C%./.!. No. *1(-1, even though the notice o appeal was iled way be ore the petition or annulment o "udgment was instituted.

W4E!E5O!E, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO O!DE!ED.

Foo,(o,%$ ) Dated ? 5ebruary -;;- and )- November -;;-. Cynthia C. %laban, et al. v. /erardo D. DiaJ, et al. , !ollo, pp. 1*.:-. 1 Entitled 3In !e2 $etition or $robate o Will o Decedent Soledad $rovido Elevencionado, 5rancisco 4. $rovido, $etitioner3I 0d. at ,).,-. : 0d. at ,1.,*. 9 0bid. * 0d. at ,?.,(. ? 0d. at 1).1:. ( 0d. at 1-.11. ); 0d. at :,.:9. )) 0d. at ::, :9. )0d. at ::. ), DocFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. 9(--). )1 !ollo, pp. :?.:(. ): 0d. at 9-. )9 0d. at 9(. )* 0bid. )? 0d. at *;. )( !esolution dated )- November -;;-, 0d. at (-. -; 0d. at ):. -) 0d. at ):. -0d. at );,. -, 0d. at );*. -1 0d. at );? -: 0d. at );(. -9 Entitled 3In the +atter o the Issuance o <etters o %dministration in the Intestate Estate o Soledad $rovido.Elevencionado, Dolores +. 5lores, $etitioner.3 -* !ollo, pp. );(.));. -? 0d. at )-9. -( C% !ollo, p.*?. ,; 0d. at *(. ,) 0d. at -). ,Sec. ), !ule ,*. ,, Sec. ), !ule ,?. ,1 Section ) o !ule ,* o the !ules o Court provides2 Section ). *rounds of and period for filing motion for ne trial or reconsideration.. Within the period or taFing an appeal, the aggrieved part4 may move the trial court to set aside the "udgment or inal order and grant a new trial or one or more o the ollowing causes materially a ecting the substantial rights o said party2 .... +eanwhile, Sections ) and - o !ule ,? state2 Section ). %etition for relief from "udgment, order, or ot!er proceedings.. When a "udgment or inal order is entered, or any other proceeding is therea ter taFen against a part4 in any court through raud, accident, mistaFe or e#cusable negligence, he may ile a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the "udgment, order or proceeding be set aside. Section -. %etition for relief from denial of appeal.. When a "udgment or inal order is rendered by any court in a case, and a part4 thereto, by raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence, has been prevented rom taFing an appeal, he may ile a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course. ,: 6Emphasis supplied.7

G,:H+etropolitan 'anF and &rust Co. v. %le"o, /.!. No. )1)(*;, ); September -;;), ,91 SC!% ?)-, ?)*. ,9 Sec. ), !ule *9, !ules o Court. ,* Sec. ,, !ule *9, id. ,? Sec. 1, !ule *9, id. ,( %but v. %but, ):;.% $hil. 9*(, 9?, 6)(*-7. 1; 'arco v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. )-;:?*, -; Eanuary -;;1, 1-; SC!% )9-, )*1, citing %deJ !ealty v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. );;91,, )1 %ugust )((-, -- SC!% 9-,, 9-?. 1) +anipor, et al. v. Spouses !ica ort, /.!. No. ):;):(, -: Euly -;;,, 1;* SC!% -(?, ,;,. 1Islamic Da>Wah Council o the $hilippines v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. ?;?(-, -( September )(?(, )*? SC!% )?:, )?1. 1, Sec. ), !ule 1*, !ules o Court. 11 $inlac v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. ()1?9, )( Eanuary -;;), ,1( SC!% 9,:, 9:;. 1: Islamic Da>Wah Council o the $hilippines v. Court o %ppeals, supra note 1- at )?*. 19 'obis et al. v. Court o %ppeals, et al., /.!. No. )),*(9, )1 December -;;;, ,1? SC!% -,, -*.-?. 1* &eodoro v. Court o %ppeals, 1,* $hil. ,,9, ,1: 6-;;-7. 1? Sec. ,, !ule *9, !ules o Court. 1( %rt. ?1-, Civil Code. :; 5.D. !egalado, !emedial <aw Compendium, 0ol. II 6-;;) ed.7 p. -*, citing In !e Estate o Eohnson, ,( $hil ):9I In !e &estate Estate o Deceased Eose '. Suntay, (: $hil :;;I %but v. %but, et al., ):;.% $hil. 9*( 6)(*-7. :) E. 5eria L +.C.S. Noche, Civil $rocedure %nnotated 0ol. ) 6-;;)7 p. -(*. :/atmaytan v. Court o %ppeals, ,,: $hil. )::, )9* 6)((*7.

G.R. No. 131-82

July 3, 2002

REGALADO . "AMARTINO, petitioner, vs. LEONOR +. RAON, AG*"TIN G. CRI"O"TOMO, THE M*NICI AL TRIAL CO*RT OF NO&ELETA, CA&ITE, HON. MAN*EL A. MA!O, REGIONAL TRIAL CO*RT, +RANCH 16, CA&ITE CIT!, HON. ROLANDO D. DIA1, REGIONAL TRIAL CO*RT, +RANCH 17, CA&ITE CIT!, "HERIFF DANILO G. LA *1, CA&ITE CIT! '() THE HON. CO*RT OF A EAL", respondents. !NARE"."ANTIAGO, J.4 !espondents <eonor 'ernardo.!aon and %gustin /. Crisostomo are the surviving sister and spouse, respectively, o the late 5ilomena 'ernardo.Crisostomo, who passed away on +ay )*, )((1. %mong the properties le t by the deceased was her one.hal share in a parcel o land in Noveleta, Cavite, registered under &rans er

Certi icate o &itle No. &. ),)?(? in the name o co.owners <ido 'each Corporation and 5ilomena 'ernardo. On Eanuary -:, )((9, respondents instituted against petitioner !egalado $. Samartino a complaint or e"ectment, docFeted as Civil Case No. *11 o the +unicipal &rial Court o Noveleta, Cavite.) &hey alleged that during the li etime o 5ilomena 'ernardo, she leased her share in the property to petitioner or a period o ive years counted rom )(?9I that the said lease e#pired and was not e#tended therea terI and that petitioner re used to vacate the property despite demands there or. Summons was served on !oberto Samartino, brother o petitioner.- %t the time o service o summons at petitioner>s house, he was not at home as he was then con ined at the National 'ureau o Investigation &reatment and !ehabilitation Center 6N'I.&!C7, &agaytay City since Eanuary )(, )((9, where he was undergoing treatment and rehabilitation or drug dependency. &hus, on 5ebruary -, )((9, a liaison o icer o the N'I.&!C appeared be ore the trial court with a certi ication that petitioner will be unable to comply with the directive to answer the complaint within the reglementary period, inasmuch as it will taFe si# months or him to complete the rehabilitation program and be ore he can be recommended or discharge by the !ehabilitation Committee., &he trial court, despite the written certi ication rom N'I.&!C, granted respondents> motion to declare petitioner in de ault and ordered them to present evidence e7) parte. On +arch -), )((9, the trial court rendered "udgment in avor o respondents as ollows2 5!O+ &4E 5O!E/OIN/ CONSIDE!%&IONS, "udgment is hereby rendered in avor o the plainti s and against the de endant ordering the latter and other personAs claiming rights under him2 ). &o vacate immediately the land in =uestion a ter the inality o the decision. -. 5or the de endant to pay the plainti s the sum o $:,;;;.;; monthly rom Eanuary, )((- up to the time he surrenders the premises considered as damages or the use o the sub"ect land. ,. 5or the de endant to pay the plainti s $ );,;;;.;; as and or attorney>s ees with an additional $?;;.;; as appearance ees. 1. &o pay the plainti s $ );;.;; as iling ee. SO O!DE!ED.1

% ter learning o the adverse decision against him, petitioner>s counsel iled with the !egional &rial Court o Cavite City, 'ranch )9, a motion to set aside "udgment. &he motion was treated as an appeal and docFeted as Civil Case No. N.9-?). On Euly )?, )((9, the !&C a irmed the decision o the +&C.: &he a oresaid decision became inal. %ccordingly, the court o origin issued on September )*, )((9 a writ o e#ecution.9 $etitioner was given a grace period o one month within which to vacate the premises. 4is real property situated in Noveleta, Cavite, covered by &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. &.-?,:*-, was levied and sold at public auction to respondents in ull satis action o the monetary award. * On November -:, )((9, petitioner iled with the !egional &rial Court o Cavite City, a petition or relie rom "udgment, docFeted as Civil Case No. N.9,(,.? In support thereo , petitioner submitted an a idavit o merit,(alleging in ine that the parcel o land rom which he was being evicted had been sold to him by 5ilomena 'ernardo. Crisostomo, as evidenced by the Deed o %bsolute Sale dated December ),, )(??.); &he ollowing day, November -9, )((9, the !&C issued an Order dismissing the petition or relie rom "udgment.))$etitioner>s +otion or !econsideration was denied on December )-, )((9. % second +otion or !econsideration was liFewise denied on Eanuary )1, )((*.)- On the same day, a writ o demolition was issued commanding the sheri to remove the building and improvements made by petitioner on the sub"ect premises and to deliver the possession thereo to respondents.), $etitioner thus iled a petition or certiorari with the Court o %ppeals, docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. 1,-O-.)1 On %ugust -(, )((*, the Court o %ppeals dismissed the petition.): $etitioner>s +otion or !econsideration was denied on November )1, )((*.)9 4ence this petition or review. &he petition is impressed with merit. In actions in personam, summons on the de endant must be served by handing a copy thereo to the de endant in person, or, i he re uses to receive it, by tendering it to him. I e orts to serve the summons personally to de endant is impossible, service may be e ected by leaving copies o the summons at the de endant>s dwelling house or residence with some person o suitable age and discretion residing therein, or by leaving the copies at the de endant>s o ice or regular place o business with some competent person in charge thereo . Otherwise stated, service o summons upon the de endant shall be by personal service irst and only when the de endant cannot be promptly served in person will substituted service be availed o .)* !ule )1 o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure clearly provides2

Sec. 9. $ervice in person on defendant. . Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereo to the de endant in person, or, i he re uses to receive and sign or it, by tendering it to him. Sec. *. $ubstituted service. . I , or "usti iable causes, the de endant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be e ected 6a7 by leaving copies o the summons at the de endant>s residence with some person o suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or 6b7 by leaving the copies at de endant>s o ice or regular place o business with some competent person in charge thereo . We have long held that the impossibility o personal service "usti ying availment o substituted service should be e#plained in the proo o serviceI why e orts e#erted towards personal service ailed. &he pertinent acts and circumstances attendant to the service o summons must be stated in the proo o service or O icer>s !eturnI otherwise, the substituted service cannot be upheld. It is only under e#ceptional terms that the circumstances warranting substituted service o summons may be proved by evidence aliunde. It bears stressing that since service o summons, especially or actions in personam, is essential or the ac=uisition o "urisdiction over the person o the de endant, the resort to a substituted service must be duly "usti ied. 5ailure to do so would invalidate all subse=uent proceedings on "urisdictional grounds.)? In this connection, Supreme Court %dministrative Circular No. :( was issued on November )(, )(?( to stress the importance o strict compliance with the re=uisites or a valid substituted service, to wit2 Delays in court proceedings have been caused by aulty and erroneous implementation o Section ?, !ule )1, !ules o Court on Substituted Service o Summons. &he &rial Eudges o all lower courts, as well as the ClerFs o Court in their capacity as E#.O icio Sheri s together with the Deputy Sheri s are reminded o the provision o Section ?, !ule )1, !ules o Court on substituted service as ollows2 ### ### ###

should be made in the proo o service. &his is necessary because substituted service is in derogation o the usual method o service. Substituted service is a method e#traordinary in character, and hence may be used only as prescribed in the circumstances authoriJed by statute. &hus, the statutory re=uirements o substituted service must be ollowed strictly, aith ully and any substituted service other than authoriJed by the statute is considered ine ective.3 5or immediate compliance. In the case at bar, the sheri >s !eturn o Summons simply states2 &his is to certi y that on this date2 -9th day o Eanuary I have caused the service o summons, together with the attached complaint and its anne#es issued in the above entitled case upon de endant !E/%<%DO S%+%!&INO thru !O'E!&O S%+%!&INO, 'rother o the de endant acFnowledge receipt o said court processes by a i#ing his signature at the lower le t portion o the original summons hereto attached. W4E!E5O!E, the attached original summons is hereby respect ully returned to the court o origin duly served or in ormation and record purposes. Noveleta, Cavite, 5ebruary (, )((9.)( Clearly, the above return ailed to show the reason why personal service could not be made. It ailed to state that prompt and personal service on the de endant was rendered impossible. It was not shown that e orts were made to ind the de endant personally and that said e orts ailedI hence the resort to substituted service. %s stated above, these re=uirements are indispensable because substituted service is in derogation o the usual method o service. It is an e#traordinary method since it seeFs to bind the de endant to the conse=uences o a suit even though notice o such action is served not upon him but upon another whom law could only presume would noti y him o the pending proceedings. 5or this reason, ailure to aith ully, strictly, and ully comply with the re=uirements o substituted service renders said service ine ective.-; 5urthermore, nowhere in the return o summons or in the records o this case is it shown that petitioner>s brother, on whom substituted service o summons was e ected, was a person o suitable age and discretion residing at petitioner>s residence.

&he manner o e ecting substituted service as prescribed in &enturan+a vs. Court of Appeals, 1:@ SC!% ,;:, must be strictly complied with, thus2 3&he substituted service should be availed only when the de endant cannot be served promptly in person. Impossibility o prompt service should be shown by stating the e orts made to ind the de endant personally and the ailure o such e orts. &he statement

&here being no valid substituted service o summons, the trial court did not ac=uire "urisdiction over the person o petitioner. It should be emphasiJed that the service o summons is not only re=uired to give the court "urisdiction over the person o the de endant, but also to a ord the latter an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him. &hus, compliance with the rules regarding the service o summons is as much an issue o due process as o "urisdiction. &he essence o due process is to be ound in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support o his de ense. It is elementary that be ore a person can be deprived o his property, he should irst be in ormed o the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is premised.-) 'y reason o the ine ective service o summons, petitioner was not duly apprised o the action against him. Conse=uently, he was prevented rom answering the claims against him. 4e was not given a chance to be heard on his de enses. What made matters worse was that the trial court had actual Fnowledge that petitioner was then indisposed and unable to ile his answer to the complaint, as he was then con ined at the N'I.&!C. &he trial court>s ailure to give petitioner a reasonable opportunity to ile his answer violated his right to due process. $er orce, the "udgment rendered against petitioner is nugatory and without e ect. &he trial court should not have been too rash in declaring petitioner in de ault, considering it had actual notice o valid reasons that prevented him rom answering. Well.settled is the rule that courts should be liberal in setting aside orders o de ault or de ault "udgments are rowned upon, unless in cases where it clearly appears that the reopening o the case is intended or delay. &he issuance o orders o de ault should be the e#ception rather than the rule, to be allowed only in clear cases o obstinate re usal by the de endant to comply with the orders o the trial court. -Suits should as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on technicalities. In this regard, we have o ten admonished courts to be liberal in setting aside orders o de ault as de ault "udgments are rowned upon and not looFed upon with avor or they may amount to a positive and considerable in"ustice to the de endant and the possibility o such serious conse=uences necessitates a care ul e#amination o the grounds upon which the de endant asFs that it be set aside. Since rules o procedure are mere tools designed to acilitate the attainment o "ustice, it is well recogniJed that this Court is empowered to suspend its operation, or e#cept a particular case rom its operation, when the rigid application thereo tends to rustrate rather than promote the ends o "ustice. We are not unmind ul o the act that during the pendency o the instant petition, the trial court has rendered "udgment against petitioners. 4owever, being the court o last resort, we deem it in the best interest that liberality and rela#ation o the !ules be e#tended to petitioners by setting aside the order o de ault issued by the trial court and the conse=uent de ault "udgmentI otherwise, great in"ustice would result i petitioners are not a orded an opportunity to prove their claims.-,

In addition, the !egional &rial Court committed reversible error in dismissing the petition or relie rom "udgment or having been iled out o time. %ccording to the !egional &rial Court, the petition or relie , iled on November -:, )((9, was late because petitioner had actual Fnowledge o the "udgment in the e"ectment case since +arch )((9. &he period within which to ile a petition or relie should have been recFoned rom the date petitioner learned o the "udgment o the !egional &rial Court. It should not have been counted rom the date o the +unicipal &rial Court>s decision because, precisely, petitioner appealed the same. It was the !egional &rial Court>s decision that became inal and, hence, was the proper sub"ect o the petition or relie rom "udgment. It is a#iomatic that a petition or relie is only available against a inal and e#ecutory "udgment.-1 Section ,, !ule ,?, o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure provides that a veri ied petition or relie must be iled within si#ty 69;7 days a ter the petitioner learns o the "udgment, inal order, or other proceeding to be set aside and not more than si# 697 months a ter such "udgment or inal order has been entered or such proceeding has been taFen. It must be accompanied with a idavits showing the raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence relied upon, and the acts constituting petitioner>s good and substantial cause o action or de ense.-: It is not clear rom the records o the case at bar when petitioner learned o the decision o the !egional &rial Court a irming the "udgment o the +unicipal &rial Court. What appears is that the said decision became inal only on %ugust ):, )((9, and must have been entered sometime therea ter. 4ence, the petition or relie iled on November -:, )((9 was well within the si#.month period prescribed by the !ules. 5inally, the records show that petitioner raised a meritorious de ense in his a idavit o merit. 4e alleged therein that the property rom which he was being e"ected had been sold to him by its registered owner. Ownership is a valid de ense in unlaw ul detainer cases. While possession is the main issue in e"ectment, it is also one o the essential attributes o ownership. It ollows that an owner o real property is entitled to possession o the same. $etitioner can, there ore, properly plead his right o possession to de eat that o respondents. Indeed, an owner who cannot e#ercise the seven 3"usesJ or attributes o ownership . the right to possess, to use and en"oy, to abuse or consume, to accessories, to dispose or alienate, to recover or vindicate and to the ruits . is a crippled owner.-9 %ll told, the +unicipal &rial Court o Noveleta and the !egional &rial Court o Cavite City did not have "urisdiction over the person o petitioner. 4ence, all proceedings had as regards petitioner were null and void. Necessarily, the en orcement o the writ o e#ecution as well as the sale at public auction o petitioner>s real property to satis y the void "udgment must also be declared o no legal e ect.

&here is a real need to resolve the issue o ownership over the premises in order to determine who, as between petitioner and respondents, has a better right to possess the property in dispute. &his can only be done in the proper proceeding be ore the trial court wherein petitioner will be a orded every right to present evidence in his behal . WHEREFORE, in view o the oregoing, the petition is GRANTED. &he decision o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. 1,-;- is RE&ER"ED and "ET A"IDE. &his case is REMANDED to the +unicipal &rial Court o Noveleta, Cavite, which is directed to continue proceedings in Civil Case No. *11 by a ording petitioner !egalado $. Samartino a chance to ile his answer and present evidence in his de ense, and therea ter to hear and decide the case. &he Writ o E#ecution dated September )*, )((9, the Writ o Demolition dated Eanuary )1, )((*, and the certi icate o sale over &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. &.-?,:*-, as well as all acts and deeds incidental to the "udgment in Civil Case No. *11, are declared N*LL AND &OID. "O ORDERED. Davide, #r., &itug, Mapunan, and Austria),artine+, ##., concur !ESO<@&ION
Foo,(o,%$ ) !ollo, pp. ,*.1;. 0bid., p. 1). , 0bid., pp. :).:-. 1 0bid., pp. 1-.19, at 19I penned by Eudge %ntonio /. +irano. : 0bid., pp. :,.9,I penned by Eudge +anuel %. +ayo. 9 0bid., pp. 99.9*. * 0bid., pp. *), )((. ? 0bid., pp. **.(;. ( 0bid., pp. *,.*1. ); 0bid., pp. *:.*9. )) 0bid., pp. ().(,I penned by Eudge !olando D. DiaJ. )lbid., p. )-;. ), 0bid., pp. )::.):9. )1 0bid., pp. )-).):1. ): 0bid., pp. )*-.)?;I penned by %ssociate Eustice Delilah 0idallon.+agtolisI concurred in by %ssociate Eustices Cancio C. /arcia and 4ilarion <. %=uino. )9 0bid., p. )(9. )* &alsan Enterprises, Inc. v. 'aliwag &ransit, Inc., ,); SC!% ):9, )9-.)9, G)(((H. )? +adrigal v. Court o %ppeals, ,)( SC!% ,,), ,,9 G)(((H. )( !ollo, p. 1). -; 4amilton v. <evy, ,11 SC!% ?-), ?-( G-;;;HI @mandap v. Sabio, ,,( SC!% -1,, -1? G-;;;H, citing 0enturanJa vs. Court o %ppeals, ):9 SC!% ,;: G)(?*HI +iranda v. Court o %ppeals, ,-9 SC!% -*?, -?, G-;;;H. -) %ng $ing v. Court o %ppeals, ,); SC!% ,1,, G)(((H. -<orbes v. Court o %ppeals, ,:) SC!% *)9, *-1 G-;;)H. -, DiaJ v. DiaJ, ,,) SC!% ,;-, ,--.,-, G-;;;H. -1 0alencia v. Court o %ppeals, ,:- SC!% *-, ?) G-;;)H. -: $ublic Estates %uthority v. Bu"uico, ,:) SC!% -?;, -() G-;;)H. -9 'ustos v. Court o %ppeals, ,:; SC!% )::, )9).)9- G-;;)H.

G.R. No. 182718

"%#,%85%0 26, 2008

J*LIO +. *RCON, JR., $etitioner, vs. MRM HILI INE", INC. '() MIG*EL L. RI&ERAJMARITIME RE"O*RCE" MANAGEMENT,!espondents.

RE!E", R.T., J.: % $E&I&ION or relie rom "udgment under !ule ,? o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure is an e=uitable remedy that is allowed only in e#ceptional cases when there is no other available or ade=uate remedy. It may be availed o only a ter a "udgment, inal order, or other proceeding was taFen against petitioner in any court through raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence.) 'e ore @s is a petition or relie rom "udgment- iled by Eulio '. $urcon, seeFing to set aside Our Euly )9, -;;* !esolution,, which denied his petition or review, as well as the October (, -;;* Entry o Eudgment.1 4e pleads or the Court>s leniency on account o the negligence and ine iciency o his counsel, which resulted in the late iling o the petition and in iling de ective pleadings within this Court. &he %ntecedents &he case stemmed rom a complaint iled by petitioner or reimbursement o medical e#penses, sicFness allowance and permanent disability bene its with prayer or compensatory, moral and e#emplary damages and attorney>s ees be ore the %rbitration 'ranch o the National <abor !elations Commission 6N<!C7.

In his veri ied position paper, petitioner alleged that on Eanuary -?, -;;-, respondent +!+ $hilippines, Inc. hired him as a seaman on board the vessel +A& S%!%'E<<E -. 4e signed a contract or three 6,7 months with a monthly salary o Q:?1.;;. %ccording to petitioner, his worF involved a day.to.day activity that re=uired e#ertion o strenuous e ort, and that he o ten worFed overtime due to the pressure o his worF. 4is contract was e#tended or another three 6,7 months. On the second weeF o Eune -;;-, he elt an e#cruciating pain in his le t testicle. % ter being e#amined by a doctor at the port o 5rance, he was diagnosed with hernia. On Eune -9, -;;-, he was repatriated due to his ailment. @pon petitioner>s return to the $hilippines, he was e#amined by Dr. %legre, the company physician, who prescribed certain medication. On Euly -1, -;;-, Dr. %legre declared that he was it to resume worF. When he reported to +!+ $hilippines, Inc. hoping to be re.hired or another contract, he was told that there was no vacancy or him. On September )*, -;;,, he consulted Dr. E ren !. 0icaldo, an internist.cardiologist o $hilippine 4eart Center. On +arch ,, -;;1, a ter a thorough medical e#amination and evaluation, he was diagnosed with E$IDIDB+I&IS, <E5&I @$$E! !ES$I!%&O!B &!%C& IN5%C&ION WI&4 IN$EDI+EN& /!%DE 8I0. !espondents, on the other hand, countered that since petitioner>s ailment, hernia, is not worF.related, he is not entitled to disability bene it and related claims. In act, he was declared it to resume worF on Euly -,, -;;- by the company.designated physician. !espondents liFewise argued that his ailment is not to be considered a permanent disability as this is easily correctable by simple surgery. +ore importantly, petitioner signed a Ouitclaim and !elease which was notariJed. On +arch ,), -;;:, <abor %rbiter Donato /. Ouinto, Er. rendered its decision: dismissing the complaint or utter lacF o merit. &he <abor %rbiter e#plained that petitioner was it to resume worF as a sea arer as o Euly -,, -;;- as his 3hernia3 was already cured or non.e#istent. In act, petitioner was ready to resume worF. @n ortunately, he was not accommodated due to lacF o vacancy. &he act that he was not re.hired by respondent did not mean that he was su ering rom disability. On +ay :, -;;:, complainant.appellant 6petitioner7 iled a memorandum o appeal with the N<!C &hird Division. On September ,;, -;;:, the N<!C &hird Division issued a resolution9 as ollows2 W4E!E5O!E, the appeal is DIS+ISSED or lacF o merit and the assailed decision dated +arch ,), -;;: is hereby %55I!+ED. SO O!DE!ED.*

On December -;, -;;:, the motion or reconsideration was dismissed or lacF o merit. On Eanuary -*, -;;9, the N<!C resolution became inal and e#ecutory and was recorded in the 'ooF o Entries o Eudgments. On +arch -, -;;9, petitioner iled a petition or certiorari under !ule 9: o the !evised !ules o Court with the Court o %ppeals 6C%7. 4owever, on Eune *, -;;9, the C% dismissed the case due to ormal in irmities. $etitioner>s motion or reconsideration was denied. On September -(, -;;9, the C% resolution became inal and e#ecutory. On +ay (, -;;*, petitioner iled with this Court a petition or review on certiorari under !ule 1: o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure assailing the Eune *, -;;9 and September :, -;;9 !esolutions o the C%, which dismissed his petition or certiorari. In Our !esolution? dated Euly )9, -;;*, We denied the petition or the ollowing reasons2 6)7 the petition was iled beyond the reglementary period o i teen 6):7 days i#ed in Section -, !ule 1: in relation to Section :6a7, !ule :9, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, as amendedI 6-7 ailure to pay on time docFet and other ees and deposit or costs in violation o Section ,, !ule 1:, in relation to Section :6c7 o !ule :9I and 6,7 insu icient or de ective veri ication under Section 1, !ule *. We liFewise held that petitioner ailed to su iciently show that the C% committed any reversible error in the challenged resolutions as to warrant the e#ercise o this Court>s discretionary appellate "urisdiction. 4e was not able to convince this Court why the actions o the <abor %rbiter, the N<!C and the C%, which have passed upon the same issue, should be reversed. Conse=uently, on October (, -;;*, an Entry o Eudgment was issued. On +ay 9, -;;?, petitioner iled the instant petition or relie rom "udgment interposing the ollowing grounds2 I. &he 4onorable <abor %rbiter committed a /!OSS +IS&%PE when he based his decision on the it to worF certi ication issued by the company. designated physician and on the Ouitclaim and !elease e#ecuted by the complainantI II. &he 4onorable <abor %rbiter urther committed a /!OSS +IS&%PE when he adopted the irrelevant "urisprudence cited by the respondents and by adopting it in his decisionI III. &he 4onorable N<!C &hird Division also committed a /!OSS +IS&%PE when it a irms the E!!ONEO@S decision o the 4onorable <abor %rbiterI

I0. &he actual indings o the 4onorable <abor %rbiter, and the 4onorable N<!C &hird Division, are not based on substantial evidence and that their decisions are contrary to the applicable law and "urisprudenceI and 0. &he collaborating counsel o the petitioner committed a /!OSS +IS&%PE in iling de ective pleadings to the pre"udice o the herein petitioner.( &he threshold issue be ore @s is U Can petitioner avail o a petition or relie rom "udgment under !ule ,? o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure rom Our resolution denying his petition or reviewT We answer in the negative. % petition or relie rom "udgment is not an available remedy in the Supreme Court. 5irst, although Section ) o !ule ,? states that when a "udgment or inal order is entered through raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence, a party in any court may ile a petition or relie rom "udgment, this rule must be interpreted in harmony with !ule :9, which enumerates the original cases cogniJable by the Supreme Court, thus2 Section ). Original cases cogni+able. U Only petitions or certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo arranto, !abeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members o the "udiciary and attorneys, and cases a ecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls may be iled originally in the Supreme Court. % petition or relie rom "udgment is not included in the list o !ule :9 cases originally cogniJable by this Court. In Dela CruJ v. %ndres,); We reiterated Our pronouncement in +esina v. +eer,)) that a petition or relie rom "udgment is not an available remedy in the Court o %ppeals and the Supreme Court. &he Court e#plained that under the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure, the petition or relie must be iled within si#ty 69;7 days a ter petitioner learns o the "udgment, inal order or other proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with a idavits showing the raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence relied upon, and the acts constituting petitioner>s good and substantial cause o action or de ense, as the case may be. +ost importantly, it should be iled with the same court which rendered the decision,vi+.2 Section ). $etition or relie rom "udgment, order, or other proceedings. U When a "udgment or inal order is entered, or any other proceeding is therea ter taFen against a party in any court through raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence, he may ile a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the "udgment, order or proceeding be set aside.)- 6@nderscoring supplied7

Second, while !ule ,? uses the phrase 3any court,3 it re ers only to +unicipalA+etropolitan and !egional &rial Courts. %s revised, !ule ,? radically departs rom the previous rule as it now allows the +etropolitan or +unicipal &rial Court which decided the case or issued the order to hear the petition or relie . @nder the old rule, a petition or relie rom the "udgment or inal order o +unicipal &rial Courts should be iled with the !egional &rial Court, vi+.2 Section ). $etition to Court o 5irst Instance or relie rom "udgment o in erior court. U When a "udgment is rendered by an in erior court on a case, and a party thereto by raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence, has been un"ustly deprived o a hearing therein, or has been prevented rom taFing an appeal, he may ile a petition in the Court o 5irst Instance o the province in which the original "udgment was rendered, praying that such "udgment be set aside and the case tried upon its merits. Section -. $etition to Court o 5irst Instance or relie rom the "udgment or other proceeding thereo . U When a "udgment order is entered, or any other proceeding is taFen against a party in a Court o 5irst Instance through raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence, he may ile a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the "udgment, order or proceeding be set aside. &he procedural change in !ule ,? is in line with !ule :, prescribing uni orm procedure or +unicipal and !egional &rial Courts), and designation o +unicipalA+etropolitan &rial Courts as courts o record. )1 &hird, the procedure in the C% and the Supreme Court are governed by separate provisions o the !ules o Court.): It may, rom time to time, be supplemented by additional rules promulgated by the Supreme Court through resolutions or circulars. %s it stands, neither the !ules o Court nor the !evised Internal !ules o the C%)9 allows the remedy o petition or relie in the C%. &here is no provision in the !ules o Court maFing the petition or relie applicable in the C% or this Court. &he procedure in the C% rom !ules 11 to ::, with the e#ception o !ule 1: which pertains to the Supreme Court, identi ies the remedies available be ore said Court such as annulment o "udgments or inal orders or resolutions 6!ule 1*7, motion or reconsideration 6!ule :-7, and new trial 6!ule :,7. Nowhere is a petition or relie under !ule ,? mentioned. I a petition or relie rom "udgment is not among the remedies available in the C%, with more reason that this remedy cannot be availed o in the Supreme Court. &his Court entertains only =uestions o law. % petition or relie raises =uestions o acts on raud, accident, mistaFe, or e#cusable negligence, which are beyond the concerns o this Court.A9D)itc

Nevertheless, even i We delve into the merits o the petition, the same must still be dismissed. &he late iling o the petition or review does not amount to e#cusable negligence. $etitioner>s lacF o devotion in discharging his duty, without demonstrating raud, accident, mistaFe or e#cusable negligence, cannot be a basis or "udicial relie . 5or a claim o counsel>s gross negligence to prosper, nothing short o clear abandonment o the client>s cause must be shown. &he relie a orded by !ule ,? will not be granted to a party who seeFs to be relieved rom the e ects o the "udgment when the loss o the remedy o law was due to his own negligence, or mistaFen mode o procedure or that matterI otherwise the petition or relie will be tantamount to reviving the right o appeal which has already been lost, either because o ine#cusable negligence or due to a mistaFe o procedure by counsel. In e#ceptional cases, when the mistaFe o counsel is so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, this Court a ords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right. 'ut this opportunity is unavailing in the instant case, especially since petitioner has s=uandered the various opportunities available to him at the di erent stages o this case. $ublic interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated e ort to reopen a case that has already attained inality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration o "ustice. 5inally, it is a settled rule that relie will not be granted to a party who seeFs to be relieved rom the e ects o the "udgment when the loss o the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or a mistaFen mode o procedureI otherwise, the petition or relie will be tantamount to reviving the right o appeal which has already been lost either because o ine#cusable negligence or due to mistaFen mode o procedure by counsel.)* %CCO!DIN/<B, the petition is DIS+ISSED. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) Dela CruJ v. %ndres, /.!. No. )9)?91, %pril -*, -;;*, :-- SC!% :?:. !ollo, pp. ,.,*. , Id. at 1).1-.1 Id. at ,(.1;.: Id. at 1:.:).9 Id. at :1.91. * Id. at 9,. ? Id. at 1).1-. ( Id. at 1.:. ); Supra note ). )) /.!. No. )19?1:, Euly -, -;;-, ,?, SC!% 9-:. )!ules o Court, !ule ,?, Sec. ). ), Section ). @ni orm procedure. U &he procedure in the +unicipal &rial Courts shall be the same as in the !egional &rial Court, e#cept 6a7 where a particular provision e#pressly or impliedly applies only to either o said courts, or 6b7 in civil cases governed by the !ule on Summary $rocedure. )1 See !epublic %ct No. *9() 6)((17I !egalado, 5.D., !emedial <aw Compendium 6-;;-7, 0ol. ), p. 1;;. ): See !ules 11.:9. )9 %s amended by Supreme Court !esolutions dated October -;, )(??, November ,, )(??, 5ebruary -*, )((), %pril ), )((-, November -1, )((-, and Eune )1, )((,. )* Espinosa v. Batco, /.!. No. <.)91,:, Eanuary ,), )(9,, * SC!% *?.

G.R. No. 160082

"%#,%85%0 19, 2006

ENGR. WILDEMAR CA A '() DIM NA CA A, petitioners, vs. CO*RT OF A EAL", JE""IE A. +ELARMINO, *NITED &I"MIN "HI ING LINE", INC., CA T. '() M0$. RENE D. !HA ON, JOCEL!N RACO '() JEFFRE! TOLO"A, respondents. DECISION A*"TRIA.MARTINE1, J.4 'e ore us is a petition or certiorari and mandamus iled by Engr. Wildemar Capa and Dimpna Capa 6petitioners7 assailing the !esolution) dated 5ebruary ),, -;;, o the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 which noted without action petitionersK +otion to Deny &hird.$arty Claim with +otion to %dmit Claim or Damages and the !esolution -dated %ugust -*, -;;, denying petitionersK motion or reconsideration. $etitioners were the owners o a motor banca named ,P8 C9, Loltan which they used or their ish trading business. @nited 0ismin Shipping <ines, Inc. 6private respondent @nited 0ismin7 was the owner o the motoriJed vessel named ,P& Cebu %earl. In the evening o %pril -), )((,, ,P8 C9, Loltan and ,P& Cebu %earl manned by Captain !ene Bhapon collided in the waters o Dumaguete City which resulted in the sinFing o petitionersK ,P8 C9, Loltan. On %ugust -*, )((,, petitioners iled with the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o Cebu City, 'ranch ?, a complaint, or damages, attorneys ees against private respondent @nited 0ismin and Captain and +rs. !ene Bhapon 6private respondent Spouses Bhapon7. % ter trial on the merits, the !&C rendered a Decision1 dated +arch (, -;;) in avor o petitioners, the dispositive portion o which reads2 In view o the oregoing considering that a preponderance o evidence e#ists in avor o the plainti s and against the de endants, "udgment is hereby rendered ordering the de endants solidarily to pay the plainti s2 )7 actual damages in the amount o $1?,,;:,.;?I -7 $);;,;;;.;; representing loss o pro itsI ,7 +oral damages in the amount o $);;,;;;.;;I

17 %ttorneyKs ees in the amount o $:;,;;;.;;I :7 E#emplary damages in the amount o $-;,;;;.;;I 97 $,,*(-.;; as litigation e#penses. SO O!DE!ED.: $rivate respondents @nited 0ismin and Spouses Bhapon iled their notice o appeal9 on %pril )?, -;;). In its Order* dated Eune 9, -;;), the !&C gave due course to the appeal and ordered the records to be elevated to the C%. Earlier, on %pril -, -;;), petitioners iled an @rgent +otion or E#ecution $ending %ppeal? on the ground that private respondent @nited 0ismin had already given notice to the +aritime Industry %uthority 6+%!IN%7 o the cessation o its operation. &he !&C granted petitionersK motion in an Order ( dated %ugust -;, -;;) a ter petitionersK submission o a certi ication rom +%!IN% that private respondent @nited 0ismin had suspended operation o its ive vessels. % writ o e#ecution pending appeal was issued to Sheri Eessie %. 'elarmino on September )(, -;;).); On Eanuary )1, -;;-, Sheri 'elarmino issued a notice o levy)) addressed to the !egional Director o +%!IN% levying two vessels registered in the name o private respondent @nited 0ismin, namely ,& 0sland %earl and ,& $ea %earl. On Eanuary )?, -;;-, private respondent Eocelyn !aco 6!aco7 through her attorney. in. act, private respondent Ee rey &olosa 6&olosa7, iled a &hird.$arty Claim with the !&C claiming ownership over ,& 0sland %earl and ,& $ea %earl. %n %mended &hird.$arty Claim was subse=uently iled on Eanuary -1, -;;-. % notice o the claim was sent to petitioners by Sheri 'elarmino who re=uired the ormer to ile an indemnity bond in the amount o $-,*;;,;;;.;; on 5ebruary 1, -;;-. On Eanuary -:, -;;-, private respondent @nited 0ismin and spouses Bhapon iled a +otion to Ouash <evy)- on the ground that petitioners were not re=uired to put up a bond in avor o private respondent @nited 0ismin as security on the latterKs part in the event that the appealed decision will be reversed. &he !&C in its Order dated 5ebruary ), -;;-,), did not entertain the motion since it has lost "urisdiction over the case with the per ection o the appeal. On 5ebruary 9, -;;-, the entire records o the civil case were elevated to the C% where the case was docFeted as C% /.!. C0 No. *19??. $etitioners iled with the C% a motion to approve sheri Ks indemnity bond, posted and received by the O ice o the Sheri on 5ebruary )?, -;;- or the levy o the vessel ,& 0sland %earl. %n opposition thereto was iled by the third party claimant.

On Euly --, -;;-, the C% held in abeyance any action on petitionersK motion pending submission o the certi ied true copy o the surety bond and the certi ication rom the Supreme Court that the surety company is not blacF.listed. On October ), -;;-, the C% issued a resolution denying the +otion to approve sheri Ks indemnity bond or ailure o petitioners to comply with the Euly --, -;;!esolution and noted the opposition. $etitionersK motion or reconsideration was also denied in a !esolution dated Eanuary 9, -;;,. On December :, -;;-, petitioners iled with the C% a +otion to Deny &hird.$arty Claim with +otion to %dmit Claim or Damages praying that the third.party claim be denied or it is invalid as it was not signed by !aco but by her alleged attorney.in. act, &olosa. $etitioners urther prayed that their claim or damages arising rom the malicious iling o the third.party claim against !aco and &olosa be admitted by the C% in the same appealed case. On 5ebruary ),, -;;-, the C% issued its assailed !esolution, to wit2 $lainti s.appelleesK 3+otion to Deny &hird.$arty Claim with +otion to %dmit Claim or Damages3 is NO&ED without action. &he said motion should have been iled with the !egional &rial Court o Cebu, 'ranch 0III, Cebu City, and not with this Court. $etitionersK motion or reconsideration was denied in a !esolution dated %ugust -*, -;;,. 4ence the instant petition or certiorari and mandamus on the ollowing grounds2 /!O@ND 5O! CER-0ORAR0 &4E 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S CO++I&&ED /!%0E %'@SE O5 DISC!E&ION %+O@N&IN/ &O <%CP O! E8CESS O5 I&S E@!ISDIC&ION IN 5%I<IN/ &O DENB &4I!D.$%!&B C<%I+ 5I<ED 'B EOCE<BN !%CO, W4EN &4E S%+E IS $%<$%'<B N@<< %ND 0OID. /!O@ND 5O! ,A/DA,E$ &4E 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S @N<%W5@<<B NE/<EC&ED &4E $E!5O!+%NCE O5 %N %C& S$ECI5IC%<<B ENEOINED 'B &4E !@<ES, 'B !E5@SIN/ &O &%PE CO/NIM%NCE O5 $E&I&IONE!SK C<%I+ 5O! D%+%/ES %/%INS& &4E &4I!D $%!&B C<%I+%N&, EOCE<BN !%CO %ND EE55!EB &O<OS%,

W4O 5I<ED % 5!I0O<O@S %ND $<%IN<B S$@!IO@S &4I!D. $%!&B C<%I+. $etitioners argue that the third.party claim is a nullity since the a idavit where third. party claimant !aco stated that she is the owner and has the right to possess the levied properties, was not signed by her but by &olosa, her attorney in. act, who did not even pretend to be a privy to the transactions entered into by !acoI that no special power o attorney that may have been e#ecuted by !aco in avor o &olosa was attached to the amended third.party claim and neither did the a idavit allege that &olosa was a duly authoriJed agent o !acoI that even i &olosa was authoriJed by !aco to subscribe the latterKs a idavit, the same authority is void ab initio or being contrary to law. $etitioners claim that the C% has "urisdiction to resolve the +otion to Deny &hird. $arty Claim with +otion to %dmit Claim or Damages since the trial court had lost "urisdiction over the case when the respective appeals o private respondents and petitioners were already per ected and the entire records o the case were already transmitted to the C% on 5ebruary 9I that such motion is an incident to the e#ecution o the trial courtKs decision pending appeal be ore the C%I and that their iling o the motion with the C% is sanctioned by Section -, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court which provides that a ter a trial court loses "urisdiction over a case, a motion or e#ecution pending appeal may be iled be ore the appellate court. $etitioners urther contend that the C% should also taFe cogniJance o their claim or damages arising rom the spurious and rivolous third party claim iled by !aco as provided under Section )9, !ule ,( o the !ules o CourtI that the trans er o ownership o vessels by private respondent @nited 0ismin to third.party claimant !aco was or the purpose o evading satis action o the appealed decision as can be shown by the act that one day a ter petitioners sent a letter to +%!IN% re=uesting or a certi ication o private respondent @nited 0ismisnKs iling o a notice to suspend operation o its vessels to support their motion or e#ecution pending appeal, private respondent @nited 0ismin iled a petition with +%!IN% or the trans er o ive vessels to !aco, without petitionersK FnowledgeI that although private respondent @nited 0ismin purportedly sold only three vessels in the Deed o Sale dated Eanuary -(, -;;- in avor o !aco, ive vessels were included in the petition or trans er to !aco which showed the dubious error in the petition or trans er. In their Comment, !aco avers that the third party claim was iled in accordance with Section )9, !ule ,( o the !ules o CourtI that the levy was never per ected because o petitionersK ailure to have the sheri Ks indemnity bond approved by the C% despite e#tensions grantedI that the issue that &olosa as attorney.in. act o !aco was the one who signed the a idavit o the third party claim should have been brought right at the beginning when petitioner was urnished copy o said document and was presented be ore the sheri and during the time when petitioner iled an e#tension to put up an indemnity bond be ore the C%.

$rivate respondents @nited 0ismin and Spouses Bhapon iled their Comment stating that the levy on the vessels was never per ected or ailure o petitioners to have their bond approved by the C%I that as o %ugust *, -;;-, the sheri had already li ted the levy on one o the vesselsI that when petitioners opted not to ile an indemnity bond, they should have iled a separate action instead o the several motions iled with C% and with this Court. In their !eply, petitioners contend that in view o the nullity o the third.party claim iled by &olosa in behal o !aco, there was no need or petitioners to post an indemnity bond or the e#ecution pending appeal to proceedI that the issue raised in this petition is the validity o the third. party claim, not the ailure to post indemnity bondI no copy o the S$% e#ecuted by !aco was attached to the e#planation served on petitionersI that !aco ailed to controvert the claim o the nullity o the a idavit signed by &olosa. &he issue or resolution is whether the C% committed grave abuse o discretion when it did not act on petitionersK +otion to Deny &hird.$arty Claim with +otion to %dmit Claim or Damages on the ground that the same should have been iled with the !egional &rial Court o Cebu, 'ranch 0III, Cebu City. &he petition or certiorari lacFs merit. Section (, !ule 1) o the !ules o Court e#plains the instances when the trial court loses "urisdiction over a case2 Sec. (. %erfection of appealQ effect t!ereof. . % partyKs appeal by notice o appeal is deemed per ected as to him upon the iling o the notice o appeal in due time. #### In appeals by notice o appeal, the court loses "urisdiction over the case upon the per ection o the appeals iled in due time and the e#piration o the time to appeal o the other parties. #### In either case, prior to the transmittal o the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders or the protection and preservation o the rights o the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals o indigent litigants, order e#ecution pending appeal in accordance with Section - o !ule ,(, and allow withdrawal o the appeal. On the other hand, Section -, !ule ,( provides2

SEC. -. Discretionar4 e7ecution. Z 6a7 E#ecution o a "udgment or a inal order pending appeal. Z On motion o the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party iled in the trial court while it has "urisdiction over the case and is in possession o either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time o the iling o such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order e#ecution o a "udgment or inal order even be ore the e#piration o the period to appeal. % ter the trial court has lost "urisdiction, the motion or e#ecution pending appeal may be iled in the appellate court. Discretionary e#ecution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order a ter due hearing. #### Clearly, as long as the motion or e#ecution pending appeal is iled within the period or per ecting the appeal and prior to the transmittal o the records to the C%, the trial court may order e#ecution pending appeal upon good reasons to be stated in the Order granting e#ecution pending appeal. &he trial court granted petitionersK motion or e#ecution pending appeal and issued the writ o e#ecution commanding sheri 'elarmino to levy the properties o @nited 0ismin. 4owever, a third party.claim was iled by !aco through her attorney.in. act &olosa pursuant to Section )9, !ule , o the !ules o Court which provides2 Sec. )9. %roceedings !ere propert4 claimed b4 t!ird person. ) I the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the "udgment obligor or his agent, and such person maFes an a idavit o his title thereto or right to the possession thereo , stating the grounds o such right or title, and serve the same upon the o icer maFing the levy and a copy thereo upon the "udgment obligee, the o icer shall not be bound to Feep the property, unless such "udgment obligee, on demand o the o icer, iles a bond approved by the court to indemni y the third.party claimant in a sum not less than the value o the property levied on. In case o disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ o e#ecution. No claim or damages or the taFing or Feeping o the property may be en orced against the bond unless the action there or is iled within one hundred twenty days 6)-;7 days rom the date o the iling o the bond. &he o icer shall not be liable or damages or the taFing or Feeping o the property, to any third.party claimant i such bond is iled.

#### In this case, !aco availed o the remedy Fnown as terceria,)1 by serving on the o icer maFing the levy an a idavit o his title and a copy thereo upon petitioners. @pon receipt o such a idavit, sheri 'elarmino who is not bound to Feep the properties because o such third party claim, noti ied petitioners o such claim and re=uired them to post an indemnity bond in the amount o $-,*;;,;;;.;; on 5ebruary 1, -;;- to answer or any liability he may incur by reason o such e#ecution. T<% 8',,%0 o: ,<% 7(='l7)7,y o: ,<% '::7)'=7, o: ,<% ,<70).#'0,y 6l'78'(, >'$ (%=%0 0'7$%) 5y #%,7,7o(%0$ 7( ,<% ,07'l 6ou0, ><76< 6oul) <'=% $,7ll 0ul%) o( ,<% $'8% $7(6% ,<% 0%6o0)$ >%0% $,7ll >7,< 7, ', ,<% ,78% $u6< ,<70) #'0,y 6l'78 >'$ :7l%). +oreover, petitioners even iled an indemnity bond in the amount o $),1;;,;;;.;; with the O ice o the Sheri on 5ebruary )?, -;;-. %s the appeal o private respondents @nited 0ismin and Spouses Bhapon had already been per ected and the records were elevated to the C% on 5ebruary 9, -;;-, petitioners then iled with the C% a motion seeFing or the approval o the sheri Ks indemnity bond they posted on 5ebruary )?, -;;-. &he C% then held in abeyance the action therein pending submission o a certi ied true copy o a surety bond and a certi ication rom the Supreme Court that the surety bond is not blacF.listed. Subse=uently, petitionersK motion to approve bond in a !esolution dated October ), -;;) was denied or ailure to comply with such directive. Despite motions or e#tension o time to looF or a =uali ied and su icient indemnity bond a ordable, petitioners ailed to do so which prompted the C% to deny the same. $etitioners then iled a +otion to Deny &hird.$arty Claim with +otion to %dmit Claim or Damages which is a complete turn around rom their motion to approve indemnity bond. &he C% did not commit grave abuse o discretion in not acting on the same since the invalidity o the a idavit o third.party claim should have been raised at the earliest opportunity which is in the trial court. $etitioners could have then moved or the =uashal o the same, thus they could not now invoFe the "urisdiction o the C% to rule on the same when they in act had already waived the alleged de ect in the a idavit when they sought rom the C% the approval o the indemnity bond they posted in the trial court. We liFewise ind no basis or the petition or mandamus iled by petitioners to compel the C% to act on petitionersK +otion to %dmit Claim or damages as it had no "urisdiction to do so. &he second paragraph o Section )9, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court which is invoFed by petitioners to support their claim provides2 # # # Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person rom vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the "udgment

obligee rom claiming damages in the same or separate action against a third.party claimant who iled a rivolous or plainly spurious claim. Clearly, a third party claimant or any third person may vindicate his claim to his property wrong ully levied by iling a proper action which is distinct and separate rom that in which the "udgment is being en orced. Such action would have or its ob"ect the recovery o the possession o the property seiJed by the sheri , as well as damages resulting rom the allegedly wrong ul seiJure and detention thereo despite the third.party claimI and it may be brought against the sheri , o course, and such other parties as may be alleged to have colluded with the sheri in the supposedly wrong ul e#ecution proceedings, such as the "udgment creditor himsel .): &he same paragraph also provides a remedy to a "udgment obligee when a rivolous and plainly spurious claim was iled by a third.party claimant, i.e., to ile his claim or damages in the same court where the third.party claimant iled his third.party claim or to ile a separate action. &hus, petitionersK claim or damages must be iled in the trial court, whether in the same case where a third.party claim has been iled or in a separate action or damages which petitioners may institute. &his is so in order to re=uire the iling o proper pleadings and to hold trial so as to give the parties the chance to submit their respective evidence. WHEREFORE, the petition or certiorari and mandamus is DI"MI""ED or lacF o merit. No pronouncement as to costs. "O ORDERED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) $enned by Eustice 'ernardo $. %besamis, concurred in by Eustices Euan O. Enri=ueJ, Er. and Edgardo 5. SundiamI C% rollo, p. )-).- Id. at ),:., DocFeted as Civil Case No. CE'.)1:;,. 1 $enned by Eudge %ntonio &. EchaveJ, !ecords, pp. -),.--:.: !ecords, p.--:.9 Id. at -,?.-,(.* Id. at -1-. ? Id. at -,).-,-.( Id. at -1?.); Id. at -:9.-:*.)) Id. at -9).-9-. )Id. at -:(.-9;.), Id. at ,;?.)1 $4 v. Disca4a, /.!. No. ?9,;), Eanuary -,, )((;, )?) SC!% ,*?, ,?,.): $4 v. Disca4a, supra at p. ,?,.

T<% C'$% &his is a petition or certiorari o the Commission on Elections 6[CO+E<EC\7 En 8anc !esolution dated ): %pril -;;, denying petitioner Charito Navarosa>s motion or reconsideration o the CO+E<EC Second Division !esolutionG)H dated -? November -;;-. &he CO+E<EC Second Division !esolution ordered the e#ecution pending appeal o the Decision G-H o the !egional &rial Court, 'ranch (, Palibo, %Flan, proclaiming respondent !oger +. Esto winner in the mayoralty race in the )1 +ay -;;) elections.

T<% F'6,$ $etitioner Charito Navarosa 6[petitioner Navarosa\7 and respondent !oger +. Esto 6[respondent Esto\7 were candidates or mayor o <ibacao, %Flan in the )1 +ay -;;) elections. On )* +ay -;;), the CO+E<EC +unicipal 'oard o Canvassers o <ibacao proclaimed petitioner Navarosa as the duly elected mayor, with a winning margin o three 6,7 votes over respondent Esto.G,H Claiming that irregularities marred the canvassing o ballots in several precincts, respondent Esto iled an election protest docFeted as Election Case No. )-( 6[election protest\7 in the !egional &rial Court, 'ranch (, Palibo, %Flan 6[trial court\7. $etitioner Navarosa, who also claimed that canvassing irregularities pre"udiced her, iled a counter.protest in the same case. On 1 +arch -;;-, a ter revision o the contested ballots, the trial court rendered "udgment in avor o respondent Esto. &he trial court ound that respondent Esto obtained 1,:(: votes over petitioner Navarosa>s 1,::, votes. &hus, the trial court declared respondent Esto the elected mayor o <ibacao by a margin o 1- votes and annulled the earlier proclamation o petitioner Navarosa. &he trial court also ordered petitioner Navarosa to pay respondent Esto actual damages and attorney>s ees. &he dispositive portion o the decision provides2 W4E!E5O!E, "udgment is hereby rendered2

KG.R. No. 1/79/7. "%#,%85%0 18, 2003L

CHARITO NA&ARO"A, petitioner, vs. COMMI""ION ON ELECTION", HONORA+LE DEAN R. TELAN, '$ 0%$7)7(; Ju);%, R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0,, +0'(6< 9, 3'l75o, AHl'( '() ROGER M. E"TO, respondents. DECI"ION CAR IO, J.4

a7

Declaring the $roclamation o ### protestee GNavarosaH as the duly elected +ayor o <ibacao, %Flan and the Certi icate o Canvass o 0otes and the $roclamation o the Winning Candidates or +unicipal O ices, dated +ay )*, -;;), as null and voidI Declaring the protestant, !oger +. Esto, as the duly elected +unicipal +ayor o <ibacao, %Flan in the +ay )1, -;;) electionI

b7

c7

Ordering the protestee GNavarosaH to pay the sum o $)1,-):.;; as actual and compensatory damages, and the amount o $:;,;;;.;; as and or attorney>s ees, plus the cost o suit.G1H

+oreover, the margin o 1- votes in the instant case is not so big, overwhelming or insurmountable as to be practically beyond or improbable o being overturned by the higher courts. ### W4E!E5O!E, in view o the oregoingG,H the court inds that the protestant, !oger +. Esto is entitled to the e#ecution o the decision dated +arch 1, -;;-, pending appeal, upon the iling o a bond which covers the salary and emoluments o the o ice o the +unicipal +ayor o <ibacao, %Flan and or the payment o all damages in the amount o $,;;,;;;.;;, $hilippine Currency, in cash, surety bond or real property with assessed value in said amount to be iled on or be ore %pril ,, -;;-, urnishing copy thereo to the protestee or his duly authoriJed representative. &he protestee, Charito Navarosa, considering that the margin is not so insurmountable as to be beyond reversal by the higher courtG,H is hereby allowed to stay the e#ecution o the decision o +arch 1, -;;- pending appeal, by iling a supersedeas bond in double the amount posted by the protestant, on or be ore %pril ,, -;;-, urnishing copy thereo the protestant or his duly authoriJed representative.
G:H

$etitioner Navarosa appealed the trial court>s ruling to the CO+E<EC 6E%C Case No. %.(.-;;-7. !espondent Esto, on the other hand, iled with the trial court a motion or e#ecution o the "udgment pending petitioner Navarosa>s appeal. $etitioner Navarosa opposed respondent Esto>s motion. In the alternative, petitioner Navarosa o ered to ile a supersedeas bond to stay e#ecution pending appeal, should the trial court grant respondent Esto>s motion. In its Order o -- +arch -;;- 6[Order\7, the trial court granted respondent Esto>s motion sub"ect to the iling o a $,;;,;;; bond. 4owever, in the same order, the trial court also granted petitioner Navarosa>s prayer to stay the e#ecution pending appeal, upon iling a $9;;,;;; supersedeas bond. &he Order reads2 &he Supreme Court has e#plicitly recogniJed and given approval to e#ecution o "udgments pending appeal in election cases, iled under e#isting election laws. In these cases, the immediate e#ecution was made in accordance with Sec. -, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court 6!amas et al. vs. CO+E<EC, et al., /.!. No. ),;?,), -A);A(?7. &here is, there ore, no =uestion now that e#ecution pending appeal may be granted. ### G&Hhe grant o e#ecution would give substance and meaning to the people>s mandate specially since the court has established protestant>s right to the o ice 6<indo vs. CO+E<EC cited in the !amas case7I more than ); months or nearly )A, o the ,. year term or +ayor had already lapsed 6/utierreJ vs. CO+E<EC, /.!. )-9-(?, ,. -:.(*I &obon @y vs. CO+E<EC also cited in the !amas case7. &hese are two [good reasons\ to "usti y e#ecution o the decision pending appeal. G$Hrotestee GNavarosaH however, prays in the alternative, that should e#ecution pending appeal be granted, the same be stayed upon his GsicH iling o supersedeas bond to be i#ed by the court under Sec. ,, !ule ,(, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure. @nliFe Sec. -, !ule ,( where the grant o e#ecution pending appeal is conditioned upon the presence o the [good and valid reason\ or its grant, Sec. ,, !ule ,( does not provide or any condition precedent be ore the discretionary e#ecution o !ule may be stayed. %ll that it re=uires is that a su icient supersedeas bond must be approved by the court conditioned upon the per ormance o the "udgment allowed to be e#ecuted in case it shall be inally sustained in whole or in part. @nder this section, there ore, the iling o a supersedeas bond su icient in amount is enough to stay the e#ecution granted under Sec. -.

'oth petitioner Navarosa and respondent Esto sought reconsideration o the Order but the trial court denied their motions on : %pril -;;-. !espondent Esto iled a petition or certiorari with the CO+E<EC against the Order. In her memorandum to the petition, petitioner Navarosa raised or the irst time the issue o the trial court>s ailure to ac=uire "urisdiction over the election protest because o respondent Esto>s ailure to pay the CO+E<EC iling ee.

T<% Rul7(; o: ,<% COMELEC In its !esolution dated -? November -;;- 6[!esolution\7, the CO+E<EC Second Division a irmed the trial court>s Order granting e#ecution pending appeal and nulli ied the stay o the e#ecution. &he Second Division also ound that respondent Esto duly paid the CO+E<EC iling ee. &he !esolution reads2 /oing now to the main issue at hand, did respondent "udge gravely abuse his discretion andAor e#ceed his "urisdiction when he stayed the immediate e#ecution o his decision on a inding o [good reasons\ he made in his =uestioned Order o +arch --, -;;- by allowing in the same Order the iling o a supersedeas bond double the amount posted by petitionerT &he answer is yes.

It is G orH the Commission on Elections, in the e#ercise o its appellate "urisdiction to issue the e#traordinary writs o certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and in"unction over all contests involving elective municipal o icials decided by the trial courts o general "urisdiction elevated on appeal, and not the trial court, that may order the stay or restrain the immediate e#ecution o the decision pending appeal granted by the trial court o general "urisdiction in an election contest. E#cept when the trial court reversed itsel in a motion or reconsideration o its order granting immediate e#ecution, it cannot later on stay or restrain the e#ecution thereo in the guise o allowing the losing party to ile a supersedeas bond. &he issue be ore the trial court where a motion or e#ecution pending appeal is iled is to determine whether or not there are [good reasons\ to "usti y the immediate e#ecution pending appeal. &he issue is not whether # # # there are good reasons to stay the immediate e#ecution o the decision pending appeal. &he trial court, by granting the immediate e#ecution o the +arch 1, -;;- decision, recogniJed that the [good reasons\ cited in the =uestioned Order constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency that will outweigh the in"uries or damages to the adverse party i the decision is reversed. 'y declaring that petitioner Esto is the duly elected +ayor o <ibacao, %Flan, the trial court gave substance and meaning to the people>s mandate as e#pressed in the ballot, especially since it has established petitioner Esto>s right to the o ice. &he trial court cannot indirectly reverse its substantial inding o [good reasons\ by a rule o procedure which does not strictly apply in election protest cases when it allowed the iling o a supersedeas bond under Section ,, !ule ,( o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure. &o allow the application o the said procedural relie would de eat the right o the winning candidate in an election protest to hold the public o ice by virtue o the people>s mandate e#pressed through the ballot and to per orm the unctions o the said public o ice. ### It is interesting to note that instead o e#pounding on the propriety o the supersedeas bond to stay the e#ecution o a "udgment in an election protest case, private respondent raised or the irst time in his GsicH memorandum the issue o lacF o "urisdiction o the trial court over the instant election protest or the alleged ailure o petitioner Esto to pay the iling ee o $,;;.;; re=uired under Section (, !ule ,: o the CO+E<EC !ules o $rocedure. 4owever, the records o Election Case No. )-( o the !&C o Palibo, %Flan, 'ranch ( showed otherwise. &he O icial !eceipts issued by the !&C o Palibo, %Flan shows GsicH that petitioners paid a total o $:):.;; iling ees in Election Case No. )-( by speci ically stating therein [G5Hiling 5ee in Election Case No. )-(\. %t the time o iling the election protest, petitioner speci ied that the payment made was to cover the CO+E<EC iling ee or the election protest. @pon assessment, petitioner paid not only the amount o $,;;.;; re=uired under Section (, !ule ,: o the CO+E<EC !ules o $rocedure, but a total sum o $:):.;; as iling ees. While it is true that the issue o "urisdiction may be raised anytime, even on appeal, the same is o no moment now.G9H

$etitioner Navarosa sought reconsideration o CO+E<EC En 8anc denied her motion on ): %pril -;;,. 4ence, this petition.

this

ruling

but

the

On ); Eune -;;,, the Court re=uired the parties to maintain the status quo pending resolution o this petition.

T<% I$$u%$ $etitioner Navarosa raises the ollowing issues2 ). W4E&4E! $@'<IC !ES$ONDEN& CO+E<EC E/ 8A/C %C&ED WI&4 /!%0E %'@SE O5 DISC!E&ION %+O@N&IN/ &O <%CP O! E8CESS O5 E@!ISDIC&ION W4EN I& %55I!+ED &4E -? NO0E+'E! -;;!ESO<@&ION O5 &4E CO+E<EC SECOND DI0ISION 5O! 5%I<@!E &O !@<E ON &4E '%SIC ISS@E O5 <%CP O5 E@!ISDIC&ION O5 &4E CO@!& A 'EO O0E! !ES$ONDEN& ES&O>S E<EC&ION $!O&ES& 5O! NON. $%B+EN& O5 &4E +%ND%&O!B CO+E<EC 5I<IN/ 5EE O5 $,;;.;;. W4E&4E! $@'<IC !ES$ONDEN& CO+E<EC E/ 8A/C %C&ED WI&4 /!%0E %'@SE O5 DISC!E&ION %+O@N&IN/ &O <%CP O! E8CESS O5 E@!ISDIC&ION W4EN I& %55I!+ED &4E -? NO0E+'E! -;;!ESO<@&ION O5 &4E CO+E<EC SECOND DI0ISION DES$I&E &4E 5%C& &4%& &4E!E WE!E NO R*OOD REA$O/$S &O E8EC@&E &4E 1 +%!C4 -;;- DECISION O5 &4E &!I%< CO@!&. W4E&4E! $@'<IC !ES$ONDEN& CO+E<EC E/ 8A/C %C&ED WI&4 /!%0E %'@SE O5 DISC!E&ION %+O@N&IN/ &O <%CP O! E8CESS O5 E@!ISDIC&ION W4EN I& %55I!+ED &4E -? NO0E+'E! -;;!ESO<@&ION O5 &4E CO+E<EC SECOND DI0ISION W4EN &4E <%&&E! !@<ED &4%& &4E &!I%< CO@!& 4%D NO $OWE! &O O!DE! &4E S&%B O5 E8EC@&ION O5 I&S 1 +%!C4 -;;- DECISION $ENDIN/ %$$E%< IN %N E<EC&ION CON&ES&, 'EC%@SE SEC&ION ,, !@<E ,( O5 &4E !E0ISED !@<ES O5 CO@!& DOES NO& %$$<B &O E<EC&ION C%SES.G*H

-.

,.

T<% Rul7(; o: ,<% Cou0, &he petition has no merit.

4owever, based on the trial court>s Election 5ees 5orm or Election Case No. )-(,G))H o the total amount o $:): respondent Esto paid, only $);; was indeed credited to the /eneral 5und. Conse=uently, respondent Esto only paid $);; o the re=uired $,;; CO+E<EC iling ee. In an earlier ruling, G)-H the Court held that an election protest is not dismissible i the protestant, relying on the trial court>s assessment, pays only a portion G),H o the CO+E<EC iling ee. 4owever, in Miranda v. Castillo,G)1H the Court, reiterating &o'ola v. Commission on Elections,G):H held that it would no longer tolerate [any mistaFe in the payment o the ull amount o iling ees or election cases iled a ter the promulgation o the &o'ola decision on +arch -:, )((*.\ Nevertheless, our rulings in Miranda and &o'ola are inapplicable to the present case. %t no time did petitioner Navarosa ever raise the issue o respondent Esto>s incomplete payment o the CO+E<EC iling ee during the ull.blown trial o the election protest. $etitioner Navarosa actively participated in the proceedings below by iling her %nswer, presenting her evidence, and later, seeFing a stay o e#ecution by iling a supersedeas bond. Not only this, she even invoFed the trial court>s "urisdiction by iling a counter.protest against respondent Esto in which she must have prayed or a irmative relie s.G)9H $etitioner Navarosa raised the issue o incomplete payment o the CO+E<EC iling ee only in her memorandum to respondent Esto>s petition be ore the CO+E<EC Second Division. $etitioner Navarosa>s conduct estops her rom claiming, at such late stage, that the trial court did not a ter all ac=uire "urisdiction over the election protest. %lthough a party cannot waive "urisdictional issues and may raise them at any stage o the proceedings, estoppel may bar a party rom raising such issues.G)*H In Pantranco "orth E(press v. Court of Appeals ,G)?H this Court applied the doctrine o estoppel against a party who also belatedly raised the issue o insu icient payment o iling ees to =uestion the court>s e#ercise o "urisdiction over the case. We held2 &he petitioner raised the issue regarding "urisdiction or the irst time in its 'rie iled with public respondent GCourt o %ppealsH # # # % ter vigorously participating in all stages o the case be ore the trial court and even invoFing the trial court>s authority in order to asF or a irmative relie , the petitioner is e ectively barred by estoppel rom challenging the trial court>s "urisdiction. Indeed, in Miranda and &o'ola, as in every other caseG)(H where we sustained the dismissal o the election protest or lacF or incomplete payment o the CO+E<EC iling ee, the protestee timely raised the non.payment in a motion to dismiss. 'e ore any revision o the contested ballots, the protestee iled a petition or certiorari =uestioning the trial court>s "urisdiction be ore the CO+E<EC and eventually be ore this Court. In contrast, in the instant case, petitioner Navarosa did not raise the incomplete payment o the CO+E<EC iling ee in a motion to dismiss. Conse=uently, the trial court proceeded with the revision o the contested ballots and

The Trial Court Ac uired Jurisdiction !ver Election Case "o. #$% $etitioner Navarosa contends that the trial court did not ac=uire "urisdiction over the election protest because o respondent Esto>s ailure to pay the CO+E<EC iling ee under !ule ,:, Section ( o the CO+E<EC !ules o $rocedure 6[Section (\7. $rocedurally, petitioner Navarosa should not have raised this "urisdictional issue in this petition which involves only the ancillary issue o whether to allow e#ecution o the trial court>s decision pending appeal. Nevertheless, as the =uestion o the trial court>s "urisdiction also a ects its authority to issue ancillary orders such as its Order o -- +arch -;;- sub"ect o this petition, we have resolved to pass upon this issue. Section ( provides2 Diling Dee. Z No protest, counter.protest, or protest.in.intervention shall be given due course without the payment o a iling ee in the amount o three hundred pesos 6$,;;.;;7 or each interest. Each interest shall urther pay the legal research ee as re=uired by law. !espondent Esto must pay this iling ee be ore the trial court can e#ercise its "urisdiction over the election protest.G?H &he CO+E<EC iling ee, to distinguish rom the other mandatory ees under !ule )1) o the !ules o Court, as amended, is credited to the Court>s /eneral 5und.G(H $etitioner Navarosa claims that although the receipts issued by the trial court show that respondent Esto paid $:): as [ iling\ and other ees, only $);; was credited to the /eneral 5und. &he rest o what respondent Esto paid accrued to the Eudiciary Development 5und 6$1;;7, the <egal !esearch 5und 6$);7 and the 0ictim>s Compensation 5und 6$:7.G);H Conse=uently, respondent Esto paid only $);; o the $,;; CO+E<EC iling ee, or which reason the trial court did not ac=uire "urisdiction over the election protest. $etitioner Navarosa also claimed that the Second Division did not rule on this issue. Contrary to petitioner Navarosa>s claim, the CO+E<EC Second Division did rule on the issue o respondent Esto>s non.payment o the ull amount o the CO+E<EC iling ee. &he Second Division held that the$:): ees respondent Esto paid already covered the $,;; CO+E<EC iling ee.

subse=uently rendered "udgment on the election protest. $etitioner Navarosa raised or the irst time the incomplete payment o the CO+E<EC iling ee in her memorandum be ore the CO+E<EC Second Division. &hus, estoppel has set in precluding petitioner Navarosa rom =uestioning the incomplete payment o the CO+E<EC iling ee, and in e ect assailing the e#ercise o "urisdiction by the trial court over the election protest. &he law vests in the trial court "urisdiction over election protests although the e#ercise o such "urisdiction re=uires the payment o docFet and iling ees by the party invoFing the trial court>s "urisdiction.G-;H Estoppel now prevents petitioner Navarosa rom =uestioning the trial court>s e#ercise o such "urisdiction, which the law and not any act o the parties has con erred on the trial court. %t this stage, the remedy or respondent Esto>s incomplete payment is or him to pay the $-;; de iciency in the CO+E<EC iling ee.G-)H It is highly un"ust to the electorate o <ibacao, %Flan, a ter the trial court has completed revision o the contested ballots, to dismiss the election protest and orever oreclose the determination o the true winner o the election or a mere $-;; de iciency in the CO+E<EC iling ee. We repeat that2 GEHlection contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand i they constitute an obstacle to the determination o the true will o the electorate in the choice o their elective o icials. %nd also settled is the rule that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will o the people in the choice o public o icials may not be de eated by mere technical ob"ections. In an election case the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the electorate.G--H

involved or the will o the electorateI 6-7 the shortness o the remaining portion o the term o the contested o iceI and 6,7 the length o time that the election contest has been pending. &he trial court in the present case, relying on cases G-:H reviewed in Ramas, invoFed two [good reasons\ to "usti y its order allowing e#ecution pending appeal. 5irst, the order will [give substance and meaning to the people>s mandate.\ Second, [more than ); months or nearly )A, o the ,.year term\ o the o ice in =uestion had already lapsed. &he CO+E<EC ound these [good reasons\ su icient. 'eing consistent with Ramas, we ind no grave abuse o discretion in the ruling o the trial court or o the CO+E<EC. $etitioner Navarosa>s invocation o Camlian v. Commission on Elections G-9H is unavailing. In Camlian, the CO+E<EC ruled that circumstances such as [public interest in the true outcome o the electionsGIH that the protestee illegally manu actured votesGIH and that the appeal was interposed or delay\ do not su ice to "usti y e#ecution pending appeal. On appeal, we sustained the CO+E<EC, noting that [not every invocation o public interest with # # # re erence to the will o the electorate can be appreciated as a good reason especially so i the same appears to be sel .serving and has not been clearly established.\ &he Court urther pointed out that the protestant ailed to substantiate his claim that the appeal is dilatory as it in act assails the trial court>s ruling. &hese circumstances are absent in the present case, precludingCamlian+s application.

,ection - of Rule -% "ot Applica.le To Election Protest Cases @nliFe the Election Code o )(*),G-*H which e#pressly provided or e#ecution pending appeal o trial courts> rulings in election protests, the present election laws are silent on such remedy. Nevertheless, Section -, !ule ,( 6[Section -\7 o the !ules o Court 6now )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure7 applies in suppletory character to election cases, thus allowing e#ecution pending appeal in the discretion o the court. %s e#plained in Ramas2 &he Omnibus Election Code o the $hilippines 6'.$. 'lg. ??)7 and the other election laws do not speci ically provide or e#ecution pending appeal o "udgment in election cases, unliFe the Election Code o )(*) whose Section -)? made e#press re erence to the !ules o Court on e#ecution pending appealI ### &he ailure o the e#tant election laws to reproduce Section -)? o the Election Code o )(*) does not mean that e#ecution o "udgment pending appeal is no longer available in election cases. In election contests involving elective municipal o icials, which are cogniJable by courts o general "urisdictionI and those involving elective barangay o icials, which are cogniJable by courts o limited "urisdiction,

)ood Reasons E(ist to )rant E(ecution Pendin* Appeal in this Case &o grant e#ecution pending appeal in election protest cases, the ollowing re=uisites must concur2 6)7 there must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse partyI 6-7 there must be [good reasons\ or the e#ecution pending appealI and 6,7 the order granting e#ecution pending appeal must state the [good reasons.\G-,H $etitioner Navarosa concedes respondent Esto>s compliance with the irst and third re=uisites. What she contests is the trial court>s inding that there are [good reasons\ to order discretionary e#ecution o its decision. In Ramas v. Commission on Elections ,G-1H the Court, a ter reviewing pertinent "urisprudence, summariJed the circumstances =uali ying as [good reasons\ "usti ying e#ecution pending appeal, thus2 In a nutshell, the ollowing constitute [good reasons,\ and a combination o two or more o them will su ice to grant e#ecution pending appeal2 6)7 the public interest

e#ecution o "udgment pending appeal under Section - o !ule ,( o the !ules o Court are permissible pursuant to !ule )1, o the !ules o Court, which is now Section 1, !ule ) o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure. &his Section 1 provides2 SEC 1. 0n !at cases not applicable.. &hese !ules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturaliJation and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided or, e#cept by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. %s to election cases involving regional, provincial, and city o icials, which all within the e#clusive original "urisdiction o the CO+E<EC, Section , o %rticle I8. C o the Constitution vests the CO+E<EC with the authority to promulgate its rules o procedure in order to e#pedite disposition o election cases, including pre. proclamation controversies. %dditionally, Section :-6c7, %rticle 0II o the Omnibus Election Code empowers the CO+E<EC to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions o the Code or other laws which it is re=uired to en orce and administer. %ccordingly, the CO+E<EC promulgated the CO+E<EC !ules o $rocedure. Section ) o !ule 1) thereo e#pressly provides that [GiHn the absence o any applicable provision in GsaidH !ules, the pertinent provisions o the !ules o Court in the $hilippines shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory character and e ect.\G-?H In the earlier case o )ahol v. Riodi ue,G-(H the Court e#plained the legislative intent behind the enactment o Section -)? o the Election Code o )(*). In )ahol, the Court gave an additional "usti ication or allowing e#ecution pending appeal o decisions o trial courts, thus2 ### G&Hhis innovative provision is the product o the bad e#perience o the people under the previous election laws. $ublic policy underlies it. ### GSHomething had to be done to striFe the death blow at the [pernicious grab.the.proclamation.prolong. the.protest\ techni=ue o ten, i not invariably, resorted to by unscrupulous politicians who would render nugatory the people>s verdict against them and persist in continuing in an o ice they very well Fnow they have no legitimate right to hold. ### G&Ho uphold the theory o $rotestee that the very nature o the matter in dispute in election contests, the holding o a public o ice and the per ormance o its unctions, maFes gravely doubt ul the propriety o an e#ecution pending appeal, what with the possible placing o the corresponding powers o government in the hands o one who might ultimately turn out not to be really entitled to the position, is to negate the un=uestionable and patent intent o the legislature to give as much recognition to the worth o a trial "udge>s decision as that which is initially ascribed by the law to the proclamation by the board o canvassers. Why should the proclamation by the board o canvassers su ice as basis o the right to assume o ice, sub"ect to uture contingencies attendant to a protest, and not the decision o a court o "usticeT Indeed, when it is considered that the board o canvassers is composed o persons who are less technically prepared to maFe an accurate appreciation o the

ballots, apart rom their being more apt to yield e#traneous considerations, that the board must act summarily, practically GracingH against time, while, on the other hand, the "udge has the bene it o all the evidence the parties can o er and o admittedly better technical preparation and bacFground, apart rom his being allowed ample time or conscientious study and mature deliberation be ore rendering "udgment, one cannot but perceive the wisdom o allowing the immediate e#ecution o decisions in election cases adverse to the protestees, notwithstanding the per ection and pendency o appeals there rom, as long as there are, in the sound discretion o the court, good reasons there or. 6Emphasis supplied7 &hus, a primordial public interest Z to obviate a hollow victory or the duly elected candidate as determined by the trial court Z lies behind the present rule giving suppletory application to Section -. Only a more compelling contrary policy consideration can prevent the suppletory application o Section -. In insisting that the simple e#pedient o posting a supersedeas bond can stay e#ecution pending appeal, petitioner Navarosa neither claims nor o ers a more compelling contrary policy consideration. Instead, she merely contends that Section , o !ule ,( 6[Section ,\7 applies also in a suppletory character because its [Siamese twin\G,;H provision, Section -, is already being so applied. Such simplistic reasoning both ignores and negates the public interest underlying Section ->s application. We cannot countenance such argument. 5urthermore, a supersedeas bond under Section , cannot ully protect the interests o the prevailing party in election protest cases. Section , provides2 $ta4 of discretionar4 e7ecution. Z Discretionary e#ecution issued under the preceding section may be stayed upon approval by the proper court o a su icient bond, iled by the party against whom it is directed, conditioned upon the per ormance o the "udgment or order allowed to be e#ecuted in case it shall be inally sustained in whole or in part. &he bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. 6Emphasis supplied7 % supersedeas bond secures the per ormance o the "udgment or order appealed rom in case o its a irmation.G,)H Section , inds application in ordinary civil actions where the interest o the prevailing party is capable o pecuniary estimation, and conse=uently, o protection, through the iling o a supersedeas bond. &hus, the penultimate sentence o Section , states2 [G&Hhe bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety.\ Conse=uently, it inds no application in election protest cases where "udgments invariably include orders which are not capable o pecuniary estimation such as the right to hold o ice and per orm its unctions. %s well observed by the CO+E<EC Second Division in its !esolution in the instant case2 &he supersedeas bond, as used under Section ,, !ule ,( o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, re ers to a bond, either in cash or a surety bond, iled by the losing party in an ordinary civil action to secure the per ormance or to satis y the "udgment

appealed rom in case it is a irmed on appeal in avor o the prevailing party. % supersedeas bond is iled purposely or the per ormance o the "udgment appealed rom in case it is a irmed by the appellate court. On the assumption that the iling o the supersedeas bond applies in an election protest case, the practical considerations o the matter dictate that it cannot secure the per ormance o or satis y the "udgment rendered in an election protest which basically involves the right to hold a public o ice and the per ormance o its unctions in accordance with the mandate o the law, e#cept inso ar as the monetary award provided in the special order. 'y allowing the iling o a supersedeas bond to stay the e#ecution o a "udgment in an election protest declaring the protestant, as in the case o petitioner herein, as the winning candidate who is entitled to the right to hold and per orm the unctions o the contested public o ice, would render the "udgment in an election protest illusory. ### While the supersedeas bond ensures that the appealed decision i a irmed is satis ied, in an election protest case, such bond, in the event the appealed case is a irmed and the e#ecution pending appeal is proven to be meritorious, cannot ade=uately answer or the deprivation o a duly elected candidate o his post, and his constituents o their leader o choice, such deprivation being un=uanti iable. G,-H 6Emphasis added7 %s applied to the present case, the supersedeas bond petitioner Navarosa iled can only answer or that portion o the trial court>s ruling ordering her to pay to respondent Esto actual damages, attorney>s ees and the cost o the suit. It cannot secure e#ecution o that portion proclaiming respondent Esto duly elected mayor o <ibacao, %Flan by popular will o the electorate and authoriJing him to assume the o ice. &his anomalous situation de eats the very purpose or the iling o the supersedeas bond in the irst place. In sum, the Court holds that the CO+E<EC did not commit grave abuse o discretion in ordering e#ecution pending appeal o the trial court>s decision. /rave abuse o discretion implies capricious and whimsical e#ercise o "udgment amounting to lacF o "urisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic e#ercise o power because o passion or personal hostility. &he grave abuse o discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or re usal to per orm a duty en"oined by law. G,,H &his does not obtain in the present case. WHEREFORE, we DIS+ISS the instant petition. &he !esolution dated -? November -;;- o the CO+E<EC Second Division, and the !esolution dated ): %pril -;;, o the CO+E<EC En 8anc, are %55I!+ED. &he status quo order dated ); Eune -;;, is <I5&ED and the CO+E<EC is directed to cause the implementation o the Decision o the !egional &rial Court o Palibo, %Flan, 'ranch (, in Election Case No. )-(, without pre"udice to any "udgment the CO+E<EC may render in E%C Case No. %.(.-;;-. +oreover, respondent !oger +. Esto shall pay immediately the $-;; de iciency in the CO+E<EC iling ee. "O ORDERED.

Davide, #r., C.#., 8ellosillo, %uno, &itug, %anganiban, 'uisumbing, (nares) $antiago, $andoval)*utierre+, Austria),artine+, Corona, Carpio),orales, Calle"o, $r., A+cuna, and -inga, ##., concur.
G)H

$enned by Commissioner +ehol P. Sadain with Commissioners !alph C. <antion and 5lorentino %. &uason, Er., concurring. G-H $enned by Eudge Dean !. &elan. G,H $etitioner Navarosa received 1,?*9 votes while respondent Esto obtained 1,?*, votes. G1H !ollo, pp. ?1.?:. G:H !ollo, pp. )::.):*. G9H !ollo, pp. 11.1?. G*H 0bid., pp. )9.)*. G?H /atchalian v. Court o %ppeals, ,): $hil. ),1 6)((:7. G(H Soller v. Commission on Elections, /.!. No. ),(?:,, : September -;;;, ,,( SC!% 9?:I +iranda v. Castillo, /.!. No. )-9,;), )( Eune )((*, -*1 SC!% :;,I <oyola v. CO+E<EC, ,,* $hil. ),1 6)((*7I /atchalian v. Court o %ppeals, ,): $hil. ),1 6)((:7I $ahilan v. &abalba, /.!. No. ));)*;, -) 5ebruary )((1, -,; SC!% -;:. G);H !ollo, pp. )(.-;. G))H 0bid., p. *1. G)-H $ahilan v. &abalba, supra, note (. G),H In case o (o(.#'y8%(, o iling ees, the election protest will be dismissed 6see /atchalian v. Court o %ppeals, ,): $hil. ),1 G)((:H7. G)1H /.!. No. )-9,;), )( Eune )((*, -*1 SC!% :;,. G):H ,,* $hil. ),1 6)((*7. G)9H &he records do not contain a copy o petitioner Navarosa>s %nswer. G)*H <a Campana 5ood $roducts, Inc. v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. ??-19, 1 Eune )((,, --, SC!% ):)I +artineJ v. De la +erced, /.!. No. ?-;,(, -; Eune )(?(, )*1 SC!% )?-I &a"onera v. <amaroJa, /.!. Nos. 1?(;* L 1(;,:, )( December )(?), )); SC!% 1,?I Summit /uaranty L Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court o %ppeals, <.:):,(, )1 December )(?), )); SC!% -1)I $eople v. +unar, /.!. No. <.,*91-, -October )(*,, :, SC!% -*?. G)?H /.!. No. );:)?;, : Euly )((,, --1 SC!% 1(), reiterated in National Steel Corporation v. Court o %ppeals, ,9- $hil. ):; 6)(((7. G)(H Soller v. Commission on Elections, /.!. No. ),(?:,, : September -;;;, ,,( SC!% 9?:I +elendres, Er. v. Commission on Elections, ,** $hil. -*: 6)(((7I /atchalian v. Court o %ppeals, ,): $hil. ),1 6)((:7. G-;H Section -- o !epublic %ct No. *)99 vests !egional &rial Courts 6[!&Cs\7 with e#clusive original "urisdiction over election protests involving municipal o icials. &he payment o the CO+E<EC iling ee merely allows the !&Cs to e#ercise such "urisdiction. 65or a distinction between sub"ect matter "urisdiction and e#ercise o "urisdiction, s ee <im v. $ac=uing, /.!. No. )):;11, ) September )((1, -,9 SC!% -))7. G-)H 5or a grant o similar remedy, s ee National Steel Corporation v. Court o %ppeals, ,9- $hil. ):; 6)(((7. G--H Euliano v. Court o %ppeals, )-* $hil. -;* 6)(9*7. G-,H %lvareJ v. Commission on Elections, /.!. No. )1-:-*, ) +arch -;;), ,:, SC!% 1,1. G-1H /.!. No. ),;?,), ); 5ebruary )((?, -?9 SC!% )??, reiterated in Santos v. Commission on Elections, /.!. No. )::9)?, -9 +arch -;;,. G-:H /utierreJ v. Commission on Elections, ,,* $hil. )1, 6)((*7, and &obon @y v. Commission on Elections, /.!. No. ??):?, 1 +arch )((-, -;9 SC!% **(. G-9H ,,? $hil. 1*1 6)((*7. G-*H Section -)? provides2 [Assumption of office not it!standing an election contest . Z Every candidate or provincial, city, municipal or municipal district o ice duly proclaimed elected by the corresponding board o canvassers shall assume o ice, notwithstanding the pendency in the courts o any contest against his election, without pre"udice to the inal decision thereon and applicable provisions o the !ules o Court regarding e#ecution o "udgment pending appeal.\ G-?H !amas v. Commission on Elections, supra, note -1. 5or prior but identical rulings, see <indo v. Commission on Elections, /.!. No. )-*,)), )( Eune )((*, -*1 SC!% :))I /arcia v. Commission on Elections, /.!. No. ??):?, 1 +arch )((-, -;9 SC!% **(.

G-(H G,;H

/.!. No. <.1;1)):, -* Eune )(*:, 91 SC!% 1(1. !ollo, pp. -*.,;. G,)H De <eon v. De los Santos, *? $hil. 19) 6)(1*7. G,-H !ollo, pp. 19.1?. G,,H %la riJ vs. Nable, *- $hil. -*? 6)(1)7.

:. &o pay the costs. &he complaint against the individual de endants is DIS+ISSED or insu iciency o evidence. <iFewise, the Counterclaim is DIS+ISSED or lacF o merit. SO O!DE!ED. 3

G.R. No. 131109 Ju(% 29, 1999 INTERNATIONAL "CHOOL, INC. DM'(7l'A, petitioner, vs. HON. CO*RT OF A EAL", " O*"E" ALEI AND O HELIA TORRAL+A, respondents. GON1AGA.RE!E", J.: 5or review is the decision o the Court o %ppeals, 1 dated Eune -,, )((* in C%./.!. S$ No. 1-)(*, which dismissed the petition or certiorari iled by International School 6+anila7, Inc. 6IS+7 assailing the orders dated Eune )(, )((9 and %ugust -*, )((9 o the lower court granting a writ o e#ecution pending appeal, and denying the subse=uent motion to reconsider the sameI and the resolution dated October )1, )((* o the appellate court denying IS+Ks motion or reconsideration. On 5ebruary )1, )((9, the !egional &rial Court o OueJon City, 'ranch ** 2 rendered a decision in Civil Case No. O.().);9:, entitled 3Spouses %le# and Ophelia &orralba v. International School, Inc. 6+anila7, Dr. !odney C. 4ermes, Noli !elo" and Danilo de Eesus3 involving a Complaint or Damages due to the death o plainti sK only son, Ericson &orralba while in the custody o IS+ and its o icers. &he dispositive portion o the said decision reads2 W4E!E5O!E, Eudgment is hereby rendered inding de endant International School 6+anila7 , Inc. liable to pay plainti s, the ollowing2 ). &he sum o $1,;;;,;;;.;; as and or +oral damagesI -. &he amount o $),;;;,;;;.;; by way o E#emplary damagesI ,. &he amount o $-,;;;,;;;.;; as %ctual damagesI 1. &he sum o $,;;,;;;.;; as and or %ttorneyKs eesI and

IS+ appealed to the Court o %ppeals. During the pendency thereo , the spouses &orralba iled a motion or e#ecution pending appeal be ore the lower court on the grounds that the appeal is merely dilatory and that the iling o a bond is another good reason or the e#ecution o a "udgment pending appeal. - Said motion was opposed by IS+. In an order dated Eune )(, )((9, the lower court granted e#ecution pending upon the posting o a bond in the amount o 5ive +illion $esos 6$:,;;;,;;;.;;7 by the spouses &orralba. / In an e7)parte motion dated Euly -:, )((9, Deputy Sheri %ngel <. Doroni in ormed the lower court to the Writ o E#ecution $ending %ppeal issued by the court on Euly )*, )((9, a Notice o /arnishment o IS+Ks banF deposits at /lobal Consumer 'anFing, CitibanF N.%. 6CitibanF7 was served by him to CitibanF on Euly )?, )((9I and that on Euly -1, )((9, he received a letter rom CitibanFs in orming him that IS+Ks banF deposits with the said banF in the amount o $:,:;;,;;;.;; were on 3holdApledge3. 6 In the meantime, IS+ iled a motion or reconsideration or or approval o supersedeas bond in the amount o 5ive +illion and Si# 4undred &housand $esos 6$:,9;;,;;;.;;7 on Euly -,, )((9. 7 On Euly -:, )((9, the lower court issued an Order directing CitibanF to release to Deputy Sheri Doroni in cash or checF the amount o 5ive +illion and 5ive 4undred &housand $esos 6$:,:;;,;;;.;;7, sub"ect o the Notice o /arnishment dated Euly -:, )((9. 8 &he ollowing day, the spouses &orralba iled an urgent e7 parte motion to encash and receive the proceeds o the CitibanF +anagerKs checF representing the amount garnished in e#ecution. 9 4owever, on Euly -;, )((9, IS+ iled an urgent motion to stop delivery o garnished unds to the spouses &orralba. 10 On %ugust -, )((9, the lower court issued an order suspending the e#ecution process there being no opposition iled in relation thereto and pending resolution o IS+Ks motion or reconsideration 6or to approval o supersedeas bond7. 11 &he spouses &orralba then iled an opposition to IS+Ks motion or reconsideration. 12 In an order dated %ugust -*, )((9, the lower court denied IS+Ks motion or reconsideration and authoriJed and directed Deputy Sheri Doroni to encash the CitibanF +anagerKs ChecF payable to the said court in the amount o 5ive +illion

5ive 4undred &housand $esos 6$:,:;;;,;;;.;;7 and to turn over the proceeds there or a ter deducting all legal ees and charges i any, to the plainti s or their representative. 13 In view o the above order o the lower court, IS+ iled a motion to withdraw the superseads bond. %ttempts to have the order o e#ecution pending appeal set aside having proved utile and the o er o a supersedeas bond having been re"ected by the lower court, IS+ iled a petition or certiorari be ore the Court o %ppeals. 1- IS+ sought the nulli ication o the assailed orders or having been issued in e#cess o "urisdiction and with grave o discretion. In its challenged decision dated Eune -*, )((*, the Court o %ppeals denied due course and dismissed the petition or lacF or merit. 1/ &he Court o %ppeals ound that the grounds relied upon by the lower court in granting e#ecution pending appeal, and which were raised by the plainti s.spouses in their motion Z that the appeal taFen by the de endant school is merely dilatory and the iling o a bond Z constitute good reasons. &he Court o %ppeals agreed with the lower court that IS+Ks appeal appears to be dilatory in view o its 3virtual admission o ault when it adopted the pro"ect3 3Code !ed3 consisting o sa ety and emergency measures, only a ter the death o plainti s.spouses &orralbaKs only son3I and that the delay has already a ected the plainti s.spouses &orralba inancially. In a resolution dated October )1, )((*, the Court o %ppeals denied IS+Ks motion or reconsideration. 16 4ence, this petition. &o sum up the grounds raised in the petition, the =uestion now is whether or not the respondent Court o %ppeals erred in inding that the lower court did not commit any grave abuse o discretion in granting e#ecution pending appeal o its decision. 4owever, we shall deal irst with the procedural issues raised by the private respondents.spouses in their memorandum. $rivate respondent.spouses contend that herein petitioner IS+ is engaging in orum.shopping in iling the instant petition or review on certiorari seeFing the same as those prayed or in their pending appeal with the Court o %ppeals. 5urther, they contend that petitioner IS+ improperly availed o the special civil action or certiorari be ore the Court o %ppeals considering that an appeal andAor the posting o a supersedeas bond are both ade=uate remedies precluding resort to the e#traordinary writ o certiorari. 5orum.shopping is present when in the two or more cases pending there is identity o parties, rights or causes o action and relie s sought. 17 While there is an identity o parties in the appeal and in the petition or review on certiorari iled be ore this Court, it is clear that the causes o action and relie s sought are unidentical, although petitioner IS+ may have mentioned in its appeal the impropriety o the writ o e#ecution pending appeal under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar.

Clearly, there can be no orum.shopping where in one petition a party =uestions the order granting the motion or e#ecution pending appeal, as in the case at bar, and, in a regular appeal be ore the appellate court, the party =uestions the decision on the merits which inds the party guilty o negligence and holds the same liable or damages there or. % ter all, the merits o the main case are not to be determined in a petition =uestioning e#ecution pending appeal 18 and vice versa. 4ence, reliance on the principle o orum.shopping is misplaced. Coming now to the issue o the propriety o a special civil action or certiorari iled be ore the appellate court to assail an order or e#ecution pending appeal, this issue has been s=uarely addressed in &alencia vs. Court of Appeals 19 as ollows2 . . ., we have ruled in #aca, et al. vs. Davao 9umber Compan4, et al. that2 . . . %lthough Section ), !ule 9: o the !ules o Court provides that the special civil action or certiorari may only be invoFed when 3there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and ade=uate remedy in the 6ordinary7 course o law,3 this rule is not without e#ception. &he availability o the ordinary course o appeal does not constitute su icient ground to prevent a party rom maFing use o the e#traordinary remedy o certiorari where appeal is not an ade=uate remedy or e=ually bene icial, speedy and su icient. It is the inade=uacy.not the mere absence o all other legal remedies and the danger o ailure o "ustice without the writ that usually determines the propriety o certiorari. &hus, we held therein, and we so reiterate or purpose o the case at bar, that certiorari lies against an order granting e#ecution pending appeal where the same is not ounded upon good reasons. %lso, the act that the losing party had appealed rom the "udgment does not bar the certiorari action iled in respondent court as the appeal could not be an ade=uate remedy rom such premature e#ecution. &hat petitioner could have resorted to a supersedeas bond to prevent e#ecution pending appeal, as suggested by the two lower courts, is not to be held against him. &he iling o such bond does not entitle him to the suspension o e#ecution as a matter o right. It cannot, there ore, be categorically considered as a plain, speedy and ade=uate remedy. 4ence, no rule re=uires a losing party so

circumstances to adopt such remedy in lieu or be ore availment o other remedial options at hand. 5urthermore, a rational interpretation o Section ,, !ule ,( should be that the re=uirement or a supersedeas bond presupposes that the case presents a presumptively valid occasion or discretionary e#ecution. Otherwise, even i no good reason e#ists to warrant advance e#ecution, the prevailing party could un"ustly compel the losing party to post a supersedeas bond through the simple e#pedient o iling a motion or, and the trial court improvidently granting, a writ o e#ecution pending appeal although the situation is violative o Section -, !ule ,(. &his could not have been the intendment o the rule, hence we give our imprimatur to the propriety o petitionerKs action or certiorariin respondent court. 20 0erily, a petition or certiorari lies against an order granting e#ecution pending appeal where the same is not ounded or good reasons. &his brings us now to the =uestion on the validity o the appellate courtKs ruling upholding the writ o e#ecution pending appeal. It must be stressed that private respondents.spouses motionAapplication or an e#ecution pending appeal was premised on the ollowing reasons2 that the appeal was being taFen or purpose o delay and that they are iling a bond. In granting the motion or the e#ceptional writ over the strong opposition o the IS+, the trial court adopted by re erence the said grounds adduced by the spouses &orralba in their motion in the irst order dated Eune )(, )((9I 21 and e#pressly reiterated the same grounds in the order denying the motion or reconsideration dated %ugust -*, )((9. 22 In upholding the writ o e#ecution pending appeal, the Court o %ppeals observed that the lower court had, prior to it its issuance, duly noted the presence o the circumstances laid down by Section -, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court, 23 allowing e#ecution as an e#ception, or pending appeal, even be ore inal Eudgment, to wit2 6a7 &here must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse partyI 6b7 &here must be good reasons or issuing the e#ecutionI and 6c7 &he good reasons must be stated in a special order. 2-

<iFewise, the Court o %ppeals accepted as 3good reasons3 that IS+Ks appeal appears to be dilatory in view o its virtual admission o ault when it adopted the pro"ect 3Code !ed3 only a ter the death o plainti s.spouses &orralbaKs son, and the delay o the case which already a ected plainti s spouses &orralbas inancially. &his Court has ruled in Ong vs. Court of Appeals 2/ that2 where the reason given is that an appeal is rivolous and dilatory, e#ecution pending appeal cannot be "usti ied. It is not proper or the trial court to ind that an appeal is rivolous and conse=uently to disapprove it since the disallowance o an appeal by said court constitutes a deprivation o the right to appeal. &he authority to disapprove an appeal right ully pertains to the appellate court . . . . 26 &he 3admission o ault or negligence3 adverted to in the lower courtKs order and subse=uently adopted by the appellate court in its decision, was based on the ollowing e#change between the private respondents.spousesK counsel and one o the de endants, IS+Ks swimming coach Noli !elo", which transpired during the hearing o 5ebruary )?, )((12 %&&B. /@E!!E!O2 Issue o 0ol. 1?, No. - o October )((,. +r. !elo", you said that you have read this. &here is here an article which says on the ront page 3Introducing Code !ed.3 %nd in this article it says and I =uote 3It was introduced last year by the administration to prevent urther incidents liFe the tragic death o 5reshman Ericson &orralba in %ugust )(() who collapsed while taFing the swimming competency test. Due to schoolKs lacF o emergency procedures and e=uipments, valuable time was lost in coordinating medical e orts in bringing him to the +aFati +edical Center. Due to schoolKs lacF o emergency procedures and e=uipments, valuable time was lost in coordinating medical e orts in bringing him to the +aFati +edical Center. WI&NESS2 Bes, I read that portion. O. &hatKs all I want rom you.

Now liFewise +r. Witness on page ? or E#hibit %%, by the way your 4onor, may I re=uest the portion which read be marFed as %%.I. <iFewise on page ?, there is again mentioned here I =uote 3IS+ has also ac=uired new e=uipment to deal with emergencies such as o#ygen tanF, respirator, new buoyancy and li e saving e=uipment to the pool and a licensed ambulance to transport the victim to the +aFati +edical Center. With the apparent success o Code !ed, no one at IS+ need worry any longer about li e or death emergency. Did you read these portionsT WI&NESS2 I read those articles. 27 5or purposes only o determining the correctness o the writ o e#ecution pending appeal, we cannot see how the lower courts came upon the conclusion o virtual admission o ault or negligence by IS+ based on the above.=uoted e#change where IS+Ks swimming coach admitted that he read the school paper article introducing 3Code !ed3. %s correctly pointed out by IS+, the article was not an o icial statement o the school, but merely an opinion o its author. +oreover, we cannot see how the statement o +r. Noli !elo" that he read the article on 3Code !ed3 can be construed as an admission o liability by the school. Clearly then, the conclusion o the lower courts that the appeal is dilatory based solely on the oregoing e#change rests on shaFy ground. &he ne#t =uestion to be resolved is whether or not the iling o a bond can be considered a good reason to "usti y immediate e#ecution under Section -, !ule ,(. In the case o Ro7as vs. Court of Appeals, 28 this Court had occasion to address this issued directly, as ollows2 . . . to consider the mere posting o a bond a 3good reason3 would precisely maFe immediate e#ecution o a "udgment pending appeal routinary, the rule rather than the e#ception. Eudgments would be e#ecuted immediately, as a matter o course, once rendered, i all that the prevailing party needed to do was to post a bond to answer or damages that might result there rom. &his is a situation, to repeat, neither contemplated nor intended by law. 29 In ine, the rule is now settled that the mere iling o a bond by the success ul party is not a good reason or ordering e#ecution pending appeal, as 3a combination o circumstances is the dominant consideration which impels the grant o immediate e#ecution, the re=uirement o a bond is imposed merely as an additional actor, no doubt or the protection o the de endantKs creditor. 30 Since we have already ruled that the reason that an appeal is dilatory does not "usti y e#ecution pending appeal,

neither does the iling o a bond, without anything more, "usti y the same. +oreover, IS+ could not be aulted or its withdrawal o its supersedeas bond inasmuch as the lower court granted the e#ecution pending appeal and re"ected its o er o supersedeas bond. 5inally, we note that writ o e#ecution pending appeal covered the moral and e#emplary damages ad"udged by the lower court against IS+. In this regard, we liFewise reproduce what was said in Radio Communications of t!e %!ilippines, 0nc. 6RC%07 vs. 9antin, et al. 31 that awards or moral and e#emplary damages cannot be the sub"ect o e#ecution pending appeal, under the ollowing rationale2 . . . &he e#ecution o any award or moral and e#emplary damages is dependent on the outcome o the main case. @nliFe the actual damages or which the petitioners may clearly be held liable i they breach a speci ic contract and the amounts o which are i#ed and certain, liabilities with respect to moral and e#emplary damages as well as the e#act amounts remain uncertain and inde inite pending resolution by the Intermediate %ppellate Court and eventually the Supreme Court. &he e#istence o the actual bases o these types o damages and their causal relation to the petitionersK act will have to be determined in the light o errors on appeal. It is possible that the petitioners, a ter all, while liable or actual damages may not be liable or moral and e#emplary damages. Or as in some cases elevated to the Supreme Court, the awards may be reduced. +uch as we appreciate the predicament o the bereaved parents, however, this Court is o the opinion that the general rule still inds application in the instant case. In other words, the respondent Court o %ppeals committed reversible error in upholding the writ o e#ecution pending appeal absent the 3good reasons3 re=uired by law. W4E!E5O!E, the petition is granted and the assailed decisions o the Court o %ppeals are hereby !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. &he writ o e#ecution issued by the lower court pursuant to its order o Eune )(, )((9 is hereby %NN@<<ED. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) $er Eustice <ourdes P. &aoyao.Eaguros, with Eustices !omeo %. 'rawner and 4ilarion <. %=uino, concurring. - $resided by Eudge Ignacio <. Salvador. , Rollo, p. ,:. 1 0bid., pp. ))-.))1. : 0bid., p. 9-. 9 0bid., p. )::. * 0bid., p. ),:. ? 0bid., p. ):9. ( 0bid., p. ):?. ); 0bid., p. )9;.

)) 0bid., p. )9:. )- 0bid., p. )99. ), 0bid., p. 9,. )1 0bid., p. 1:. ): 0bid., p. ,1. )9 0bid., p. 11. )* EmployeesK Compensation Commission vs. Court o %ppeals, -:* SC!% *)*. )? City o +anila vs. Court o %ppeals, *- SC!% (?. )( )?1 SC!% :9). -; %t pp. :9(.:*;. -) $upra, see note :. -- $upra, see note ),. -, Sec. -, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court provides2 E#ecution pending appeal. Z On +otion o the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party the court may, in its discretion, order e#ecution to issue even be ore the e#piration o the time to appeal, upon good reasons to be stated in a special order. I a record on appeal is ield therea ter, the motion and the special order shall be included thereon. -1 $rovident International !esources Corporation vs. Court o %ppeals, -:( SC!% :);. -: -;, SC!% ,?. -9 %t p. 1,. -* Rollo, pp. ?9.?*. -? ):* SC!% ,*;. -( %t pp. 11. ,; 0bid. ,) ),1 SC!% ,(:.

G.R. No$. 16281-.17 Au;u$, 2/, 200/ JO"E F. MANACO , HARI"H C. RAMNANI, CHANDR* . E""*MAL '() MA*REEN M. RAMNANI,$etitioners, vs. E2*ITA+LE CI+AN3, LA&INE LO*NGEWEAR MAN*FACT*RING INC., HILI INE FIRE AND MARINE IN"*RANCE COR ORATION '() FIR"T LE ANTO.TAI"HO IN"*RANCE COR ORATION, !espondents. DECISION !NARE"."ANTIAGO, J.2

!espondent <avine <oungewear +anu acturing, Inc. 63<avine37 insured its buildings and supplies against ire with $hilippine 5ire and +arine Insurance Corporation 63$hil5ire37, !iJal Surety and Insurance Company 63!iJal Surety37, &abacalera Insurance Company 63&ICO37, 5irst <epanto.&aisho Insurance Corporation 635irst <epanto37, E=uitable Insurance Corporation 63E=uitable Insurance37, and !eliance Insurance Corporation 63!eliance Insurance37. E#cept or $olicy No. ),*(? issued by 5irst <epanto, all the policies provide that2 <oss, i any, under this policy is payable to E=uitable 'anFing Corporation. /reenhills 'ranch, as their interest may appear sub"ect to the terms, conditions, clauses and warranties under this policy. 6@nderscoring supplied7 On %ugust ), )((?, a ire gutted <avine>s buildings and their contents thus claims were made against the policies. %s ound by the O ice o the Insurance Commission, the insurance proceeds payable to <avine is $))-,-1:,,-1.,1.) <avine was then represented by 4arish C. !amnani 634arish37 but his authority was withdrawn on +arch )*, -;;; by the 'oard o Directors due to his alleged ailure to account or the insurance proceeds. Chandru C. !amnani 63Chandru37 was appointed in his stead and was designated, together with %tty. +ario %. %guinaldo, as <avine>s representatives in negotiating with the insurance companies. $rior to the release o the proceeds, the insurance companies re=uired <avine to sign a $ orn $tatement in %roof of 9oss and $ubrogation Agreement- whereby the ormer would be absolved rom their liabilities upon payment o the proceeds to E=uitable 'anF. Only 4arish signed the document while the rest o <avine>s directors re used to sign. Notwithstanding Chandru>s re=uest that payments be made irst to <avine who shall therea ter pay E=uitable 'anF as the latter>s interest may appear, certain insurance companies released the proceeds directly to E=uitable 'anF thus Chandru iled, in be!alf of 9avine, a $etition or the Issuance o a Writ o $reliminary In"unction with $rayer or a &emporary !estraining Order, be ore the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o $asig City, against $hil5ire, !iJal Surety, &ICO, 5irst <epanto and E=uitable 'anF. &he case was docFeted as Civil Case No. 9?-?* and ra led to 'ranch *) presided by Eudge Celso D. <aviNa. 4arish, Eose 5. +anacop, Chandru $. $essumal, +aureen +. !amnani and Salvador CorteJ, moved to intervene1claiming they were <avine>s incumbent directors and that 4arish was <avine>s authoriJed representative.: &hey disclaimed Chandru>s designation as president o <avine as well as his and %tty. %guinaldo>s authority to ile the action. &hey also denied having re used to sign the Sworn Statement in $roo o <oss and Subrogation %greement.9

On 5ebruary )1, -;;), the trial court granted the motion or intervention* and therea ter denied <avine>s motion or reconsideration.? In their respective %nswer with Compulsory Counterclaim, !iJal Surety stated its willingness to pay the insurance proceeds but only to the right ul claimant,( while E=uitable 'anF alleged it had su iciently established the amount o its claim and as bene iciary o the insurance policies, it was entitled to collect the proceeds. ); &he intervenors in their %mended %nswer.in.Intervention)) with cross.claim against the insurance companies alleged that as o %ugust ), )((?, <avine>s obligations to E=uitable 'anF amounted to $*),;;;,;;;.;; and since E=uitable Insurance and !eliance Insurance have already paid the banF more than this amount, respondent insurance companies should be ordered to immediately deliver to <avine the remaining insurance proceeds through the intervenors and to pay interests thereon rom the time o submission o proo o loss. In its %nswer)- dated +ay --, -;;) to <avine>s complaint and the intervenors> cross. claim, 5irst <epanto alleged that its share in the combined proceeds was $)9,)1:,*9;.)), o which $9,;;;,;;;.;; had already been paid to E=uitable 'anF. It withheld payment o the balance since it could not determine to whom it should be made. It urther alleged that the intervenors had no personality to intervene and prayed or the outright dismissal o their cross.claim against the insurance companies. &his was re uted by the intervenors who alleged that since <avine and petitioners were already litigating, it was too late or 5irst <epanto to ile an action or interpleader. &hey stressed that the latter must now deliver the balance o the insurance proceeds to either E=uitable 'anF or <avine, through the intervenors. ), On Eune )?, -;;), $hil5ire iled its %nswer)1 admitting liability in the amount o $)-,()9,9;?.;(, o which $1,-??,,-(.:- had been paid to E=uitable 'anF but withheld paying the balance until the right ul claimant has been determined. &ICO did not ile an answer to <avine>s complaint and was declared in de ault.): % ter pre.trial, the intervenors iled a Second %mended %nswer.in. Intervention)9 alleging that <avine>s liabilities to E=uitable 'anF were e#tinguished since it received proceeds e#ceeding the amount o <avine>s obligations. &hus, the real estate mortgages given as security there or be released and the e#cess amount returned to <avine. E=uitable 'anF denied that <avine>s obligations were ully paid, and averred that the loans were secured not only by the insurance policies and the real estate mortgages but also by several surety agreements e#ecuted by 4arish and +aureen !amnani. &he banF prayed that2 6a7 the insurance companies be ordered to deliver to it the proceeds o the policies andAor or <avine to be directed to pay the outstanding loansI

6b7 the spouses 4arish and +aureen !amnani be held solidarily liable or the payment o the outstanding obligations o <avineI and 6c7 the mortgaged properties be oreclosed in case o ailure o <avine, the insurers and sureties to ully satis y the loan obligations.)* In a !eply,)? the intervenors denied that <avine ac=uired urther loans rom the banF or the years )((? and )(((. &he promissory notes allegedly pertaining to these loans were obtained prior to )((? and the surety agreements signed by 4arish and +aureen !amnani were consolidated in a Surety %greement dated Eanuary -*, )((*)( and that the loan covered by $N No. &<./4.(*.;-(- had been ully paid. In the meantime, E=uitable 'anF and 5irst <epanto mani ested in open court that another pre.trial should be conducted on the intervenors> cross.claim under the Second %mended %nswer.in.Intervention but the trial court denied the same and proceeded with the hearing o the case.-; On %pril -, -;;-, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive part o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, "udgment is hereby rendered2 ). DIS+ISSIN/ the Complaint dated Eanuary --, -;;), or lacF o merit, with costs against Chandru C. !amnani. -. O!DE!IN/ the de endant 'anF to re und to plainti through the Intervenors the amount o $9:,?)(,(,9.;: representing the overpayment as actual or compensatory damages, with legal rate o interest at si# 69D7 per cent per annum rom the date o this decision until ull payment. ,. O!DE!IN/2 a. De endant $hilippine 5ire and +arine Insurance Corporation to pay plainti through Intervenors the total amount o $):,))),9*;.1? representing unpaid insurance proceeds as actual or compensatory damages, with twenty.nine 6-(D7 per cent interest per annum rom October ), )((? until ull payment. b. De endant !iJal Surety and Insurance Company to pay plainti through Intervenors the amount o $)*,);;,;;;.;; representing unpaid insurance proceeds as actual or compensatory damages, with twenty.nine 6-(D7 per cent interest per annum rom October ), )((? until ull payment. c. De endant 5irst <epanto.&aisho Insurance Corporation to pay plainti through Intervenors the total amount o $)?,-:;,;;;.;; representing unpaid insurance

proceeds as actual or compensatory damages, with twenty.nine 6-(D7 per cent interest per annum rom October ), )((? until ull payment. d. De endant &abacalera Insurance Company to pay plainti through Intervenors the amount o $-:,9(;,;;;.;; representing unpaid insurance proceeds as actual or compensatory damages, with twenty.nine 6-(D7 per cent interest per annum rom October ), )((? until ull payment. 1. O!DE!IN/ all de endants to pay, "ointly and severally, plainti through Intervenors the amount e=uivalent to ten 6);D7 per cent o the actual damages due and demandable as and by way o attorney>s ees. :. C%NCE<<IN/ the loan mortgage annotations and !E&@!NIN/ to plainti through Intervenors &C& No. -,(;9, CC& Nos. $&.)*?*), $&.)*?*- and $&.)*?*,. 9. Costs o suit. Counterclaims iled by plainti against intervenors and cross.claims iled by all de endants against intervenors and counterclaims are hereby DIS+ISSED or lacF o merit. SO O!DE!ED.-) On %pril ,, -;;-, the intervenors iled a +otion or E#ecution $ending %ppeal-- on the ollowing grounds2 6a7 &ICO was on the brinF o insolvencyI 6b7 <avine was in imminent danger o e#tinctionI and 6c7 any appeal rom the trial court>s "udgment would be merely dilatory. +eanwhile, !iJal Surety, 5irst <epanto, E=uitable 'anF and <avine separately iled a Notice o %ppeal.-, $hil5ire liFewise iled a Notice o %ppeal,-1 a +otion or !econsideration 6%d Cautelam7,-: and a +otion to Dismiss.-9$hil5ire>s +otion or !econsideration and +otion to Dismiss were denied by the trial court on +ay )1, -;;-.-* Without iling a motion or reconsideration rom the decision o the trial court and even be ore the latter could rule on the motion or e#ecution pending appeal, E=uitable 'anF iled on %pril -1, -;;- a $etition or Certiorari, $rohibition and +andamus 6with $rayer or &emporary !estraining Order and $reliminary In"unction7-? be ore the Court o %ppeals docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(?. <avine also iled a $etition or Certiorari with $rayer or &emporary !estraining Order 6&!O7 and Writ o $reliminary In"unction-( docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(-, a ter it withdrew its Notice o %ppeal. 'oth claimed that appeal was not a plain, speedy and ade=uate remedy under the circumstances.

Eudge <aviNa granted intervenors> motion or e#ecution pending appeal ,; and issued a writ o e#ecution on +ay -;, -;;-,) which was implemented the ollowing day. $ersonal properties o $hil5ire and 5irst <epanto were seiJedI the latter>s banF deposits garnished while real properties belonging to E=uitable 'anF were levied upon. &he writ was not en orced against !iJal Surety because its corporate name and operations were trans erred to O'E Insurance 6$hils.7 Incorporation 63O'E Insurance37.,5irst <epanto assailed the trial court>s order granting e#ecution pending appeal and the writ o e#ecution in a $etition or Certiorari,, be ore the Court o %ppeals docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. *;?11. It allegedly did not ile a motion or reconsideration o the trial court>s order due to e#treme urgency, as the ongoing e#ecution o the appealed "udgment was threatening to paralyJe its operations. 'e ore long, $hil5ire also iled a $etition or Certiorari With $rayer or &emporary !estraining Order and Writ o $reliminary In"unction docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. *;*((, against the same order and writ o e#ecution.,1 !iJal Surety, or its part, did not ile a petition under !ule 9: o the !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure but maintained its ordinary appeal rom the %pril -, -;;- decision o the trial court. 4owever, acting on the report that !iJal Surety was now re.organiJed as O'E Insurance 6$hils.7 Inc., Eudge <aviNa issued an Order dated +ay -*, -;;directing the implementation o the Writ o E#ecution against O'E Insurance.,: Subse=uently, the certiorari petitions were consolidated be ore the &enth Division o the Court o %ppeals, which thereupon granted <avine>s prayer or the issuance o a writ o preliminary in"unction upon posting a $:;+ bond.,9 In view o the issuance o the writ o e#ecution by the trial court, E=uitable 'anF iled an %mended andAor Supplemental $etition or Certiorari, $rohibition and +andamus,* in C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(? on Eune )), -;;-, assailing the trial court>s order granting e#ecution pending appeal as well as the issuance o the writ o e#ecution. In due course, the Court o %ppeals promulgated a consolidated decision, the dispositive part o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, "udgment is hereby rendered2 6)7 SE&&IN/ %SIDE the decision dated %pril -, -;;)I 6-7 declaring N@<< and 0OID the Special Order dated +ay )*, -;;- and the Writ o E#ecution dated +ay -;, -;;-I 6,7 remanding the case to the lower court or the conduct o pre.trial con erence on the Second %mended %nswer.in.Intervention and the subse=uent pleadings iled in relation theretoI and

617 in the event that the lower court decides that <avine is the one entitled to the proceeds o the insurance policies, payment thereo should be withheld, sub"ect to the outcome o the decision on the issue on the right ul members o the 'oard o Directors o <avine which is pending be ore the intra.corporate court. SO O!DE!ED.,? On +arch )*, -;;1, the appellate court issued a resolution amending its earlier decision as ollows2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, this Court hereby resolves to2 ). CO!!EC& paragraph ) o the dispositive portion o the Consolidated Decision dated +ay -(, -;;, to re lect the correct date o the =uestioned decision o the court a =uo which is %pril -, -;;- and not %pril -, -;;)I -. C<%!I5B paragraph , o the Consolidated Decision in the sense that the case is remanded to the lower court to enable to 6sic7 the parties to amend their respective pleadings and issues, as may be necessary and conduct pre.trial anew and other proceedings to the e#clusion o the intervenors in view o the ruling that the latter should not have been allowed to intervene in the caseI ,. a7 <I5& the order o levy and garnishment on the real and personal properties and banF deposits o E=uitable $CI'anFI b7 <I5& the garnishment on the banF accounts o $hilippine 5ire and +arine Insurance Corporation which were made pursuant to the Special Order dated +ay )*, -;;- and the Writ o E#ecution dated +ay -;, -;;which were declared null and void in this Court>s Consolidated DecisionI and :. DENB E=uitable $CI'anF>s motion to dis=uali y respondent Eudge Celso <aviNa rom hearing the case upon its remand to the lower court. SO O!DE!ED.,( @pon proper motion, the Court o %ppeals also subse=uently ordered the li ting o the order o levy and notice o garnishment on the real properties and banF deposits o 5irst <epanto in a resolution dated %pril -;, -;;1. E=uitable 'anF then iled a petition or review be ore this Court docFeted as /.!. Nos. )9-?1-.1: assailing the appellate court>s resolution inso ar as it denied the banF>s motion to dis=uali y Eudge <aviNa. 4owever, the &hird Division o this Court denied the petition1; and its subse=uent motion or reconsideration.1) On the other hand, the intervenors U now petitioners U tooF this recourse under !ule 1: alleging that2

I. &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S E!!ED IN /I0IN/ D@E CO@!SE &O &4E $E&I&ION 5O! CE!&IO!%!I O5 EO@I&%'<E $CI'%NP IN C%./.!. S$ NO. *;-(? %ND &4E $E&I&ION 5O! CE!&IO!%!I O5 <%0INE IN C%./.!. S$ NO. *;-(- NO&WI&4S&%NDIN/ &4%& &4E O!DIN%!B +ODE O5 %$$E%< @NDE! SEC&ION -, !@<E 1) O5 &4E !E0ISED !@<ES O5 CO@!& 4%D %<!E%DB 'EEN %0%I<ED O5 'B &4E+. II. &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S CO++I&&ED %N E!!O! IN 0OIDIN/ &4E DECISION O5 &4E &!I%< CO@!& D%&ED %$!I< -, -;;- 5O! <%CP O5 $!E.&!I%< ON &4E $E&I&IONE!S %+ENDED %NSWE!.IN. IN&E!0EN&ION NO&WI&4S&%NDIN/ &4%& % $!E.&!I%< W%S %<!E%DB CONC<@DED %ND &4E $%!&IES 4%0E %<!E%DB %DD@CED &4EI! !ES$EC&I0E E0IDENCES IN &4E &!I%<. III. &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S /!%0E<B E!!ED IN 4O<DIN/ &4%& $E&I&IONE!S W4O %!E &4E !I/4&5@< +E+'E!S O5 &4E 'O%!D O5 DI!EC&O!S C%NNO& IN&E!0ENE &O $!OSEC@&E &4E %C&ION 5I<ED 'B <%0INE &4!O@/4 % +INO!I&B S&OCP4O<DE! W4O 4%S NO %@&4O!I&B &4E!E5O!. I0. &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S E!!ED IN SE&&IN/ %SIDE &4E DECISION O5 &4E &!I%< CO@!& %ND 5!@S&!%&E &4E 5INDIN/S &4%& EO@I&%'<E $CI'%NP IS NO& EN&I&<ED &O C<%I+ &4E INS@!%NCE $!OCEEDS SINCE &4E <O%N O5 <%0INE &O I& 4%D %<!E%DB 'EEN 5@<<B $%ID %S IN 5%C& &4E!E W%S %N O0E!$%B+EN& W4IC4 +@S& 'E !E&@!NED &O <%0INE. 0. &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S CO++I&&ED %N E!!O! IN 0OIDIN/ &4E W!I& O5 E8EC@&ION $ENDIN/ %$$E%< NO&WI&4S&%NDIN/ &4%& &4E E@D/+EN& <I%'I<I&B IS %D+I&&ED '@& I&S S%&IS5%C&ION IS WI&44E<D 'B 0I!&@E O5 &4E 5<I+SB %$$E%<.1&he petition is partly meritorious. On the irst assigned error, we agree that the Court o %ppeals should have dismissed C%./.!. S$ Nos. *;-(- and *;-(?. % perusal o these petitions show that E=uitable 'anF and <avine inappropriately iled the petitions or certiorari when appeal was clearly a plain, speedy and ade=uate remedy rom the decision o the trial court. In act, both iled their respective notices o appeal rom the trial court>s decision, although <avine later withdrew its notice o appeal. &hey there ore cannot be allowed to =uestion the same decision on the merits and also invoFe the e#traordinary remedy o certiorari. Simultaneous iling o a petition or certiorari under !ule 9: and an ordinary appeal under !ule 1) o the !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure cannot be allowed since one

remedy would necessarily cancel out the other. &he e#istence and availability o the right o appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one o the re=uirements or availment o the latter is precisely that there should be no appeal. 1, It is elementary that or certiorari to prosper, it is not enough that the trial court committed grave abuse o discretion amounting to lacF or e#cess o "urisdictionI the re=uirement that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and ade=uate remedy in the ordinary course o law must liFewise be satis ied.11 In the instant case, E=uitable 'anF and <avine assailed the trial court>s decision through certiorari by alleging that Eudge <aviNa was biased. %ccording to E=uitable 'anF, Eudge <aviNa>s partiality was evident in his re usal to issue and serve summons on Eethmal Inc. and in conducting pre.trial on petitioners> Second %mended %nswer.in.Intervention. On the other hand, <avine alleged that Eudge <aviNa disregarded mandatory provisions o the !ules o Court when he allowed petitioners to interveneI that he also resolved the issue o corporate representation between the two groups o directors o <avine when he had no "urisdiction over the sub"ect matter. Clearly, the oregoing allegations are proper under !ule 1). It should be pointed out that when E=uitable 'anF and <avine iled their respective petitions be ore the Court o %ppeals on %pril -1, -;;-, the trial court had already rendered on %pril -, -;;- a "udgment on the merits. 'oth had notice o said inal "udgment as they even iled notices o appeal with the trial court. &his only goes to show that E=uitable 'anF and <avine unwittingly recogniJed ordinary appeal as the proper remedy in seeFing reversal o the assailed decision. It is well.settled that the remedy to obtain reversal or modi ication o the "udgment on the merits is appeal. &his is true even i the error, or one o the errors, ascribed to the trial court rendering the "udgment is its lacF o "urisdiction over the sub"ect matter, or the e#ercise o power in e#cess thereo , or grave abuse o discretion in the indings o act or o law set out in the decision.1: &hus, while it may be true that a inal order or "udgment was rendered under circumstances that would otherwise "usti y resort to a special civil action under !ule 9:, the latter would nonetheless be unavailing i there is an appeal or any other plain, speedy and ade=uate remedy in the ordinary course o law. E=uitable 'anF, however, posits that in certain e#ceptional cases, certiorari may be allowed even with the availability o an appeal, such as where valid and compelling considerations would warrant the same or where rigid application o the rules would result in a mani est ailure or miscarriage o "ustice, as in this case. E=uitable 'anF>s reliance on Estate of $alud #imene+ v. %!ilippine E7port %rocessing Lone19 is misplaced. In that case, resort by the respondent to a special civil action was "usti ied, even as the reglementary period or the proper remedy o appeal had already lapsed, because the assailed order o the trial court set aside an

e#propriation order that had long become inal and e#ecutory. &he Court declared therein that the trial court clearly acted beyond its "urisdiction or it cannot modi y a inal and e#ecutory order. &he =uestioned order o the trial court in that case was a patent nullity. In contrast, E=uitable 'anF has not shown any valid or e#traordinary circumstance that would "usti y immediate resort to certiorari. It simply alleged grave abuse o discretion on the part o the trial "udge as purportedly shown by a pattern o =uestionable rulings in avor o petitioners. 4owever, these rulings may not be corrected bycertiorari no matter how irregular or erroneous they might be. I the court has "urisdiction over the sub"ect matter and o the person, its rulings upon all =uestions involved are within its "urisdiction and may be corrected only by an appeal rom the inal decision.1* %nother compelling reason or dismissing C%./.!. Nos. *;-(- and *;-(? is that E=uitable 'anF and <avine actually engaged in orum.shopping. %s pointed out by petitioners, there is indeed parallelism between the instant case and C!emp!il E7port H 0mport Corp. v. CA.1? In C!emp!il, $CI'anF iled a special civil action or certiorari against inal orders o the trial court, even as its co.parties liFewise brought an ordinary appeal rom the same inal orders. %lthough $CI'anF did not "oin its co.parties in the latter>s appeal and instead separately iled its own petition under !ule 9:, the Court nonetheless ound $CI'anF>s acts as constituting orum.shopping2 We view with sFepticism $CI'>s contention that it did not "oin the consortium because it Whonestly believed that certiorari was the more e icacious and speedy relie available under the circumstances.> !ule 9: o the !evised !ules o Court is not di icult to understand. Certiorari is available only i there is no appeal or other plain, speedy and ade=uate remedy in the ordinary course o law. 4ence, in instituting a separate petition or certiorari, $CI' has deliberately resorted to orum. shopping. ... It alarms us to realiJe that we have to constantly repeat our warning against orum. shopping. We cannot over.emphasiJe its ill.e ects, one o which is aptly demonstrated in the case at bench where we are con ronted with two divisions o the Court o %ppeals issuing contradictory decisions . . . 5orum.shopping or the act o a party against whom an adverse "udgment has been rendered in one orum, o seeFing another 6and possibly avorable7 opinion in another orum 6other than by appeal or the special civil action o certiorari7, or the institution o two 6-7 or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would maFe a avorable disposition has

been characteriJed as an act o malpractice that is prohibited and condemned as tri ling with the Courts and abusing their processes. It constitutes improper conduct which tends to degrade the administration o "ustice. It has also been aptly described as deplorable because it adds to the congestion o the already heavily burdened docFets o the courts. 6@nderscoring supplied71( &hus, i we allow the instant petitions o E=uitable 'anF and <avine to prosper, this Court would be con ronted with the spectacle o two 6-7 appellate court decisions 6one on the special civil actions brought by E=uitable 'anF and <avine, and another on the ordinary appeals taFen by !iJal Surety, E=uitable 'anF and the other respondents7 dealing with the same sub"ect matter, issues, and parties. Needless to say, this is e#actly the pernicious e ect that the rules against orum.shopping seeF to avoid. Conse=uently, the certiorari petitions o E=uitable 'anF and <avine must be strucF down or being anathema to the orderly administration o "ustice. In view o the preceding discussion, we ind it no longer necessary to discuss petitioners> second to ourth assigned errors. &he propriety o the intervention, the lacF o pre.trial and the e#tent o E=uitable 'anF>s interests in the insurance proceeds, among others, are issues that must properly be resolved in the ordinary appeals. E#cept or <avine which apparently withdrew its notice o appeal, all the other respondents appealed the decision o the trial court under !ule 1). &hese appeals must conse=uently be allowed to proceed. %nent petitioners> i th assigned error, we ind that the Court o %ppeals did not err in giving due course and in granting the petitions in C%./.!. S$ Nos. *;*(( and *;?11. &hese certiorari petitions initiated by $hil5ire and 5irst <epanto were directed against the trial court>s orders granting e#ecution pending appeal and the concomitant issuance o a writ o e#ecution. &he proper recourse to be taFen rom these orders is a special civil action orcertiorari under !ule 9:, pursuant to Section ), !ule 1) o the !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure.:; Certiorari lies against an order granting e#ecution pending appeal where the same is not ounded upon good reasons. &he act that the losing party had also appealed rom the "udgment does not bar the certiorariproceedings, as the appeal could not be an ade=uate remedy rom such premature e#ecution. %dditionally, there is no orum. shopping where in one petition a party =uestions the order granting the motion or e#ecution pending appeal and at the same time =uestions the decision on the merits in a regular appeal be ore the appellate court. % ter all, the merits o the main case are not to be determined in a petition =uestioning e#ecution pending appeal and vice versa.:) &he general rule is that only "udgments which have become inal and e#ecutory may be e#ecuted.:- 4owever, discretionary e#ecution o appealed "udgments may be allowed under Section - 6a7 o !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure upon concurrence o the ollowing re=uisites2 6a7 there must be a motion by the prevailing

party with notice to the adverse partyI 6b7 there must be a good reason or e#ecution pending appealI and 6c7 the good reason must be stated in a special order.:, &he yardsticF remains the presence or the absence o good reasons consisting o e#ceptional circumstances o such urgency as to outweigh the in"ury or damage that the losing party may su er, should the appealed "udgment be reversed later.:1 Since the e#ecution o a "udgment pending appeal is an e#ception to the general rule, the e#istence o good reasons is essential.:: In the case at bar, petitioners insist that e#ecution pending appeal is "usti ied because respondent insurance companies admitted their liabilities under the insurance contracts and thus have no reason to withhold payment. We are not persuaded. &he act that the insurance companies admit their liabilities is not a compelling or superior circumstance that would warrant e#ecution pending appeal. On the contrary, admission o their liabilities and willingness to deliver the proceeds to the proper party militate against e#ecution pending appeal since there is little or no danger that the "udgment will become illusory. &here is liFewise no merit in petitioners> contention that the appeals are merely dilatory because, while the insurance companies admitted their liabilities, the matter o how much is owing rom each o them and who is entitled to the same remain unsettled. It should be noted that respondent insurance companies are =uestioning the amounts awarded by the trial court or being over and above the amount ascertained by the O ice o the Insurance Commission. &here are also three parties claiming the insurance proceeds, namely2 petitioners, E=uitable 'anF, and <avine as represented by the group o Chandru. 'esides, that the appeal is merely dilatory is not a good reason or granting e#ecution pending appeal. %s held in8D Corporation v. Edsa $!angri)la Fotel2:9 ... it is not or the trial "udge to determine the merit o a decision he rendered as this is the role o the appellate court. 4ence, it is not within competence o the trial court, in resolving a motion or e#ecution pending appeal, to rule that the appeal is patently dilatory and rely on the same as basis or inding good reasons to grant the motion. Only an appellate court can appreciate the dilatory intent o an appeal as an additional good reason in upholding an order or e#ecution pending appeal...:* <astly, petitioners assert that <avine>s inancial distress is su icient reason to order e#ecution pending appeal. Citing 8or"a v. Court of Appeals,:? they claim that e#ecution pending appeal may be granted i the prevailing party is already o advanced age and in danger o e#tinction. 8or"a is not applicable to the case at bar because its actual milieu is di erent. In 8or"a, the prevailing party was a natural person who, at *9 years o age, 3may no longer en"oy the ruit o the "udgment be ore he inally passes away.3 :( <avine, on

the other hand, is a "uridical entity whose e#istence cannot be liFened to a natural person. Its precarious inancial condition is not by itsel a compelling circumstance warranting immediate e#ecution and does not outweigh the long standing general policy o en orcing only inal and e#ecutory "udgments.9; WHEREFORE, the petition is ARTIALL! GRANTED. C%./.!. S$ Nos. *;-(- and *;-(? are DI"MI""ED. &he assailed decision o the Court o %ppeals dated +ay -(, -;;, is AFFIRMED inso ar as it declared null and void the Special Order dated +ay )*, -;;- and the Writ o E#ecution dated +ay -;, -;;- o the !egional &rial Court.$asig City, 'ranch *), in Civil Case No. 9?-?*. "O ORDERED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) !ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(-, 0ol. I, p. )1,. !ollo, pp. (;).(;1. , 0d. at )?;.)?*. 1 0d. at -;,.-;1. : 0d. at -;:.-;9. 9 0d. at -;*.-);. * 0d. at -)?.-)(. ? !&C !ecords, 0ol. I, pp. -?,.-?:. ( !ollo, pp. )(9.-;-. ); 0d. at )??.)(). )) 0d. at --;.--*. )0d. at -,).-,(. ), !&C !ecords, 0ol. I, pp. ,*;.,*). )1 !ollo, pp. -1,.-:). ): !&C !ecords, 0ol. I, pp. 1;*.1)1. )9 !ollo, pp. -:-.-9,. )* 0d. at -91.-*9. )? 0d. at -**.-?-. )( 0d. at -?;. -; !ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(?, 0ol. I, p. ;:;. -) !ollo, pp. ,-).,-,. -0d. at ,-1.,,-. -, !ollo, pp. ,,,, 1-: and 1*?. -1 0d. at 1,;. -: 0d. at 1:).1**. -9 0d. at 1,*.1:;. -* !ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(-, 0ol. I, pp. ,-:.,-*. -? !ollo, pp. ,91.1-1. -( 0d. at 1?;.:,-. ,; 0d. at :,,.:,9. ,) !ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;*((, pp. ,:.,*. ,!ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(-, 0ol. I, pp. :(1.:(9. ,, !ollo, pp. :,*.:*;. ,1 !ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;*((, pp. -.,;. ,: !ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(-, 0ol. I, pp. (19.(1*. ,9 0d. at ,(9.1;;. ,* !ollo in C%./.!. S$ No. *;-(?, 0ol. II, pp. 1,1.:,1. ,? !ollo, pp. :9.:*. ,( 0d. at 99.9*. 1; $er +inute !esolution in /.!. Nos. )9-?1-.1: dated +ay ,), -;;1.

1) 1-

$er +inute !esolution in /.!. Nos. )9-?1-.1: dated %ugust )?, -;;1. !ollo, pp. (-.(,. 1, 'alindong v. Dacalos, /.!. No. ):??*1, ); November -;;1, 11) SC!% 9;*, 9)-. 11 @NWC5 v. Nestle $hilippines, Inc., 1,( $hil. ?;*, ?): 6-;;-7. 1: +etropolitan +anila Devt. %uthority v. Eancom Environmental Corp., 1-: $hil. (9), (*, 6-;;-7. 19 /.!. No. ),*-?:, )9 Eanuary -;;), ,1( SC!% -1;. 1* +etropolitan +anila Devt. %uthority v. Eancom Environmental Corp., supra at (*). 1? ,-) $hil. 9)( 6)((:7. 1( 0d. at 9::.9:9. :; !ule 1), Section ) o the !ules o Court provides2 SEC&ION ). $ub"ect of appeal. U %n appeal may be taFen rom a "udgment or inal order that completely disposes o the case, or o a particular matter therein when declared by these !ules to be appealable. No appeal may be taFen rom2 ... 6 7 %n order o e#ecutionI ... In all the above instances where the "udgment or inal order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may ile an appropriate special civil action under !ule 9:. :) International School, Inc. 6+anila7 v. Court o %ppeals, ,9? $hil. *(), *(?.*(( 6)(((7. :'5 Corporation v. EDS% Shangri.la 4otel, ,:: $hil. :1), :1* 6)((?7. :, +aceda, Er. v. Development 'anF o the $hilippines, ,*- $hil. );*, ))* 6)(((7. :1 Diesel Construction Company, Inc. v. Eollibee 5oods Corp., ,?; $hil. ?),, ?-( 6-;;;7. :: 5le#o +anu acturing Corporation v. Columbus 5oods, Inc. and $aci ic +eat Company, Inc., /.!. No. )91?:*, )) %pril -;;:. :9 $upra. :* 0d. at :1?. :? -*1 $hil. -:? 6)(()7. :( 0d. at -9). 9; Diesel Construction Company, Inc. v. Eollibee 5oods Corp., supra at ?,;.

G.R. No$. 1/-211.12

Ju(% 22, 2009

" O*"E" ERNE"TO F. C*RATA '() LO*RDE" M. C*RATA, ED*ARDO M. MONTAL+O, " O*"E" MARCELINO DALANGIN '() &ITALIANA DALANGIN, A+LO "*MANGA, HEIR" OF MATEO MACARAIG, HEIR" OF A*LINA ACO"TA, HEIR" OF NICOLA" ALDO&ER, " O*"E" MARCIANO MANALO '() L*CIA GA+IA, GREGORIO FALTADO, "IL&ERIO RO"ALE", '() CE"ARIO ILAO, HEIR" OF ALDO&ER, CATALINA ERE1, LORNA ANTANGCO, "ONIA ANTANGCO, +ELEN ANTANGCO, IRENEO ANTANGCO, JR., EDRO CHA&E1, "AT*RNINA ERE1, E"TELITA C. ERE1, E"TELITA M. ERE1, ROMEO ERE1, R*+EN ERE1, MARIO ERE1, NA+OCHO DONA1A ERE1, MAN*EL ERE1, HERMINIGILDO ERE1, MA!HA!DA ERE1, ALFREDO ERE1, ERNE"TO ERE1 '() ARACELI ERE1 D0%#0%$%(,%) 5y RO"ARIO ERE1 RO"ELA, RO"ALINDA +*ENAFE, FRED M. HERNANDE1 8'007%) ,o "*"ANA ILAO, &ICENTE G*TIERRE1, MARIA LAC"AMANA, HEIR" OF J*ANA MACALADLAD, FELI"A HERNANDE1, FELINO HERNANDE1 '() FLORENTINO MACATANGA!, HEIR" OF +A"ILIO MACARAIG '() ACIENCIA DEL M*NDO, '() RO"ALINDA +*ENAFE, $etitioners, vs. HILI INE ORT" A*THORIT!, !espondent. # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .# G.R. No. 1/82/2 Ju(% 22, 2009

HILI INE ORT" A*THORIT!, $etitioner, vs. REMEDIO" RO"ALE".+ONDOC, JO"E RO"ALE", JR., ANTONIO ANTOLIN, MARIA THERE"A ANTOLIN.!* ANGCO, ADORACION CA+RAL, AGRIFINA GARCIA, ALFREDO +A*TI"TA, EMELIA M. +ER+A, ANDREA +ALINA, AR"ENIO A+ACAN, A*G*"TO CLA&ERIA, A*REA '() CON"OLACION ACO"TA, A1*CENA '() ARNEL ERE1, +ENJAMIN CA"TILLO, +IEN&ENIDO MARALIT, +RIGIDO LONTOC, CON"TANCIA &ILLAMOR +ARCELO, CON"*ELO ALCANTARA, CORA1ON '() I"A+EL ILAO, DANIEL MAGADIA, DR. EFREN E" INO, DELIA E" INO &ELA"CO '() ALFREDO . E" INO, E" ERAN1A DIMAANDAL, E"TE+AN E" INO, E&ARI"TO +A*AN, FELINO '() FELI"A HERNANDE1, FLORENTINO MACATANGA!, GENERO"A +*ENAFE, GERARDO A+ACAN, ERLINDA A+ACAN, LILIANA A+ACAN,

GODOFREDO RO"ALE", GREGORIA DA AT, G*ADAL* E DA!ANGHIRANG, HEIR" OF L*CILA ALDO&ER, HERI" OF O *LA LLANA, JO"E MARANAN, JO"E NOEL AG+ING, ET AL., LA*RO A+RAHAN, LI+RADA MACATANGA! =)'. DE A+A", LILIA "ING*IMOTO, L*I" '() 1ENAIDA LIRA, L*I"A =)'. DE MONTAL+O, L*I"A &ILLAN*E&A, MA. CON"OLACION "ARMIENTO, MARCIANA +*ENAFE, MARIA CAEDO, MARIA E" AMOL, MARIA LAC"AMANA, MARIA M. MONTAL+O, MILAGRO" MACATANGA!, A+LO MENDO1A, EDRO ALCANTARA '() DOROTEA MACATANGA!, EDRO MARA"IGAN, RI"CILLA +*ENAFE, RAFAEL ". +ER+A, R*FINO GERON, "EG*NDINA G*AL+ERTO, "IMEON +ALITA, "IITO G*AL+ERTO, " ". CARLITO '() ENRI2*ETA CA"A", '() " ". JAIME '() RE!NADA TA*RO, !espondents. # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .# G.R. No. 166200 Ju(% 22, 2009

# . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .# G.R. No. 168272 Ju(% 22, 2009

RO"ALINDA +*ENAFE '() MELENCIO CA"TILLO, $etitioners, vs. HILI INE ORT" A*THORIT!, !espondent. # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .# G.R. No. 170683 Ju(% 22, 2009

HILI INE ORT" A*THORIT!, $etitioner, vs. CAROLINE +. ACO"TA, A+IGAIL +. ACO"TA, NEME"IO D. +ALINA, '() ERLINDA D. +ALINA, !espondents. # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .# G.R. No. 173392 Ju(% 22, 2009

HILI INE ORT" A*THORIT!, $etitioner, vs. HONORA+LE CO*RT OF A EAL" D" ECIAL "IITEENTH DI&I"IONA, HON. ATERNO TAC.AN, 7( <7$ 6'#'67,y '$ 0%$7)7(; Ju);% o: ,<% R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0,, +','(;'$ C7,y, +0'(6< 8-, FELI A ACO"TA, " ". EMILIO +ER+ERA+E, HEIR" OF " ". ATANACIA ALDO&ER '() CE"ARIO RI&ERA, ROM*LO ". +ALINA, ADORACION MAGTI+A!, "OLE HEIR OF " ". EDRO MONTAL+O '() MA*RICIA +ALINA.CATALINA, MONTAL+O ALDO&ER, HEIR" OF LEOCADIO '() LEONILA ALANO, HEIR" OF " ". LEOCADIO ALANO '() FELI A MACATANGA!, LEANDRO R. GAL&E1, HEIR" OF "IMEON MAGTI+A!, GRA+RIELA ACO"TA :o0 <%0$%l: '() '$ "OLE HEIR OF E"TANE"LAWA ACO"TA, HEIR" OF NE"TORA ALCANTARA '() +ROTHER", " ". 1OLIO ALDO&ER '() CATALINA MONTAL+O ALDO&ER, CATALINA D. +ALINA, "IMEON D. +ALINA, ERLINDA D. +ALINA 8'007%) ,o AL+ERTO RE!E", "OLE HEIR OF FORT*NATO D. +ALINA 8'007%) ,o FA*"TINA +*RAL, JO"EFA GRACE +R*AL, NEME"IO D. +ALINA 8'007%) ,o CONCHITA MORALE", HEIR" OF TOMA"A +ALINA, FRANCI"CO A. +ER+ERA+E, EMELIO FRANCI"CO +ER+ERA+E JR., THOMA" A. +ER+ERA+E 8'007%) ,o N!M HA ATIEN1A, JOEL A. +ER+ERA+E 8'007%) ,o M*RITA RE!E", HEIR" OF CECILIA DIMAANDAL, " ". EDIL+ERTO DIMAANDAL, LILIA GARCIA, J*ANA DIMAANDAL, HEIR" OF &ICENTA G*TIERRE1, HEIR" OF E&ARI"TO MONTAL+O '() FELI"A MONTAL+O, HEIR" OF FRANCI"CO "*MANGA, NEME"IO D. +ALINA '() ERLINDA D. +ALINA, '() CAROLINA +. ACO"TA '() A+IGAIL +. ACO"TA, !espondents.

HILI INE ORT" A*THORIT!, $etitioner, vs. REMEDIO" RO"ALE".+ONDOC, JO"E 3. RO"ALE", JR., MARIA TERE"A ANTOLIN.!* ANGCO, MARIA LO*RDE" ANTOLIN, AR"ENIO A+ACAN, EDRO ALCANTARA, HEIR" OF O *LA LLANA, GODOFREDO RO"ALE", L*I" LIRA, 1ENAIDA LIRA, CORA1ON ILAO, MILAGRO" MACATANGA!, LILIA "ING*IMOTO, GERARDO A+ACAN, JO"E NOEL AG+ING, ET AL., MARCIANA +*ENAFE, E"TE+AN E" INO, +RIGIDO LONTO3, +IEN&ENIDO MARALIT, A*REA ACO"TA, CON"*ELO ALCANTARA, +ENJAMIN CA"TILLO, A*G*"TO CLA&ERIA, R*FINO GERON, "EG*NDINA G*AL+ERTO, "IITO G*AL+ERTO, ADORACION CA+RAL, HEIR" OF L*CILA ALDO&ER, JAIME TA*RO, "IMEON MAGTI+A!, CON"TANCIA &ILLAMOR +ARCELO, MA. CON"OLACION "ARMIENTO, RI"CILLA +*ENAFE, MA. CLARA +ER+A, ACITA +ER+A, AMELIA +ER+A, RAFAEL +ER+A, MARIANO DIO3NO, HEIR" OF +A"ILIO MACARAIG, FELINO HERNANDE1, JO"E MARANAN, GREGORIO DA AT, MAN*EL AM*L, DANIEL MAGADIA, L*I"A MONTAL+O, "IMEON +ALITA, MARIA LAC"AMANA, MARIA CAEDO, MARIA E" ANNTILDECOL, EDRO MARA"IGAN, ANDREA +ALINA, E*LALIO +*ENAFE, GENERO"A +*ENAFE, LILIANA A+ACAN DCO.OWNER OF GERARDO A+ACANA, ERLINDA A+ACAN DCO.OWNER OF GERARDO A+ACANA, CON"OLACION ACO"TA, CECILLE OLI&IA C*I"IA, DELIA E. &ELA"CO, ALFREDO . E" INO, EFREN E" INO, ALFREDO +A*TI"TA,

RAFAEL LLANA, R*"TICA LLANA, EDRO MAGADIA, RO"E MAGADIA, ARNEL ERE1, E&ARI"TA +A*AN, CARLITO CA"A", A1*CENA ERE1, E" ERAN1A DIMAANDAL, J*ANA MACALALAD, A+LO MENDO1A, DOROTEO MACATANGA!, FRANCI"CO "*MANGA, LI+RADA MACATANGA! &DA. DE A+A", MARIA MONTAL+O, WIL"ON ONG, AGRIFINA GARCIA, I"A+EL ILAO, HEIR" OF MELANIO ACO"TA AND ELAGIA ACO"TA, RO"A D. MAGADIA, G*ADAL* E DA!ANGHIRANG, LA*RO A+RAHAM, FELI"A MACATANGA!, FRANCI"CO A+ALO", ETRA ALANO, HEIR" OF "E&ERO ALANO, HEIR" OF "OLEDAD ALANO, HEIR" OF INOCENCIO ALANO, HEIR" OF REMEDIO" ALANO, HEIR" OF ANTONIO ALANO, HEIR" OF FELI E ALANO, ERLINDA D. +ALINA, NEME"IO +ALINA, FELI A ACO"TA, LAM+ERTO ACO"TA, EMILIO +ER+ERA+E, "OLE HEIR OF GA+RIELA ACO"TA, E"TANI"LAW ACO"TA, HEIR" OF CECILIA DIMAANDAL, HEIR" OF FRANCI"CO "*MANGA, HEIR" OF "IMEON MAGTI+A!, HEIR" OF CE"ARIO RI&ERA AND ANATACIA ALDO&ER, FRANCI"CO A. +ER+ERA+E, EMILIO F. +ER+ERA+E, JR., ANITA G. E"CANO, L!DIA G. CA *LONG, ERLINDA +ERMER DGERMERA, ERLINDA G. GON1ALE", ROM*LO G. GON1ALE", AN*NCIACION G*TIERRE1, "IL&ERIO ATIEN1A, FELI E "ERRANO AND " O*"E, J.L. GANDIONCO REALT!, GREGORIO +ALIWAG, LO*RDE" MERCADO, A*G*"TO MERCADO, HEIR" OF FIDENCIO MERCADO, HEIR" OF CONCE CION MERCADO, "AT*RNINO ERE1, ET AL., DOMINGO L. TAN, DANIEL MAGADIA, CELIA A"ION DIMAANDAL, ET AL., L*I"A &ILLAN*E&A, "IMEON +ALINA, JOEL +ER+ERA+E, THOMA" +ER+ERA+E, HEIR" OF NE"TOR ALCANTARA, ENRICO ALCANTARA, LEONARDO ALCANTARA, ROM*LO +ALINA, J*ANA DIMAANDAL, CATALINA D. +ALINA, HEIR" OF FORT*NATA +ALINA, " ". 1OILO ALDO&ER AND CATALINA MONTAL+O, HEIR" OF EDRO MONTAL+O AND MA*RICIA +ALINA, ADORACION MAGTI+A!, HEIR" OF &ICENTE G*TIERRE1, EDIL+ERTO DIMAANDAL AND LILIA GA+IA, HEIR" OF E&ARI"TO MONTAL+O AND FELI"A MONTAL+O, HEIR" OF LEOCADIO ALANO AND LEONILA ALANO, TOMA"A +ALINA, L*MIN ANTOLIN DRE . +! LEANDRO GAL&E1A, &ICENTE DE RI&ERA, RENE DE RI&ERA, FRANCI"CO MERCADO, "ERAFIN MONTAL+O, FORT*NATA +A*NA, "AL*D MACARAIG, FLORENDO MACATANGA!, A"TOR REALT! COR ., L*1 +ALME", ER ET*A ATIEN1A, FORT*NATA ATIEN1A, I"A+ELO ATIEN1A, +ROTHER" OF FORT*NATA +ALINA, RO"ALINDA C. RO"ALE", AND ATRICIO "*MANGA, !espondents. DECISION &ELA"CO, JR., J.: &he Cases

'e ore the Court are si# petitions and a motion or reconsideration o our Decision dated %ugust -1, -;;*,) all o shoots o various orders, writs, and processes issued by the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7, 'ranch ?1 in 'atangas City in Civil Case No. :11*, a suit or e#propriation initiated on October )1, )((( by the $hilippine $orts %uthority 6$$%7, entitled $hilippine $orts %uthority v. 5elipa %costa, et al. While procedural and collateral issues abound, central to these petitions, however, is the matter o "ust compensation or the lots sought to be e#propriated by $$% or the 'atangas $ort Mone 6'$M7 pro"ect 6$hase II7 sub"ect o the Euly );, -;;; and %ugust ):, -;;; !&C Orders and various orders implementing the %ugust ):, -;;; Order. In the two 6-7 petitions under !ule 1: 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, petitioners Ernesto 5. Curata, et al., seeF a review o the Euly ,;, -;;) Decision- and the Euly )), -;;!esolution, o the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 in the consolidated cases entitled $$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, !olando Ouino, Ernesto Curata, et al., docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 and $$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, %rsenio %bacan, et al., docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. 9,:*9 which granted $$%>s petitions and accordingly annulled various !&C orders. In C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1, $$%, as petitioner therein, =uestioned the actions taFen by the trial court in connection with its 5irst Compensation Order1dated Euly );, -;;;, i#ing the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter, more speci ically 6)7 the Euly -1, -;;; order granting the motion to e#ecute pending appeal the said Euly );, -;;; order and 6-7 the Euly ,), -;;; order issuing the writ and various notices o garnishment. $$% liFewise sought to annul the Orders that emanated rom the Notice o %ppeal iled by $$% rom the 5irst Compensation Order. &hese orders are the %ugust -:, -;;; Order denying $$%>s Notice o %ppeal with +otion or E#tension to pay appellate docFet ees and ile a record on appeal, the %ugust -?, -;;; Order denying $$%>s record on appeal, and the September )?, -;;; Order denying $$%>s +otion or !econsideration. In the certiorari and mandamus proceedings in C%./.!. S$ No. 9,:*9, $$% sought to annul the !&C>s %ugust )?, -;;; Order, which implemented the Second Compensation Order: dated %ugust ):, -;;; also pegging the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter, and several related issuances that ollowed including an Order o December ),, -;;; denying $$%>s record on appeal. In the third petition 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, $$% assails the +ay )9, -;;, Decision9 o the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. *,?1? entitled $$% v. 4on. $aterno &ac.an, !emedios !osales.'ondoc, et al. which dismissed $$%>s petition or certiorari to annul these !&C orders, to wit2 the Euly )-, -;;- !&C Order or the release to lot owners !emedios !osales.'ondoc, et al. o the deposit e=uivalent to );;D o the Jonal valuation o the e#propriated lots based on !epublic %ct No. 6!%7 ?(*1, the Euly -(, -;;; Order denying $$%>s Omnibus +otion to Withdraw the Eune -*, -;;+ani estation, and the September :, -;;- Order denying $$%>s +otion or !econsideration.

In the ourth petition 6/.!. No. )99-;;7, $$% liFewise impugns, as having been issued in grave abuse o discretion, the November --, -;;1 C% Decision* in C%. /.!. S$ No. ?,:*; entitled $$% v. 4on. $aterno &ac.an, 5elipa %costa, et al. &he C% a irmed the !&C orders dated December -, -;;,, December )?, -;;,, 5ebruary ),, -;;1, +arch -1, -;;1, and %pril )-, -;;1 and the Supplemental Order dated %pril ):, -;;1 relating to the initial payment o the Jonal value o the lots pursuant to !% ?(*1 at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter to lot owners 5elipa %costa, et al. In the i th petition 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, petitioners !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo seeF a review o the +arch ,), -;;: Decision? and +ay -9, -;;: !esolution( o the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. ?-()* entitled $$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, !osalinda 'uena e, et al. which nulli ied the November 9, -;;, !&C Order); granting the writ o e#ecution in avor o landowners !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio on the basis o the September -(, -;;; writ o e#ecution earlier issued by the trial court. In the si#th petition 6/.!. No. )*;9?,7, $$% assails the Euly -?, -;;: Decision)) and the November -1, -;;: !esolution o the C% in C%./.!. C0 No. *;;-, entitled $$% v. 5elipa %costa, et al., which a irmed the September *, -;;; !&C Order,)- setting the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter pursuant to the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7, or intervenors Caroline '. %costa, et al. 5inally, in the seventh and last petition 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pending resolution is the motion or reconsideration),interposed by $$% o the Court>s Decision)1 dated %ugust -1, -;;* which a irmed the Euly ,, -;;9 C% !esolution): in consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99? 6$$% v. !emedios !osales.'ondoc, et al.7, S$ No. ?*?11 6$$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, !emedios !osales.'ondoc, et al.7, and S$ No. (;*(9 6$$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an7, and dismissed $$%>s appeal rom the %ugust ):, -;;; !&C Order 6Second Compensation Order7. &he C% !esolution a irmed the +ay -(, -;;))9 and November )?, -;;1)* !&C Orders granting the November --, -;;1 Writ o E#ecution)? and the November -,, -;;1 Notices o /arnishment.)( <astly, it denied $$%>s petition to cite !&C Eudge $aterno 0. &ac.an or contempt or lacF o merit. On Eanuary -(, -;;?, the Court consolidated /.!. Nos. ):?-:-, )99-;;, and )*,,(-. On +arch -:, -;;?, an oral argument was held on the consolidated petitions. On Eune );, -;;?, the Court ordered the consolidation o the three consolidated petitions with the related petitions in /.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-, )9?-*-, and )*;9?,, all o which pertain to Civil Case No. :11*. &he 5acts E#ecutive Order No. 6EO7 ,?:,-; Series o )(?(, and EO 1,),-) Series o )((;, delineated the '$M and placed it under the $$% or administrative "urisdiction o its

proper Joning, planning, development, and utiliJation. $ursuant thereto, the $$% instituted on October )1, )((( a Complaint-- or e#propriation o )?: lots be ore the !&C o 'atangas City. Owned by some -,) individuals or entities, the )?: lots, with a total area o about ),-(?,,1; s=uare meters, were intended or the development o $hase II o the '$M. In its Complaint, docFeted as Civil Case No. :11* 6$$% v. 5elipa %costa, et al.7, and eventually ra led to 'ranch ?1 o the !&C o 'atangas City, the $$% alleged that, per evaluation o the <and %c=uisition Committee or $hase II o the '$M pro"ect, sub"ect lots had a air marFet value o $h$ ,,9.?, per s=uare meter. $rior to the iling o the complaint, $$% o ered $h$ ,,9.1; per s=uare meter as "ust compensation, but de endants re"ected the o er. $$% prayed to be placed in possession upon its deposit o the amount e=uivalent to the assessed value or real estate ta#ation o the lots in =uestion. 5or convenience, the !&C divided the de endant.lot owners into three groups, represented as indicated2 the irst group represented by %tty. !eynaldo Dimayacyac 6Dimayacyac /roup7I-, the second group by %ttys. /regorio 5. Ortega 6Ortega /roup7-1 and Cesar C. CruJ 6CruJ /roup7I-: and the third group by %tty. Emmanuel %gustin 6%gustin /roup7.-9 &here were other de endant.lot owners who did not belong to any o said groups. &hey will be mentioned individually. On +arch ,), -;;;, the !&C issued an order declaring that 3the ob"ective o Gthe complaintH is or public use3 and appointed three 6,7 Commissioners to determine "ust compensation, to wit2 6)7 $rovincial Engineer %rturo 0. +agtibay, ChairmanI 6-7 $rovincial %ssessor <auro C. %ndaya, member, andI 6,7 $rovincial &reasurer Eaime E. Cantos, member. No appeal was interposed to assail said !&C Order, hence putting to inal rest the issue o the legality o the e#propriation o the sub"ect lots. 5orthwith, the court.appointed commissioners submitted a $artial !eport-* dated +ay -(, -;;; recommending the amount o $h$ 1,?;; per s=uare meter as "ust compensation or the lots o ): lot owners listed therein 6the 5irst $artial !eport hereina ter7. In its Comment on the Commissioners> $artial !eport,-? $$%, through the O ice o the Solicitor /eneral 6OS/7, protested the recommendation, claiming that the "ust compensation level should be lower than $h$ 1,?;;, the sub"ect lands being agricultural in nature and used or purposes other than commercial or industrial. &he 5irst Compensation Order 6Euly );, -;;; Order Involving Dimayacyac /roup7 'ased on the +ay -(, -;;; Commissioners> $artial !eport, the !&C issued the Order dated Euly );, -;;;-( 65irst Compensation Order7, and directed $$% to pay the Dimayacyac /roup the amount o $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter as "ust compensation, amending the suggested compensation o $h$ 1,?;; per s=uare meter recommended by the Commissioners. Said order ully reads2

&his re ers to the report on appraisal rendered by commissioners %rturo 0. +agtibay, $rovincial Engineer 6Chairman7, <auro C. %ndaya, $rovincial %ssessor 6member7 and Eessie Cantos, $rovincial &reasurer 6member7, dated +ay -(, -;;; or which the hearing was conducted on Eune ),, -;;;, covering the properties o the ollowing de endants2 ). S$O@SES E!NES&O C@!%&% L <O@!DES 5. C@!%&%I -. ED@%!DO +. +ON&%<'OI ,. S$O@SES +%!CE<INO D%<%N/IN L 0I&%<I%N% D%<%N/INI 1. $%'<O S@+%N/%I :. 4EI!S O5 +%&EO +%C%!%I/I 9. 4EI!S O5 $%@<IN% %COS&%I *. 4EI!S O5 NICO<%S %<DO0E!I ?. S$O@SES +%!CI%NO +%N%<O L <@CI<% /%'I%, /!E/O!IO 5%<&%DO, SI<0E!IO !OS%<ES, and CES%!O I<%OI (. 4EI!S O5 %<DO0E!I );. C%&%<IN% $E!EM, <O!N% $%N&%N/CO, SONI% $%N&%N/CO, 'E<EN $%N&%N/CO, I!ENEO $%N&%N/CO, E!., $ED!O C4%0EM, S%&@!NIN% $E!EM, ES&E<I&% C. $E!EM, ES&E<I&% +. $E!EM, !O+EO $E!EM, !@'EN $E!EM, +%!IO $E!EM, N%'OC4O DON%M% $E!EM, +%N@E< $E!EM, 4E!+INI/I<DO $E!EM, +%B4%BD% $E!EM, %<5!EDO $E!EM, E!NES&O $E!EM and %!%CE<I $E!EM 6!epresented by !OS%!IO $E!EM !OSE<7I )). 5!ED +. 4E!N%NDEM, married to S@S%N% I<%O, 0ICEN&E /@&IE!!EMI )-. +%!I% <%CS%+%N%I ),. E@%N% +%C%<%<%DI

)1. 5E<IS% 4E!N%NDEM, 5E<INO 4E!N%NDEM and 5<O!EN&INO +%C%&%N/%BI ):. 4EI!S O5 '%SI<IO +%C%!%I/ and $%CIENCI% DE< +@NDO &he said report inter alia states2 3W4E!E%S, the Commissioners cannot ignore the 5indings o the City %ppraisal Committee o 'atangas City o i#ing the cost o real properties a ected by the Southern &agalog %rterial !oad E#tension $acFage III, 'alagtas.$ort %rea Section particularly in 'arangay 'alagtas, %langilan, 'anaba South and 'olboF area at $1,;;;.;; per s=uare meter in )(((, copy o the +inutes o Committee 4earing is attached and made integral part hereo or being connected to the $ort Mone. NOW &4E!E5O!E, 'E I& !ESO<0ED %S I& IS 4E!E'B !ESO<0ED, that in view o all the oregoing, it is the most considered view o the herein Commissioners to submit the cost o 5O@! &4O@S%ND EI/4& 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$1,?;;.;;7 per s=uare meter, or payment o "ust compensation, sub"ect to urther review, evaluation, discretion and sound "udgment o this 4onorable Court.3 Commissioner <auro C. %ndaya appeared in Court in behal o other Commissioners to identi y the said report and to answer to the clari icatory =uestion propounded by the court and the parties. 4e stated that the basis o the $1,?;;.;; compensation per s=uare meter was the Deed o %bsolute Sale e#ecuted by Demetrio E. +arasigan in avor o the G$$%H, e#ecuted on December )), )((9 6E#hibit 3,37. 4e admitted that he is aware o the compromise agreement between %ndrea $alacios and the City /overnment o 'atangas which was the basis o the "udgment by compromise on September --, )((* on Civil Case No. 191), presided by G!&CH, 'ranch ?1. &he price per s=uare meter was agreed upon to be $:,-)).;;. &he land area involved is about * Filometers upon the properties in =uestion. &his instant complaint or e#propriation was iled on October )1, )(((. &here is no record o sale on )((?, )((( and to date. 4e stated that or purposes o ta#ation once in every : years, assessment is revised every ive years. Said witness stated urther that it depends upon the growth o valuation, because that is governed by marFet orces. 4e admitted that the amount o $9,;;;.;; per s=uare meter considering the appreciative value o $*?(.;; rom $:,-)).;; rom )((* to the present, is possible. 4e also admitted that it is a common practise GsicH to lower the stated selling price in the Deed o Sale to mitigate the capital gains ta#. $rescinding rom all o the oregoing, the Court is o the opinion that the air marFet value o the oregoing properties o the above.named de endants is $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter.1avvp!i1

W4E!E5O!E, plainti is hereby ordered to pay the above.named de endants the price o $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter o their lands sub"ect o e#propriation as a condition precedent or trans erring ownership, pursuant to Sec. 1, !ule 9* o the !evised !ules o Court. SO O!DE!ED.,; 6Emphasis ours.7 % ter the !&C issued the 5irst Compensation Order 6Euly );, -;;; Order7, the Dimayacyac /roup iled a motion,) or issuance o a writ o e#ecution under Sec. 1, !ule 9* in relation to Sec. -, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court. &he !&C, over $$%>s opposition, issued on Euly -1, -;;; an Order,- granting the motion, ollowed by another Order,,o Euly ,), -;;; issuing a writ o e#ecution. Subse=uently, a notice o garnishment,1 was issued to <'$ 'atangas City 'ranch. $$% lost no time in assailing the a oresaid orders and the notices o garnishment be ore the C% thru a special civil action or certiorari and prohibition,,: the recourse docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 entitled $$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, !olando Ouino, Ernesto Curata, et al. Supplemental $etition in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 On %ugust );, -;;;, $$% iled a Notice o %ppeal with +otion or E#tension o &ime to 5ile !ecord on %ppeal and $ay %ppeal 5ee,9 rom the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7. Within the e#tended period sought or on %ugust -:, -;;;, $$% iled its !ecord on %ppeal. %cting on the $$% pleadings, the !&C issued the ollowing orders, viJ.2 ). %ugust -:, -;;; Order,* Z dismissing $$%>s notice o appeal on the ground o non.payment o the appeal eeI -. %ugust -?, -;;; Order,? Z denying $$%>s !ecord on %ppealI and, ,. September )?, -;;; !&C Order,( Z denying $$%>s motion or reconsi. deration o the above %ugust -:, -;;; order. &his prompted $$% to register with the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 a Supplemental $etition1; on October -:, -;;; to annul the a orestated !&C issuances. $$%>s petition in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 against the Dimayacyac /roup was eventually consolidated with C%./.!. S$ No. 9,:*9 6$$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac. an, %rsenio %bacan, et al.7Za petition iled by $$% against the Ortega /roup assailing the %ugust )?, -;;; !&C Order implementing the %ugust ):, -;;; !&C Order which liFewise pegged the compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter.

In its Euly ,;, -;;) Decision in the consolidated C%./.!. S$ Nos. 9;,)1 and 9,:*9, the C% gave due course to $$%>s appeal and annulled the challenged !&C Orders, the decretal portion o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, We vote to /!%N& the twin petitions. % writ o certiorari is hereby ISS@ED %NN@<<IN/ %ND %0OIDIN/ the impugned Orders, and the appeals o the $etitioner are hereby %<<OWED. SO O!DE!ED.1) &o clari y, aside rom entertaining $$%>s appeal, the adverted %ugust -:, -;;;, %ugust -?, -;;; and September )?, -;;; !&C Orders in avor o the Dimayacyac /roup and the %ugust )?, -;;; Order bene icial to the Ortega /roup were nulli ied. &he Euly ,;, -;;) C% Decision was later challenged in /.!. Nos. ):1-)).)- by the Dimayacyac and Ortega /roups. &he Second Compensation Order 6%ugust ):, -;;; Order involving the %gustin, Ortega and CruJ /roups and $astor !ealty Corp., et al.7 In their Second $artial !eport1- dated %ugust -, -;;;, the court.appointed commissioners recommended the same price o $h$ 1,?;; per s=uare meter as "ust compensation or the lots listed therein 6Second $artial !eport1, hereina ter7. 'ut "ust liFe the 5irst Compensation Order o Euly );, -;;;, the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 liFewise i#ed the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter not only or the e#propriated lots o de endant.owners, but also or the lots o those similarly situated and o those who did not ile their answers. Said order reads2 5or !esolution is the Second !eport on %ppraisal o the 5air +arFet 0aluation dated %ugust -, -;;; submitted by Commissioners %rturo 0. +agtibay, 6Chairman7, Eessie E. Cantos and <auro C. %ndaya. Said report reiterated its recommendation in that $artial !eport dated +ay ,;, -;;;, that the appropriation price shall be $1,?;;.;; per s=uare meter. &he Court, acting on said $artial !eport, issued an Order dated Euly );, -;;;, modi ying said recommendation and pegged the price at $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter, as to the properties o the de endants named therein. +entioned in the second report is the indings and recommendation o %micus Curiae, Cuervo %ppraisers Inc., thru +anagerA%ppraiser Salvador D. Oscianas. 4e rendered an opinion that the air marFet value per s=uare meter ranges rom $:,:;;.;; to a ma#imum o $9,;;;.;; 6!eport as E#hibit 3(*3, supplemented by his

testimony in Court on Euly )?, -;;;7. 4e mentioned three 6,7 prior landsalesAtransactions within the Jone, to wit2 ). Deed o %bsolute Sale between Demetrio +arasigan in avor o $hil. $ort %uthority 6$$% or brevity7 dated December )), )((9, price per s=uare meter $:,;;;.;;I -. Eudgment by compromise agreement dated September -,, )((* 6E#hibit 3);;.-37 between %ndrea $alacios and the City /overnment o 'atangas, wherein the e#propriation price per s=uare meter or the road right o way 6by.pass road7 was agreed upon at $:,-;;.;;I ,. $urchase by 5irst /as at Sta. !ita 6 ronting 'atangas 'ay7 or $);,;;;.;; per s=uare meter 6industrial Jone7 a little urther than Sta. Clara into the seashore in )((*. +r. Oscianas stated that the lands in the area in =uestion are or commercialAlight industrial purposes. &hese are developed areas as per ocular inspection. It is accessible by National highways 6Calicanto rom 'atangas City 4all and the 'auanADiversion !oad7 as well as +unicipal !oad 6the bypass road7, and by the sea 6$ort o 'atangas7. It is near the City 4all o 'atangas City. It has water, lighting, communication and garbage acilities. 'atangas City and province en"oys continuous boom o industrial and commercial developments. It has not e#perienced recession, unliFe other regions, although it has e#perienced also the depreciation o the peso and the rise o the prices o prime commodities and real properties. &he asFing price o some pieces o real properties are much higher o $):,;;;.;; per s=uare meter than the recorded past sales prices. 4e recommended or a ma#imum price o $9,;;;.;; per s=uare meter as air marFet value o the properties in =uestion. %tty. Emmanuel %gustin in behal o his clients submitted a Decision by compromise agreement dated Eanuary -;, )((( in the Court o %ppeals in that case o Dimaano vs. $$% pegging the price per s=uare meter at $);,;;;.;; involving a similarly situated lot 6E#h. 31*37. Eurisprudence on e#propriation pricing has shown that the air marFet valuation is greatly guided by prior sales near the date o e#propriation 6&oledo City vs. 5enandes, et al.I /.!. <.1:)11, %pril ):, )((? and prior Supreme Court decisions7. 'ased on the oregoing considerations, the Court hereby sets the air marFet value at $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter o the lots o the above.named de endants and those similarly situated, including those who did not ile answer. SO O!DE!ED.11 6Emphasis supplied.7

$$% received a copy o the a ore.=uoted %ugust ):, -;;; Order on %ugust --, -;;;, and seasonably iled its appeal there rom docFeted as C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, entitled $$% v. !emedios !osales.'ondoc, et al. O the respondents 1: named in C%. /.!. C0 No. **99?, only the CruJ /roup moved or the dismissal o $$%>s appeal, while the rest iled their respective appellees> brie s. C%./.!. C0 No. **99? 6$$%>s appeal7 was later consolidated with C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 6$$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, !emedios !osales.'ondoc, et al.7 and C%. /.!. S$ No. (;*(919 6$$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an7. In the Euly ,, -;;9 C% !esolution, $$%>s appeal was dismissed in C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, while $$%>s petitions in C%./.!. S$ Nos. ?*?11 and (;*(9 were liFewise re"ected, thus2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the instant +otion to Dismiss %ppeal is /!%N&ED. &he $etition and Supplemental $etitions are DIS+ISSED and the writs o preliminary in"unction are hereby <I5&ED. &he 3$etition to Cite !espondent $aterno 0. &ac.an In Contempt3 is DENIED or lacF o merit. SO O!DE!ED.1* 4ence, the instant petition in /.!. No. )*,,(- iled by $$%. !&C Orders implementing the Second Compensation Order %nchored to the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 were various orders subse=uently issued by the !&C directing payment at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter by $$% to the lot owners speci ied therein, to wit2 ). %ugust )*, -;;; Order1? or lot owners in the %gustin /roup or an aggregate amount o $h$ ?:1,-(,,;;;.;;I -. %ugust )?, -;;; Order1( or lot owners in the Ortega /roup or an aggregate amount o $h$ ,,,?1,-)-,1-:.;;I ,. %ugust -,, -;;; Order:; or lot owners in the CruJ /roup or an aggregate amount o $h$ ),:-9,);(,*:;.;;I 1. %ugust -,, -;;; Order:) or lot owners $astor !ealty Corporation, et al., amounting to $h$ :99,?*(,:;;.;;. 5or clarity, we =uote the a orestated orders verbatim. I. &4E %/@S&IN /!O@$ GC%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?,:*;H

&he %ugust )*, -;;; Order or the %gustin /roup &he %ugust )*, -;;; Order reads2 $ursuant to the Order dated %ugust ):, -;;;, plainti is re=uired to pay by way o "ust compensation to the ollowing de endants represented by %tty. Emmanuel %gustin, to wit2
N%+ES O5 DE5END%N&S &C&A&%8 DEC. NO. %!E% O5 $!O$E!&B OWNED 'B &4E+, <IPEWISE, %S +EN&IONED IN &4E CO+$<%IN& %ND IN &4E %NSWE! ),,),) SO. +. AMO*NT OF J*"T COM EN"ATION D*E THEM +A"ED ON /,/00.00J "2. M. ER A*G*"T 1/, 2000 ARTIAL J*DGMENT ORDER

O5 S$S. $ED!O +ON&%<'O and +%@!ICI% '%<IN% . C%&%<IN% +ON&%<'O %<DO0E!

;;;): &D No. ;,,. ;-:,: &D No. ;,,. ;-:,) &D No. ;,,. ;-:;; &D No. ;,,. ;-:;, &D No. ;,,. ;-:-( &D No. ;,:. ;))): &D No. ;,:.;)),

9,,,; SO. +. ),),, SO. +. *-( SO. +. *:9 SO. +. *,:;, SO. +.

,1,?):,;;;.;; 9,-,),:;;.;; 1,;;(,:;;.;; 1,):?,;;;.;; 1),-99,:;;.;;

). 5E<I$% D. %COS&% married to 4onesto 4ernellaI 4eirs o E<E@&E!IO D. %COS&% married to +artha /alangI $%CI&% D. %COS&% married to Emilio 'erberabeI <%+'E!&O D. %COS&% married to %ngelina Ituralde -. S$S. E+I<IO 'E!'E!%'E and $%CI&% D. %COS&% ,. 4EI!S O5 S$S. %N%S&%CI% %<DO0E! and CES%!IO !I0E!% 1. !O+@<O S. '%<IN% :. %DO!%CION +%/&I'%B

&D No. (;.;;;);

$ *-,--;,:;;.;;

*. 4EI!S O5 <EOC%DIO %ND <EONI<% %<%NOI 4EI!S O5 S$S. <EOC%DIO %<%NO L 5E<I$% +%C%&%N/% B ?. 4EI!S O5 SI+EON +%/&I'%B

)),;99 SO. +. *,;:9 SO. +.

9;,?9,,;;;.;; ,?,?;?,;;;.;;

&D No. ;,:. ;);(? 6&D No. ;,:. ;)):;7 6&D No. ;,:. ;))1?7 6&D No. ;,:. ;))1(7 &D No. ;,,. ;-:-1

:,:?) SO. +.

,;,9(:,:;;.;;

(. /%'!IE<% %COS&% or hersel and as SO<E 4EI! O5 ES&%NIS<%W% %COS&% &D No. ;,,. ;-1(:,;,, SO. +. -*,9?),:;;.;; );. 4EI!S O5 NES&O!% %<C%N&%!% L '!O&4E!S )). S$S. MOI<O %<DO0E! L C%&%<IN% +ON&%<'O %<DO0E! )-. C%&%<IN% D. '%<IN% married to Euan !amireJ

(,),( SO. +.

:;,-91,:;;.;;

&D No. ;,,. ;1-?; 6&D No. ;,,. ;-:-,7 &D No. ;,,. ;-1?( &D No. ;,,. ;-:;9 &C& ] &.,;,9( &D No. ;,,. ;-::( &C& ] &.,;,91 &D No. ;,,. ;,)** &C& ] &.,;,9, &D No. ;,,.

9-: SO. +.

,,1,*,:;;.;;

&D No. ;(;. ;;;;9 &D No. ;(;. ;;;;: &D No. ;,,. ;-1-? &D No. ;(;. ;;;;? OC& No. $.9,, and &D No. ;(;. ;;;)&D No. ;(;.

-,9(; SO. +. ),-:) SO. +. -,:?: SO. +.

)1,*(:,;;;.;; 9,??;,:;;.;; )1,-)*,:;;.;;

),,): SO. +. -,,(; SO. +.

*,-,-,:;;.;; ),,)1:,;;;.;;

1,;:- SO. +. ,,),; SO. +.

--,-?9,;;;.;; )*,-):,;;;.;;

,,-:,.:; SO. +. ,,?:) SO. +.

)*,?(1,-:;.;; -),)?;,:;;.;;

9. SO<E 4EI!

*,?:? SO. +.

1,,-)(,;;;.;;

),. SI+EON D. '%<IN% 6as

,,?:) SO. +.

-),)?;,:;;.;;

de endant.in. intervenor7

;,)*? ,,).:; SO. +. ),?;9 SO. +. ,,-:,.: SO. +. ),?-,,-:;.;; (,(,,,;;;.;; )*,?(1,-:;.;;

)1. E!<IND% D. &C& ] &.,;,99 '%<IN% married &C& ] &.,;,9? to %lberto !eyes ):. SO<E 4EI! O5 5O!&@N%&% D. '%<IN% married to 5austino 'rual . EOSE5% /!%CE '!@%< )9. NE+ESIO D. '%<IN% married to Conchita +orales )*. 4EI!S O5 &O+%S% '%<IN% )?. 5!%NCISCO %. 'E!'E!%'EI E+I<IO 5!%NCISCO %. 'E!'E!%'E, E!.I &4O+%S %. 'E!'E!%'E married to Nympha %tienJaI and EOE< %. 'E!'E!%'E married to +urita !eyes )(. 4EI!S O5 CECI<I% DI+%%ND%< -;. S$S. EDI<'E!&O DI+%%ND%< L <I<I% /%!CI% -). E@%N% DI+%%ND%< --. 4EI!S O5 0ICEN&% /@&IE!!EM -,. 4EI!S O5 E0%!IS&O &C& ] &.,;,*; &D No. ;,,. ;-::?

+ON&%<'O L 5E<IS% +ON&%<'O -1. 4EI!S O5 5!%NCISCO S@+%N/% &D No. ;,,. ;-:;1 &D No. ;,,. ;-1*: ?:9 SO. +. ),,;: SO. +. 1,*;?,;;;.;; *,)**,:;;.;;

................................................................. /!%ND &O&%< . . . . . . . . . $ ?:1,-(,,;;;.;;

SO O!DE!ED.:- 6Emphasis supplied.7

&C& ] &.,;,99 &C& ] &.,;,9* &D No. ;,,. ;-:9) &D No. ;,,. ;-:;&C& ] &.--(9* &C& ] &.--(9? ,,).:; SO. +. ),?;9 SO. +. ),?-,,-:;.;; (,(,,,;;;.;;

),*-, SO. +.

(,1*9,:;;.;;

$$% did not interpose an appeal rom the a ore=uoted %ugust )*, -;;; Order. $$%, however, postulated that the %gustin /roup was included in its appeal o the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 be ore the C% in C%./.!. C0 No. **99? 6consolidated with C%./.!. S$ Nos. ?*?11 and (;*(97. Said appeal was, however, dismissed by the C% in avor o the lot owners. &he C% decision was later elevated by $$% be ore the Court in /.!. No. )*,,(-. II. O!&E/% and C!@M /!O@$S GC%./.!. S$ No. 9,:*9, C%./.!. S$ No. *,?1? and C%./.!. No. S$ No. ?*?11H %s a result o the %ugust ):, -;;; !&C Order, twin orders were issued by the !&C, namely2 the %ugust )?, -;;; Order or the Ortega /roup and the %ugust -,, -;;; Order or the CruJ /roup.1avvp!i1 %. &he %ugust )?, -;;; !&C Order implementing the Second Compensation Order or the Ortega /roup o lot owners reads2 $ursuant to the Order dated %ugust ):, -;;;, plainti is re=uired to pay by way o "ust compensation to the ollowing de endants represented by %tty. /regorio Ortega and %tty. Simon &. %gbing, to wit2

1,::( SO. +. (9* SO. +.

-:,;*1,:;;.;; :,,)?,:;;.;;

&D No. ;,,. ;-1*, &D No. ;,,. ;-1(,

),;*: SO. +.

:,()-,:;;.;;

9,:;* SO. +.

,:,*??,:;;.;; N%+ES O5 DE5END%N&S &C&A&%8 Dec. No. %rea O $roperty Owned 'y &hem, <iFewise, as +entioned in the Complaint L %nswer ),:?) A8ou(, o: Ju$, Co8#%($',7o( )u% ,<%8 5'$%) o( /,/00.00J$@J8. #%0 Au;u$, 1/, 2000 #'0,7'l Ju);8%(,JO0)%0 $ ?,9(:,:;;.;;

&D No. ;,,. ;,-*1 &D No. ;,,. ;-:,? &D No. ;,,. ;-:,*

);,(,( SO. +. )-,:(, SO. +.

9;,)91,:;;.;; 9(,-9),:;;.;; ). $edro %lcantara md. to Dorotea +acatangay -. CoraJon Ilao md. to Ce erino $ereJ &D ;(;.;;;;,

-,(9: SO. +.

)9,,;*,:;;.;;

&D ;(;.;);((

(,,:)

:),1,;,:;;.;;

,. <uis <ira L Menaida <ira 1. +ilagros +acatangay :. <ilia Singuimoto 9. /erardo %bacan md. to %licia 5abul *. /erardo %bacan, Erlinda %bacan, <iliana %bacan, Cristeta %bacan, %naliJa %bacanI ?. <ibrada +acatangay vda. de %bas (. Eose Noel +. %gbing, Eose Nereus +. %gbing, +a. 'ernadette +. %gbing, +arie 5rances &h. +. %gbingI );. Cecile Olivia 5. Cuisia )). E ren $. Espino md. to Erlinda Espino, Delia Espino md. to Eoseph 0elasco, %l redo $. Espino md. to Eloisa S. Espino )-. Esteban Espino ),. 5elisa 4ernandeJ )1. %l redo 'autista md. to +aria !ita 'autista ):. !a ael <lana L !ustica <lana )9. Euana <. Carnero, %delaida 'elegal )*. 'ienvenido +aralit

&D ;(;.;;,,; &D ;(;.;);*: &D ;(;.;;;-* &D ;(;.;;;-? &D ;,:. &D ;,:.))); &D ;,:.;);*:

)(,9,; :1,9-; -(,?)( )-,,1( );,;)) ,,(?, ,,)-?

);*,(9:,;;;.;; ,;;,1);,;;;.;; )91,;;1,:;;.;; 9*,()(,:;;.;; ::,;9;,:;;.;; -),(;9,:;;.;; )*,-;1,;;;.;;

)?. <uisa '. 0da de +ontalbo )(. %Jucena $ereJ L %rnel $ereJ -;. Constancia 0illamor 'arcelo md. to %l onso 'arcelo -). Cesar $ereJ, !omeo $ereJ, !uben $ereJ, +ario $ereJ, Narocho DonaJa $ereJ, 4erminigildo $ereJ, Saturnina $ereJ --. $ricilla 'uena e -,. %urea %costa md. to !oman %costa, Consolacion %costa md. to Severo +alimban, 'etty %costa md. to Carlos Caabay, Constancio %costa md. to %raceli !eraida, %raceli %costa -1. Consuelo %lcantara -:. Simeon 'alita md. to Elena +. 'alita -9. +aria Clara &. 'erba, 5elimon &. 'erba, %Jucena &. 'erba, Eduardo &. 'erba, +a. <ourdes &. 'erba, Edgardo &. 'erba, Edmundo &. 'erba

&D ;,:.;);(9 &D ;,:.;),:: &D ;,,.;-*); &D ;,:.;)))( &D ;,:.;)--;

)),*?? :,1?9 -,):? ?,,*)

91,?,1,;;;.;; ,;,)*,,;;;.;; )1,?;;,:;;.;; )),?9(,;;;.;; 19,;1;,:;;.;;

&D ;(;.;;;), 6)*,***7 &D ;,:.;))-: 6:,;(*7

)A9 o )*,***^-,(9-.? )A9 o :,;(*^?1(.:;

)9,-(:,1;;.;; 1,9*-,-:;.;;

&D ;,:.;)),; &D ;,:.;))-; &C&.-):)) &C&.-):)-

),9(1 19, *:; ,,;;;

(,,)*,;;;.;; -,:19,:;;.;; 1,)-:,;;;.;; )9,:;;,;;;.;;

&D ;,:.;));? &D ;,,.;-1-; &D ;,,.;-19*

-,--)-,-1) ?,,;)

)-,--),;;;.;; 9*,,-:,:;;.;; 1:,9::,:;;.;;

&D ;,:.)?(&C& --:-;

9,*;; )1,:(;

,9,?:;,;;;.;; ?;,-1:,;;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-:)) &C&C.,::-,

,,;;, ):*

)9,:)9,:;;.;; ?9,,:;;.;;

&D ;,:.;)),1 &D ;,:.;));) corrected under &D ;)(:- %rea^)),,9: &D ;,:.;)1,,

-,?;1 )A, o )),,9:^,,*??

):,1--,;;;.;; -;,?,1,;;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-*;*

-,9(;

)1,*(:,;;;.;;

91,

,,:,9,:;;.;;

&D ;,:.;):,( &D ;,:.;))-(

),,,(: -A, o ),)):^*11

*,,9*-,:;;.;; 1,;(-,;;;.;;

&D ;,:.;);?) L &D ;,:.;);?-

),,,* -,1),

*,,:,,:;;.;; ),,-*),:;;.;;

-*. $acita +. 'erba, &D ;,,.;-*), %le"andro +. &D ;,,.;-*)) 'erba, Clara +. 'erba, +artina +. 'erba, /remauldo +. 'erba, Evelina +. 'erba

-,9() -,*(,

)1,?;;,:;;.;; ):,,9),:;;.;;

-?. %melia +. 'erba, $ablo +. 'erba, !icardo +. 'erba, 5rancisco +. 'erba -(. !a ael S. 'erba ,;. %doracion %costa Cabral ,). Carlito Casas md. to Enri=ueta Casas ,-. 'en"amin Castillo md. to Erlinda <aredo ,,. %ugusto Claveria ,1. EsperanJa Dimaandal md. to Eosue 'agsit ,:. +ariano DioFno, Ernesto '. DioFno, +ariano '. DioFno, Er., +aria Clara '. DioFno, %ngelita '. DioFno ,9. +aria EspaNol ,*. !u ino /eron md. to +atilde /eron ,?. Segundina /ualberto ,(. Si#to /ualberto md. to +aria /ualberto 1;. CoraJon Ilao, Isabelle +. Ilao, Concepcion +. Ilao, +ichelle I. Ilao, 'lanca I. Susi, Enrico %ntonio +. Ilao 1). +aria <acsamana 1-7 Dorotea +acatangay md. to

&D ;,,.;-*)1

-,9()

)1,?;;,:;;.;;

&eodorico %lcantara 1,. $edro +arasigan &D ;,,.;-:)? &D ;,,.;,,1),*;: ,,11* (,,**,:;;.;; )9,:)9,:;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-*): &D ;,,.;-1*1 &D ;,,.;-1(-

-,9() -,:,; :,;,,

)1,?;;,:;;.;; ),,():,;;;.;; -*,9?),:;;.;;

11. $ablo +endoJa md. to +aria <ourdes +endoJa

1:. Eaime &auro md. &D ;,,.;-:;: to !eynada &auro &D ;,,.;-:;* 19. 4eirs o <ucila %ldover 1*. %ndrea 'alina L +oises +acatangay 6heirs7 1?. 4eirs o /regorio Dapat 1(. $opula <lana 6heirs7 :;7 %rsenio %bacan 6heirs7 :). <auro %braham 6heirs7 :-. +anuel %mul, Sr. L +arcosa +arasigan 6heirs7 :,. Eulalio 'uena e 6heirs7 :1. /enerosa 'uena e 6heirs7 ::. +arciana 'uena e 6heirs7 :9. 4eirs o /uadalupe Dayanghirang :*. 4eirs o 5elino 4ernandeJ :?. 4eirs o 5lorentino +acatangay :(7 'rigido <ontoc 6heirs7 9;. 4eirs o $edro &D ;(;.;;;;1 &D ;,,.;-:-9 &D ;(;.;;;;( &D ;,,.;-19&D ;(;.;-* &D ;(;.;;;-,

?;( ),:?1 ),-:) 9)? 1,;:) -,-?* )),(,? )?*,:?,. 1:,99*^ )1-,)?9 )-,,?1 ),1:1 :,11) :,,9;

1,11(,:;;.;; ?,*)-,;;;.;; 9,??;,:;;.;; ,,,((,;;;.;; --,-?;,:;;.;; )-,:*?,:;;.;; 9:,9:(,;;;.;; *?-,;-,,;;;.;;

&C&.-;(-(

1,?-,

-9,:-9,:;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-1:1 &D ;,,.;-*;*

-,9:, 1,;;;

)1,:(),:;;.;; --,;;;,;;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-*;?

-,9(;

)1,*(:,;;;.;;

&D ;,:.;)))&D ;,:.;);*1 &D ;,:.;)),&D ;,:.;);**

9?,))-,;;;.;; *,((*,;;;.;; -(,(-:,:;;.;; -(,1?;,;;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-1(* &D ;,,.;-1**

),1(, ),,91

?,-)),:;;.;; *,:;-,;;;.;;

&D ;,:.;))-) &D ;,:.;)))* &D ;,:.;));&D ;,:.;));* &D ;,:.;));( &D ;,:.;)),)

,,;:, -,)-; -,);9 ,,*(9 ),;(; 9,91-

)9,*(),:;;.;; )),99;,;;;.;; )),:?,,;;;.;; -;,?*?,;;;.;; :,((:,;;;.;; ,9,:,),;;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-(-* &D ;,,.;-(-? &D ;,,.;-(-( &D ;,,.;-9(1 &D ;,,.;-*? &D ;,,.;,)1: &D ;,,.;,)19 &D ;,,.;,)1*

),):, ),1-( -:* ,*1 :,1:* 1,-1, 9,)*: ),;:?

9,,1),:;;.;; *,?:(,:;;.;; ),1),,:;;.;; -,;:*,;;;.;; ,;,;),,:;;.;; -,,,,9,:;;.;; ,,,(9-,:;;.;; :,?)(,;;;.;;

&D ;,:.;));) &D ;,:.;));)

)A, o )),,9:^,,*?? )A, o )),,9:^,,*?(

-;,?,1,;;;.;; -;,?,(,:;;.;;

&D ;,,.;-1*( &D ;,,.;-1() &D ;,,.;-:)-

),):* ),1)1 ,,;;,

9,,9,,:;;.;; *,***,;;;.;; )9,:)9,:;;.;;

&D ;,:.;))-( &D ;,:.;));1

),)): ),;?1

9,),-,:;;.;; :,(9-,;;;.;;

+agadia 9). !osa $. +agadia 6heirs7 9-. 4eirs o Daniel +agadia 9,. Eose +aranan L Concha +agadia 6heirs7 91. 4eirs o +aria +ontalbo 9:. 4eirs o /odo redo !osales 99. 4eirs o +aria Consolacion Sarmiento 9*. 4eirs o <uisa 0illanueva 9?. Evarista 'auan 6heirs7 9(. 4eirs o +aria Caedo *;. 4eirs o %gripina /arcia *). 5eliJa +acatangay 6heirs7 *-. 4eirs o 'asilio +acaraeg L $acencia del +undo &D ;,:.;));, &D ;,:.;));: &D ;,:.;));9 ),;?: -,)1; -,-(:,(9*,:;;.;; )),**;,;;;.;; )-,9;9,;;;.;;

On October -;, -;;;, a 5riday, the last e#tended day o iling its record on appeal, ull power outage hit the whole island o <uJonZincluding +etro +anilaZand all government worFers were dismissed at noon time. On +onday, October -,, -;;;, $$% iled a +otion or !econsideration and E#tension o the September )(, -;;; !&C Order therein praying or a inal e#tension o ,; days. On November -;, -;;; or within the ,;.day inal e#tension sought, the $$% iled its !ecord on %ppeal o the %ugust )?, -;;; Order:1 implementing the %ugust ):, -;;; Order or the Ortega /roup. On December ),, -;;;, the !&C dismissed $$%>s record on appeal on the ground that the said %ugust )?, -;;; Order had become inal and e#ecutory, as the $$%>s +otion or !econsideration and E#tension with respect to such record o appeal had been iled out o time. &his development prompted $$% to ile a petition or certiorari be ore the C%, assailing the !&C Orders dated %ugust )?, -;;; and December ),, -;;;, docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. 9,:*9 6$$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, %rsenio %bacar, et al.7. &he C%, in its Euly ,;, -;;) Decision, nulli ied the December ),, -;;; !&C Order and allowed $$%>s appeal. C%./.!. S$ No. 9,:*9 was consolidated with the earlier C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 6$$% v. 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an, !olando Ouino, Ernesto Curata, et al.7 Gagainst the Dimayacyac /roupH. &he Euly ,;, -;;) C% Decision:: later became the sub"ect matter o two 6-7 petitions 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7 iled by the Dimayacyac and Ortega /roups. '. &he %ugust -,, -;;; !&C Order implementing the %ugust ):, -;;; Order or the CruJ /roup o lot owners reads2 $ursuant to the Order o the Court dated %ugust ):, -;;;, plainti is hereby re=uired to pay by way o "ust compensation to the de endants represented by the ollowing counsels, to wit2 CO@NSE<2 %&&B. E@/ENIO +ENDOM%
N%+ES O5 DE5END%N&S &C&A&%8 Dec. No. %!E% O5 $!O$E!&B OWNED 'B &4E+, <IPEWISE, %S +EN&IONED IN &4E CO+$<%IN& L IN &4E %NSWE! AMO*NT OF J*"T COM EN"ATION D*E THEM +A"ED ON /,/00.00J$@J8. ER A*G*"T 1/, 2000 ARTIAL J*DGMENT ORDER

&D ;,:.;)),, &D ;,:.;))-? &D ;,:.;))))

:,;11 ),,;;; ),,:?,

-*,*1-,;;;.;; *),:;;,;;;.;; *1,*;9,:;;.;;

&D ;,:.;);?, &D ;,:.;);?: &D ;,,.;-:,1 &D ;,,.-*)&D ;,,.;-*)9 &D ;,,.;-1 &D ;,,.;,-9) &D ;,,.;-:-: &D ;,,.;-:-?

(1: )?,-;( ),--;.: -,*(: -,9() ),9*) ),*,, )A* o :,;??^*-9.?: )A* o 1,(-9^*;,.*

:,)(*,:;;.;; );;,)1(,:;;.;; 9,*)-,*:;.;; ):,,*-,:;;.;; )1,?;;,:;;.;; (,)(;,:;;.;; (,:,),:;;.;; ,,((*,9*:.;; ,,?*;,,:;.;; ,,,?1,-)-,1-:.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

&O&%<

SO O!DE!ED.:, 6Emphasis ours.7 On %ugust --, -;;;, $$% received a copy o the a ore=uoted %ugust )?, -;;; Order. &he last day to ile the record on appeal ell on September -), -;;;.
CO@NSE<2 %&&B. CES%! C. C!@M

On September -;, -;;;, $$% iled its Notice o %ppeal with +otion or E#tension o &ime to 5ile a !ecord on %ppeal o the above %ugust )?, -;;; Order asFing or a ,;.day e#tension, which the !&C granted with a caveat against any urther e#tension.

). !emedios !osales 'ondoc and Eose P. !osales -. 4eirs o <umin %ntolin

&C& No. &.1,:,1

);9,*-;

$ :?9,(9;,;;;.;;

&D ;,:.;)*;1

:1,9?)

,;;,*1:,:;;.;; $ ??*,*;:,:;;.;;

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CO@NSE<2 %&&B. 5E<I$E /. C%$@<ON/ ). %nita /. Escano, <ydia /. Capulong, Erlinda /ermer /onJales and !omulo 5. /onJales -. %nita /. Escano, <ydia /. Capulong, Erlinda /ermer /onJales and !omulo 5. /onJales &D ;,,.;-:); &D ;,:.;))-: 9,))9 -(,)*; $ ,,,9,?,;;;.;; )9;,1,:,;;;.;;

). <ourdes +ercado, %ugusto +ercado, 4eirs o 5idencio +ercado and heirs o Concepcio +ercado

&D ;,:.;))1; &D ;,:.;)),?

),,,:; ,:,:-?

$ *,,1-:,;;;.;; )(:,1;1,;;;.;;

$ -9?,?-(,;;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ &D ;,:.;))-9 &D;,:.;))-* -,-9) ?? $ )-,1,:,:;;.;; 1?1,;;;.;; CO@NSE<2 %&&B. DE<I% C. 0I0I%! ). Celia $asion Dimaandal, %rnel Eoseph Dimaandal, !o#anne Socorro Dimaandal, &eresita Dimaandal, %aron +artin Dimaandal, !achel 0ictoria Dimaandal, %ris %nthony Dimaandal &D ;,:.;-1?* 1,1,$ -1,,*9,;;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

$ -;9,((-,:;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CO@NSE<2 %&&B. CI$!I%NO @. %SI<O ). 5rancisco %balos and !emedioa %lano -. Severo %lano, Soledad %lano, Inocencia %lano, $etra %lano, !emedios %lano %ntonio %lano, 5elipe %lano &D ;,:.;)))1 &D ;,:.;)))9 -,:;; *,)1) $ ),,*:;,;;;.;; ,(,-*:,:;;.;;

DE5END%N&S '%<IW%/ 6no counsel7 ). /regorio 'aliwag, Eliseo 'aliwag, Crisanta 'aliwag &D ;,:.;-:); &D ;,,.;-9() &D ;,,.;-:,, *1; 1?, ),--;.: $ 1,);,,;;;.;; -,9-9,:;;.;; 9,*)-,*:;.;; $ ),,1*-,-:;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ $ :,,;-:,:;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ O0E! %<< &O&%< 2 $ ),:-9,);(,*:;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CO@NSE<2 %&&B. !%+ON /@&IE!!EM ). %nunciacion /utierreJ &D ;,:.;)))1 -,9() $ )1,?;;,:;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SO O!DE!ED.:9 $$% did not ile a notice o appeal rom the above %ugust -,, -;;; Order. &herea ter, the CruJ /roup moved or the e#ecution o the above %ugust -,, -;;; !&C Order, maintaining that it had become inal and e#ecutory or $$%>s ailure to appeal there rom. &he !&C, agreeing with the CruJ /roup>s assertion o inality, granted the motion or e#ecution in an Order dated +ay -(, -;;).:* Over three 6,7 years rom the issuance o the +ay -(, -;;) Order granting the writ o e#ecution, the CruJ /roup iled a motion dated November 1, -;;1 or issuance o a Writ o E#ecution. $$%>s opposition thereto was disregarded by the !&C which ruled in avor o the movants via a November )?, -;;1 Order. Subse=uently, the trial court liFewise issued a writ o e#ecution dated November --, -;;1 and Notices o /arnishment dated November -,, -;;1 addressed to the National &reasury, Development 'anF o the $hilippines 6D'$7, $hilippine National 'anF 6$N'7, and the $hilippine 0eterans 'anF 6$0'7.

). 5elipe Serrano and Spouse

&D ;(;.;)))-

--:

$ ),-,*,:;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CO@NSE<2 %&&B. BO<%NDO %&IENM% ). Silverio %tienJa L Eocelyn 5elio -. Silverio %tienJa &C& No. &.,;);* &D ;,:.;-*9* ),))( )9* $ 9,):1,:;;.;; ()?,:;;.;; $ *,;*,,;;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CO@NSE<2 %&&B. /<ENN +ENDOM% ). E. <. /andionco !ealty &D ;,:.;-:(?,?,9 $ 1?,:(?,;;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CO@NSE<2 %&&B. NO!'E!&O <. C%E@CO+

$$% moved or a reconsideration which it later withdrew, opting to ile a petition or certiorari under C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 which was later consolidated with the $$%>s appeal in C%./.!. C0 No. **99?. &he C% rendered a Decision on Euly ,, -;;9 in the consolidated cases dismissing C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, and C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9. In the meantime, on September )), -;;), the !&C issued a Writ o $ossession:? to $$% e ective upon a deposit o $h$ 1;; per s=uare meter or the lots in =uestion. $$%, responding to the !&C>s Order:( dated September -;, -;;) to submit a certi icate o deposit in connection with the writ o possession thus issued, iled a +ani estationASubmission, attaching thereto the ollowing2 6)7 Certi ication o Deposit and %vailability o 5unds dated December )1, -;;; in the amount o $h$ 1--,91;,(9;I9; 6-7 Certi ication dated December )1, -;;; by the 'ureau o &reasury showing $$%>s investment in treasury bills amounting to $h$ 1*,,:;;,;;; with maturity on Eanuary -1, -;;)I9) 6,7 Certi ication dated October -:, -;;; by the <'$ 6<ipa City 'ranch7 with respect to $$%>s account in the amount o $ -,);1,1?1.-?I9- and, 617 <ists or Deposit based on the )((? Monal 0aluation indicating the amounts to be paid to all the respondents totaling $h$ 1--,91;,(9; corresponding to the aggregate ull Jonal valuation o all the sub"ect e#propriated properties.9,H Subse=uently, $$% tooF possession o the sub"ect lots. !&C Orders or release o deposit to landowners While $$%>s appeal o the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 was pending be ore the C% in C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, the !&C, on +ay ):, -;;-, in accordance with Sec. - o %dministrative Order No. 6%O7 :;,91 directed $$% to release );D o the deposit relative to the Jonal valuation o the e#propriated properties pursuant to the <ist or Deposit based on the )((? Monal 0aluation submitted by $$%. &he Ortega9: and CruJ99/roups iled their respective motions or partial reconsideration o the said +ay ):, -;;- Order, contending that the amount should be );;D o the Jonal valuation pursuant to !epublic %ct No. 6!%7 ?(*1,9* and not the );D o the o ered amount under Sec. - o %O :;. 'y a Eune -*, -;;- +ani estation,9? %tty. %rturo S. 'ernardino, then $$%>s Director or <egal Services, interposed 3no ob"ection3 to the motions or partial reconsideration 6o both the Ortega and the CruJ /roups7 and the reasons behind

them, as evidenced by his attached letter9( dated Eune -:, -;;- stating that said motions appeared to be consistent with !% ?(*1. %ccordingly, by Order*; o Euly )-, -;;-, the !&C directed $$% to immediately release to respondent.land owners the deposit e=uivalent to );;D o the Jonal valuation. $$% later disowned the 'ernardino letter and asFed the withdrawal o %tty. 'ernardino>s mani estation.*) On Euly -(, -;;-,*- however, the !&C denied the motion to withdraw, a denial which would be reiterated in an Order o September :, -;;-. &his prompted $$% to interpose a petition or certiorari be ore the C% 6C%. /.!. S$ No. *,?1?7 assailing the Euly )-, -;;- and Euly -(, -;;- Orders on these grounds2 irst, according retroactive application to !% ?(*1I and second, compelling $$% to immediately pay the percentage rate provided under !% ?(*1 instead o the lower rate re=uired under %O :;. C%./.!. S$ No. *,?1? was decided by the C% on +ay )9, -;;, against $$%, holding that !% ?(*1 re=uiring the initial payment o );;D o the Jonal valuation o the e#propriated lots was applicable, thus2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED or lacF o merit. &he prayer or the issuance o a temporary restraining order and a writ o preliminary in"unction is liFewise denied. SO O!DE!ED.*, 0ia its petition in /.!. No. ):?-:-, $$% challenges the C% Decision. While the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 involving the %gustin /roup, among others, was pending appeal in C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, said group, in a +otion or Immediate $ayment dated September -:, -;;,, prayed or the release o one hundred percent 6);;D7 o the Jonal value o their lots at the rate o our thousand two hundred and i ty pesos per s=uare meter 6$h$ 1,-:;As=.m.7. It anchored its plea or immediate payment on Sec. 1 6a7 o !% ?(*1 in relation to Sec. ), o its Implementing !ules and !egulations, claiming that2 # # # %nd since the Jonal value prescribed or industrial lots in 'gy. Sta. Clara is in the amount o between $),*1;.;; to $(,:;;.;; which barangay is ad"acent to the industrial lots being e#propriated in barangays Calicanto and 'olboFI and since the Jonal value prescribed or industrial lots located in 'gy. Sta. Clara o similar condition as that ound in barangays Calicanto and 'olboF is $1,-:;.;;, it is thus most respect ully move 6sic7 that said );;D Jonal value o $1,-:;.;; be immediately paid and be released to the de endants. &heir properties being classi ied as IndustrialA$ort Mone under E.O. No. 1,) dated October )(, )((; and as that adopted and approved by the Sangguniang $anglunsod o 'atangas in its !esolution No. :,.?(, dated 5ebruary 1, )((1 adopting and approving the comprehensive or predominant use o said properties as industrial. # # #

In the Order dated October ),, -;;,, the trial court ordered the %gustin /roup to maFe a 3summary3 o the details and to indicate the 3speci ic location3 o the properties under e#propriation. In their October -;, -;;, Compliance, the members o the %gustin /roup submitted the summary o the area, classi ication and location o their properties and a Certi ication dated Euly (, -;;- issued by %bencio &. &orres, %ssistant !evenue District O icer 6!DO7 o the 'ureau o Internal !evenue 6'I!7, 'atangas City. $$% opposed the motion or payment alleging that the relevant Jonal valuation o private respondents> properties was only $h$ -(; per s=uare meter and not $h$ 1,-:;, as the sub"ect lots were agricultural in nature. 'y Order dated December -, -;;,, the trial court directed $$% to pay the %gustin /roup );;D o the Jonal value at the rate o $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter. Subse=uently, in the Order dated December )?, -;;,, the trial court modi ied its December -, -;;, Order and instead directed $$% to release in avor o the %gustin /roup );D o the Jonal valuation computed at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter. $$% received on Eanuary ?, -;;1 the December )?, -;;, Order. Incidentally in connection with the Ortega /roup, the trial court issued an Order dated December ?, -;;, directing $$% to release to the Ortega /roup );D o the Jonal value pursuant to an Order dated %ugust ,;, -;;- which pegged the Jonal valuation at the rate o $h$ -(; per s=uare meter and not $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter. &he lots o the Ortega and %gustin /roups are all located at 'arangays 'olboF, Calicanto and Santa Clara. Claiming that the Orders dated December - and )?, -;;, had attained inality, the %gustin /roup iled a +otion or the Issuance o Writ o E#ecution dated Eanuary ):, -;;1 and prayed or the release o one hundred percent 6);;D7 o the Jonal valuation computed at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter. On Eanuary -,, -;;1, $$% iled a +otion or !econsideration o the Orders dated December ? and )?, -;;,, which the %gustin /roup opposed. $$%>s motion or reconsideration was denied in an Order dated 5ebruary ),, -;;1 which reads2 %s suggested by the Court to achieve "ustice and humanitarian consideration inasmuch as their properties have long been converted to the use o the plainti , sub"ect to the inal approval by the Supreme Court o the air marFet valuation considering the $:;;.;; per s=uare meter o er o the plainti , it may pay the sum o

$1-:.;; per s=uare meter by way o e=uity or on humanitarian basis. &he cap o payment shall be 5ive hundred pesos 6$:;;.;;7 in the meantime. &he movant is given a period o three 6,7 days rom today to submit the Special $ower o %ttorney, urnishing copy to the plainti . &he +otion or !econsideration iled by the plainti is DENIED. W4E!E5O!E, let a Writ o E#ecution be issued. Subse=uently, a Writ o E#ecution dated 5ebruary -;, -;;1 was issued to implement the December -, -;;, Order. $$%, via a +ani estation and +otion dated +arch ?, -;;1, sought the stay o the December -, -;;, Order. On +arch )*, -;;1, the trial court issued another Order directing the parties to ile their respective memoranda 3on or be ore +arch -,, -;;1.3 $$% allegedly received the +arch )*, -;;1 Order only on +arch -,, -;;1 6the last day or iling the +emorandum7I hence, its inability to comply threwith. &he ne#t day, +arch -1, -;;1, the !&C issued an Order denying $$%>s +ani estation and +otion o +arch ?, -;;1 and directing the <and 'anF o the $hilippines 6<'$7 to release the amount stated in its December -, -;;, Order under pain o contempt. &he %gustin /roup was able to e#ecute on +arch -:, -;;1 the Order dated December -, -;;, and obtained the release o $h$ ?),*1),-:; rom the <'$. 4owever, what was withdrawn was still insu icient to cover the entire amount sought to be e#ecuted. While the trial court gave $$% a period o ive 6:7 days within which to ile its motion or reconsideration o the +arch -1, -;;1 Order, $$% iled instead a +ani estation dated %pril :, -;;1 therein e#pressing its intention to resort to other appropriate remedies. &o ensure e#ecution o the 3de iciency3 amount to satis y the December -, -;;, Order, the trial court issued the %pril )-, -;;1 Order which reads2 De endants represented by %tty. Emmanuel %gustin iled the +otion or Issuance o Writ o E#ecution o the );;D Jonal valuation as contained in the order dated December -, -;;,. &his is opposed on the ground that the Jonal valuation o the said de endants is on appeal, thus, this Court has no "urisdiction. &his Court is inclined to rule in avor o the de endants on the ollowing grounds.

). &he Order dated December -, -;;, has long become inal and e#ecutory because no appeal or petition or certiorari has been iled assailing the said Order. -. G!%H ?(*1 is clear that a payment o Jonal valuation is not appealable as it is intended to tide.over the needs o the landowners o the lands under litigation. &he de endants have mani ested that some o GthemH have died and some are sicF and about to die, that their properties have been e#propriated or almost three years without payment, to taFe care o their needs # # #I ,. /ranting that there was an appeal iled and considering that the records o this case are still with this court, the +otion or payment may be considered as a +otion or E#ecution $ending %ppeal based on compelling grounds as cited above and on grounds o e=uity. Even i there was a petition or certiorari iled in the higher court, the proceedings in this Court below and the orders will taFe their due course 6SC case o %tty. %paricio vs. Eudge %ndal7 in the absence o a restraining order. &he rule on e#ecution pending appeal will be applied in a suppletory manner. W4E!E5O!E, the Court hereby orders the partial e#ecution o the Order dated December -, -;;, in an amount o :;D o the valuation thereo . <et a Writ o E#ecution be issued accordingly. &he trial court also issued the Supplemental Order dated %pril ):, -;;1, which partly reads2 @pon motion o the counsel or de endants %tty. Emmanuel %gustin, and pursuant to the Order dated %pril )-, -;;1 and in re erence to the Order dated December -, -;;, the plainti $hilippine $orts %uthority is hereby ordered to pay the :;D o the Jonal valuation o the properties o the ollowing de endants # # #. On %pril )(, -;;1, $$% iled an Omnibus +otion or !econsideration o the Order dated %pril )-, -;;1 and the Supplemental Order dated %pril ):, -;;1 and to Stay the En orcement o the Writ o E#ecution dated %pril )9, -;;1. $$%, however, later iled a +ani estation withdrawing the said omnibus motion. In lieu o the withdrawn omnibus motion, $$% interposed a petition or certiorari be ore the C% to nulli y the ollowing !&C orders earlier adverted to2 the December -, and )?, -;;, OrdersI and the 5ebruary ),, -;;1, +arch -1, -;;1, %pril )-, and ):, -;;1 Orders. &he petition was docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. ?,:*;. &his petition was resolved through the assailed Decision dated November --, -;;1, with the C% denying $$%>s petition in C%./.!. S$ No. ?,:*;. &he writ o preliminary in"unction earlier issued was li ted.*1

&he C% held that, irst, the inality o the main assailed !&C order o December -, -;;, directing $$% to pay the concerned lot owners the 'I! Jonal valuation o $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter had set in, and thus the issuance o the writ o e#ecution there or was warrantedI and second, the provision o !% ?(*1 on the amount o the provisional payment applied. &he C% Decision in =uestion was later challenged by $$% in /.!. No. )99-;;. &he %ugust -,, -;;; Order or $astor !ealty Corporation, et al. &he %ugust -,, -;;; Order implementing the Second Compensation Order or lot owners $astor !ealty Corporation, et al., reads2 $ursuant to the Order o the Court dated %ugust ):, -;;;, plainti is hereby re=uired to pay by way o "ust compensation to the ollowing de endants, to wit2
N%+ES O5 DE5END%N&S &C&A&%8 Dec. No. %!E% O5 $!O$E!&B OWNED 'B &4E+, <IPEWISE, %S +EN&IONED IN &4E CO+$<%IN& 1),,?( ,(? AMO*NT OF J*"T COM EN"ATION D*E THEM +A"ED ON /,/00.00J$@J8. ER A*G*"T 1/, 2000 ARTIAL J*DGMENT ORDER $ --*,9,(,:;;.;; -,)?(,;;;.;;

). $astor !ealty Corporation

&C& !&.9-* 6,*1-(7 &C& !&.9-9 6,*1-?7 &D ;,:.;);?1 &D ;,,.;-*9( &D ;,,.;-*91 &D ;,,.;-*99 No &a# Dec. or &itle6per complaint7 &D ;,,.;,;;; &D ;,,.;-:,; &D ;,,.;-:)* &D ;,,.;-:), &D ;,,.;-1:, &D ;,,.;-1(9

-. <uJ 'almes md. to Ernesto 'almes ,. $erpetua %tienJa, 5ortunata %tienJa, Isabelo %tienJa 1. 'rothers o 5ortunata 'alina :. !osalinda C. !osales 9. $atricio Sumanga *. 0icente /. de !ivera ?. !ene de !ivera (. 5rancisco +ercado

),*?; ?9, )1,*,) )1,:91 *,*;-

(,*(;,;;;.;; 1,*19,:;;.;; ?),;-;,:;;.;; ?;,);-,;;;.;; 1-,,9),;;;.;;

)91 ),;:* :); ),(;? ).(11 ),;:;

(;-,;;;.;; :,?),,:;;.;; -,?;:,;;;.;; );,1(1,;;;.;; );,9(-,;;;.;; :,**:,;;;.;;

);. Sera in +ontalbo )). 5ortunata 'auna )-. Salud +acaraig ),. 5lorendo +acatangay

NO &%8 DEC or &itle 6per complaint7 NO &I&<E O! &%8S DEC. 6per complaint7 &D ;,,.;-:-; &D ;,,.;-1*9

:,-1;

-?,?-;,;;;.;;

&he motion urther prays or 6sic7 that they be allowed to adopt the Order o the Court dated Euly );, -;;; and %ugust ):, -;;; setting the air marFet value at $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter. &here being no opposition, the same is /!%N&ED. SO O!DE!ED. 6Emphasis supplied.7

*,;*)

,?,?(;,:;;.;;

),11? ),-:;

*,(91,;;;.;; 9,?*:,;;;.;; $ ::9,?*(,:;;.;; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

&O&%<

&his compelled the disgruntled $$% to again appeal*? to the C%, the recourse 6$$% v. 5elipa %costa, et al.7 docFeted as C%./.!. C0 No. *;;-,. &he C% rendered the herein assailed Decision*( a irming the September *, -;;; Order?; o the !&C on the air marFet value, i.e., $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter, o the e#propriated property, using as bases sales transactions involving neighboring lots and the indings o the court.appointed commissioners.?) &hus, the instant petition o $$% in /.!. No. )*;9?,. I0. !OS%<IND% '@EN%5E %ND +E<ENCIO C%S&I<<O GC%./.!. S$ No. ?-()*H !&C grant o e#ecution to 'uena e and Castillo +eanwhile, pending review by this Court o the Euly ,;, -;;) consolidated C% Decision in C%./.!. S$ Nos. 9;,)1 and 9,:*9 Ginvolving the Dimayacyac and Ortega /roups, respectivelyUUwhich, or re erence, e ectively gave due course to the appeal o $$% rom the Euly );, -;;; OrderUU!osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo iled a +ani estation and +otion to Order the Sheri to Implement Writ o E#ecution 6'ased on 5inality o Eudgment7.?-&hey alleged they were covered by $$%>s basic complaintI that they iled their answerI that their property sought to be e#propriated had an area o -,;(- s=uare metersI and that they were included in the !&C September -(, -;;; writ.order?, directing e#ecution o the Euly );, -;;; Order i#ing "ust compensation, but were not impleaded in $$% petitions in C%./.!. S$ Nos. 9;,)1 and 9,:*9. &hey, however, added that the Euly );, -;;; Order did not include either o their names. 'y Order?1 dated November 9, -;;,, the !&C granted 'uena e and Castillo>s a orementioned motion to implement the writ o e#ecution, on the rationale that the amounts indicated in the Euly );, -;;; Order and upon which the September -(, -;;; writ o e#ecution was based, were inal and e#ecutory as to them 6'uena e and Castillo7. On November -;, -;;,, the !&C issued in avor o 'uena e and Castillo the corresponding writ o e#ecution,?: ollowed later by the issuance o several Notices o /arnishment.?9

SO O!DE!ED.*: 6Emphasis supplied.7 $$% claims that the %ugust -,, -;;; Order in avor o $astor !ealty Corp., et al., was included in its appeal rom the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 in C%./.!. C0 No. **99? which was consolidated with its petition in C%. /.!. S$ Nos. ?*?11 6involving the CruJ /roup7 and (;*(9 6petition to cite Eudge &ac.an or contempt o court7. &he C% resolved the consolidated petitions in avor o the lot owners, which decision $$% elevated to the Court in /.!. No. )*,,(-. III. IN&E!0ENO!S C%!O<INE '. %COS&%, E& %<. GC%./.!. C0 No. *;;-,H Compensation o $h$ :,:;; applied to de endant.intervenors %costa, et al. +eanwhile, Caroline '. %costa, %bigail '. %costa, Nemesio D. 'alina and Erlinda D. 'alina, also represented by %tty. %gustin, moved to intervene, claiming in their %nswer.in.Intervention*9 that, while they were owners o the properties located within the e#propriated area, they were inadvertently omitted rom $$%>s complaint. &hey thus prayed or the same $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter rate or their lots. 'y Order** dated September *, -;;;, the !&C granted the plea o %costa, et al., thus2 &here being no opposition, the +otion or Intervention is granted with respect to lot owners Nemesio D. 'alina and Erlinda D. 'alina whose property is <ot No. ))*? covered by &a# Dec. No. ;,,.;-?*) containing an area o -,,;) s=. meters which is surrounded already by lots sub"ect o this e#propriation and also to Caroline '. %costa and %bigail '. %costa with respect to <ot Nos. ))19 and )):- covered by &a# Dec. No. ;,,.;1-?: with an area o -,(9).: s=. meters which are similarly situated and which have been inadvertently omitted in the complaint as per letter rom the +anager o <egal Services Department, %rturo S. 'ernardino, dated %ugust -?, -;;;. &he movants have marFed E#hibit 3)3 U the letter dated %ugust -?, -;;;I E#hibit 3). %3 U &a# Dec. No. ;,,.;-?*)I and E#hibit 3).'3 U &a# Dec. No. ;,,.;1-?:.

$$%>s motion or reconsideration o the !&C>s basic and ancillary orders was re"ected, sending $$% anew to the C%, thru a petition or certiorari ?* to nulli y the a oresaid !&C Order o November 9, -;;,, as e ectively reiterated later. $$%>s recourse was docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. ?-()*. Eventually, on +arch ,), -;;:, the C% rendered a Decision?? in C%./.!. S$ No. ?-()* granting $$%>s petition and annulling the !&C Orders o November 9, -;;, and Eanuary (, -;;1 and all other orders, writs and processes issued relative thereto. &he allo o the C%>s decision reads2 W4E!E5O!E, the petition is /!%N&ED. &he Order dated November 9, -;;, issued by the respondent "udged in Civil Case No. :11* and all other orders or writs issued in the en orcement o the said order is %NN@<<ED and SE& %SIDE. &he Writ o $reliminary In"unction issued on November -,, -;;1 is hereby made permanent. SO O!DE!ED.?( 4ence, the instant petition in /.!. No. )9?-*- iled by !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo. $etition to cite Eudge &ac.an or contempt o court On %ugust :, -;;:, $$% iled a petition to cite $aterno 0. &ac.an or contempt(; when said "udge issued the %pril -;, -;;: and Euly -), -;;: Orders in de iance o the C%.issued temporary restraining orders 6&!Os7 and writs o preliminary in"unction. &his petition, docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9, was eventually consolidated with C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11.() &hese consolidated petitions were resolved on Euly ,, -;;9, by the issuance o the C%>s assailed !esolution o same date which denied, among other things, $$%>s petition to cite the !&C "udge or contempt or lacF o merit. &he Euly ,, -;;9 !esolution in the consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, C%./.!. S$ Nos. ?*?11 and (;*(9 were elevated to this Court in /.!. No. )*,,(-. 0. 4EI!S O5 $O$@<% <<%N% GC%./.!. S$ No. ?);()H2 Decision became inal and e#ecutory %lbeit not part o these consolidated proceedings, we taFe "udicial notice o a C% Decision dated 5ebruary ):, -;;9, as e ectively reiterated in a !esolution o October )-, -;;9, in a related case 6$$% v. &ac.an7 docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. ?);(), involving the heirs o $opula <lana who belong to the Ortega /roup. $$%>s petition in C%./.!. S$ No. ?);() sought to nulli y the October -(, -;;, !&C OrderUUand several subse=uent implementing orders and processes to en orce the

assailed October -(, -;;, OrderZdirecting $$% to pay the heirs o <lana $h$ *1,,?(*,??; on top o the provisional amount o $h$ :1,1**,,*;, which $$% was orced to pay pursuant to the %ugust ,;, -;;- !&C Order that pegged the Jonal valuation at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter. On 5ebruary ):, -;;9, the C% nulli ied the October -(, -;;, !&C Order or grave abuse o discretion o Eudge &ac.an and on October )-, -;;9 re"ected the heirs o <lana>s motion or reconsideration. 'oth the decision and resolution o the C% eventually lapsed into inality when the heirs did not =uestion said issuances be ore this Court. On November ,, -;;9, an Entry o Eudgment(- was issued by the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. ?);(). 5rom the oregoing petitions or review, it can be noted that $$% prevailed in our o its petitions be ore the appellate court, to wit2 6)7 C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1I 6-7 C%. /.!. S$ No. 9,:*9I 6,7 C%./.!. S$ No. ?);()I and 617 C%./.!. S$ No. ?-()*. On the other hand, it lost in the ollowing si# cases2 6)7 C%./.!. S$ No. *,?1?I 6-7 C%. /.!. S$ No. ?,:*;I 6,7 C%./.!. C0 No. *;;-,I 617 C%./.!. C0 No. **99?I 6:7 C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11I and 697 C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9. Only nine o these cases, however, are be ore us on petitions or review, the C% Decision and !esolution in C%./.!. S$ No. ?);() 64eirs o $opula <lana7 having already become inal and e#ecutory. We will now proceed to tacFle seriatim the various petitions, but will resolve last the undamental issue o the proper determination o "ust compensation in /.!. No. )*,,(-. /.!. Nos. ):1-)).)&he Issues $etitioners Ernesto Curata, et al., submit that the C% erred in2 I %<<OWIN/ G$$%>SH %$$E%< WI&4 !ES$EC& &O C%./.!. NO. 9;,)1 DES$I&E &4E 5%C& &4%& &4E !&C O!DE!A$%!&I%< E@D/+EN& D%&ED E@<B );, -;;; IS %<!E%DB 5IN%< %ND E8EC@&O!B. II # # # &%PIN/ CO/NIM%NCE O5 &4E +O&ION 5O! ISS@%NCE O5 W!I& O5 $OSSESSION 5I<ED 5O! &4E 5I!S& &I+E 'B !ES$ONDEN& $$% IN % S$ECI%< CI0I< %C&ION 5O! CE!&IO!%!I, %ND DEC<%!IN/ &4%&

!ES$ONDEN& $$% IS EN&I&<ED &O &4E ISS@%NCE O5 % W!I& O5 $OSSESSION %S % +%&&E! O5 !I/4&. III # # # !@<IN/ &4%& %N E8EC@&ION $ENDIN/ %$$E%< WO@<D !ENDE! +OO& &4E 0E!B ISS@E !%ISED 'B G$$%H IN I&S %$$E%<Z&4%& O5 E@S& CO+$ENS%&ION. I0 # # # &%PIN/ CO/NIM%NCE O5 &4E S@$$<E+EN&%< $E&I&ION 5I<ED 'B ### $$% IN C%./.!. NO. 9;,)1.(, &o recall, consolidated /.!. Nos. ):1-)).)- stemmed rom C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 6concerning the Dimayacyac /roup7 and S$ No. 9,:*9 6involving the Ortega /roup7. 'rie ly, the events that brought about C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 are as ollows2 On Euly );, -;;;, the !&C issued the irst compensation order, which pegged the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter in avor o the Dimayacyac /roup. %lleging that almost all o the group members were o advanced age, the trial court, upon motion, issued the Euly -1, -;;; Order that granted the e#ecution pending appeal. On Euly ,), -;;;, another order ensued, directing the issuance o the writ o e#ecution. On %ugust - and ,, -;;;, respondent Sheri !olando D. Ouino served Notices o /arnishment on <'$. On %ugust );, -;;;, $$% iled a 3Notice o %ppeal with +otion or E#tension o &ime to 5ile !ecord on %ppeal and $ay %ppeal 5ee.3 Within the period o e#tension re=uested, $$% iled its !ecord on %ppeal on %ugust -:, -;;;. On the same day, %ugust -:, the !&C issued an Order denying $$%>s Notice o %ppeal rom the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7 on the ground o non.payment o appeal ee. In its %ugust -?, -;;; Order, the !&C denied $$%>s !ecord on %ppeal. On September )?, -;;;, the !&C denied $$%>s +otion or !econsideration o the %ugust -:, -;;; !&C order. &hus, in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1, $$% challenged the e#ecution pending appeal o the Euly -1, -;;; Order, the Euly ,), -;;; Order which issued the writ o e#ecution and the %ugust - and ,, -;;; Notices o /arnishment. In its supplemental petition in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1, $$% assailed the %ugust -:, -;;; Order which denied $$%>s motion or e#tension o time to ile !ecord on %ppeal and pay the appeal ee, the %ugust -?, -;;; Order which denied the $$%>s record on appeal and the September )?, -;;; Order which denied $$%>s motion or reconsideration.

&he pith issues, as the C% saw it, were whether or not the !&C committed grave abuse o discretion when it 6a7 denied $$%>s motion or e#tension o time to pay the appeal ee, 6b7 disapproved $$%>s record on appeal and 6c7 did not give due course to $$%>s appeal. &he C% ruled that public interest and public policy dictated that the !&C merely order $$% to pay the docFet ees during the e#tension prayed or instead o dismissing the appeal. &hus, the !&C erred in denying the motion or time to ile the record on appeal and pay the appellate docFet ees. On other collateral issues, the appellate court ruled that the orders sub"ect o the original petition in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 had been suppressed by the events that occurred a ter the iling thereo , while the e#ecution pending appeal would render moot the heart o $$%>s appealZ the issue o "ust compensation. &he C% allowed the appeal o $$% and nulli ied the =uestioned !&C orders in C%. /.!. S$ No. 9;,)1. In the instant petition, petitioners Curata, et al. 6Dimayacyac /roup7 assail, among others, the ruling o the C% allowing $$%>s appeal despite the alleged inality o the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7. &he contention o the Dimayacyac /roup is bere t o merit. &he payment o docFet ees within the prescribed period is, as a rule, mandatory or the per ection o an appeal.(1Secs. 1 and ( o !ule 1) o the !ules o Court provide, thus2 SEC. 1. %ppellate court docFet and other law ul ees.ZWithin the period or taFing an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerF o court which rendered the "udgment or inal order appealed rom, the ull amount o the appellate court docFet and other law ul ees. # # # #### SEC. (. $er ection o appealI e ect thereo .Z# # # # % party>s appeal by record on appeal is deemed per ected as to him with respect to the sub"ect matter thereo upon the approval o the record on appeal iled in due time. In appeals by notice o appeal, the court loses "urisdiction over the case upon the per ection o the appeals iled in due time and the e#piration o the time to appeal o the other parties.

# # # # 6Emphasis ours.7 &he appellant>s ailure to pay the appellate docFet ees is a ground or the dismissal o the appeal by the trial court under the succeeding Sec. ),2 SEC. ),. Dismissal o appeal.Z$rior to the transmittal o the original record or the record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial court may, motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the appeal or having been taFen out o time or or non.payment o the docFet and other law ul ees within the reglementary period. 6%s amended, %.+. No. ;;.-.);.SC, +ay ), -;;;.7 6Emphasis supplied.7 Complementing the above provisions is Sec. )6c7, !ule :;, providing in e ect that the appellate court may re use to entertain a suit or nonpayment o the appellate docFet ees. In the recent case 5il.Estate $roperties, Inc. v. 4omena.0alencia, (: we reiterated our consistent ruling that the payment o the appellate docFet ees is mandatory or the per ection o an appeal and held that the above.=uoted Sec. ), o !ule 1), as amended in -;;;, gives the additional ground or the dismissal o an appeal on the nonpayment o the re=uired appellate docFet ees, which gave orce to the ground provided under the above.=uoted Secs. 1 and ( o !ule 1). %s with most rules o procedure, however, e#ceptions are invariably recogniJed and the rela#ation o procedural rules on appeals has been e ected to obviate "eopardiJing substantial "ustice.(9 &his liberality stresses the importance o an appeal in our "udicial grievance structure to accord every party litigant the amplest opportunity or the proper and "ust disposition o his cause, reed rom the constraints o technicalities.(* <a Salette College v. $ilotin teaches that the otherwise mandatory nature o the re=uirement on payment o appellate docFet ees is to be viewed as =uali ied, as ollows2 3 irst, ailure to pay those ees within the reglementary period allows only discretionary, not automatic, dismissalI second, such power should be used by the court in con"unction with its e#ercise o sound discretion in accordance with the tenets o "ustice and air play, as well as with a great deal o circumspection in consideration o all attendant circumstances.3(? %mong the grounds that pertinent "urisprudence has recogniJed as "usti ying the loosening up o the stringent re=uirement on payment o docFet ees are2 6)7 to relieve a litigant rom an in"ustice not commensurate with his ailure to comply with the prescribed procedureI 6-7 good aith o the de aulting party by paying within a reasonable time rom the time o the de aultI 6,7 the merits o the caseI 617 a cause not entirely attributable to the ault or negligence o the party avored by the suspension o the rulesI 6:7 a lacF o any showing that the review sought is rivolous and dilatoryI 697 no un"ust pre"udice to the other partyI and 6*7 importance o the

issues involved. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation o the rules o procedure should be an e ort on the part o the party invoFing liberality to ade=uately e#plain his ailure to abide by the rules.(( E#ceptions applicable to case at bar In the case at bar, the Court rules that the public interest and the higher interests o "ustice and air play dictate that $$%>s appeal should be allowed. &he trial "udge should have permitted the appeal to prosper in view o the billions o pesos o ta#payers> money, sub"ect matter o the appeal. 5ully aware o the wide disparity between the air marFet values o the lots ranging rom $h$ -.); to ,.:; per s=uare meter based on the ta# declarations and the amount o $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter pegged as "ust compensation, the "udge cannot be said to have wielded his power to re"ect $$%>s appeal with the highest degree o circumspection. +oreover, a sharp increase in the total amount o compensation rom $$%>s o ered price o $h$ :;; per s=uare meter to $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter or an increase o ),;;;D may maFe $$% rethinF i the pro"ect is still viable in view o huge inancial re=uirements. <astly, the act that the "udge even increased the amount o $h$ 1,?;; per s=uare meter recommended by the commissioners to $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter can be a compelling reason why a review by a higher court should be allowed, given the increase o hundreds o millions granted by him over the amount proposed by the commissioners. /iven these circumstances, he should have liberally applied the procedural rules to the end that the losing party, and a government agency at thatZ the $$%Zbe given the ullest opportunity to air and e#haustively discuss countervailing arguments against the order i#ing the "ust compensation. $$% must be given a sporting chance to convince the higher court o the merits o its position. Indeed that would be in Feeping with the a#iom that the case be decided on the merits rather than on technicality. In +actan Cebu International %irport v. +angubat, the technical rules o procedure were rela#ed in view o the attending policy considerations in the interest o "ustice and e=uity. While the appellant in +actan was not able to pay the appeal ees on time, the Court considered the late payment as e#cusable in view o the importance o the issues raised therein, i.e., who had valid title over the land occupied by the +actan Cebu International %irport, and the substantial governmental interest involved, to merit a review o the case on appeal. In the same vein, $$% iled a motion to ile the record on appeal and pay the appellate docFet ee, indicating its readiness to pay within the e#tension prayed or. In view o the importance o $hase II o the '$M $ro"ect, the huge inancial implications o the prescribed compensation and the considerable interests o the government in enhancing our port acilities, the trial court should have allowed the

record on appeal and the payment o the appeal ees to a ord the higher court a second looF at the merits o the case. In the light o the oregoing, the C% did not err in allowing $$%>s appeal. %nent the second issue, petitioners Curata, et al. claim that the C% erred in taFing cogniJance o the motion or a writ o possession and declaring $$%>s entitlement to the possession o the sub"ect lots. &he position is clearly misplaced. &he C%, in its November -?, -;;; !esolution, simply re erred the motion or a writ o possession to the 'atangas !&C or immediate resolution. &his was the proper action to taFe, since the matter was not within the ambit o C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1. !egarding the third issue, petitioners =uestion the ruling o the C% that an e#ecution pending appeal would render moot the issue o "ust compensation. %ctually the C% did not categorically rule on the other issues raised by $$% in C%. /.!. S$ No. 9;,)1, relating to discretionary e#ecution, namely2 6)7 that public unds could not be garnishedI 6-7 that respondent Sheri disregarded Sec. (, !ule ,( on e#ecution o "udgmentsI 6,7 that e#ecution pending appeal was not applicable to e#propriation proceedingsI and 617 that no good reasons e#isted or e#ecution pending appeal. % ter ruling that the appeal rom the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7 shall be entertained, it declared that there was no need to rule on said issues as an e#ecution pending appeal would render academic the issue o "ust compensation. &he genuine issue to be resolved is whether or not e#ecution pending appeal is applicable to e#propriation proceedings. &he Court rules that discretionary e#ecution o "udgments pending appeal under Sec. -6a7 o !ule ,( does not apply to eminent domain proceedings. %s early as )()( in 0isayan !e ining Co. v. Camus and $aredes,);; the Court held2 When the /overnment is plainti the "udgment will naturally taFe the orm o an order merely re=uiring the payment o the award as a condition precedent to the trans er o the title, as a personal "udgment against the /overnment could not be realiJed upon e#ecution. In Commissioner o $ublic 4ighways v. San Diego, );) no less than the eminent Chie Eustice Claudio &eehanFee e#plained the rationale behind the doctrine that government unds and properties cannot be seiJed under a writ o e#ecution, thus2

&he universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant>s action 3only up to the completion o proceedings anterior to the stage o e#ecution3 and that the power o the Courts ends when the "udgment is rendered, since government unds and properties may not be seiJed under writs o e#ecution or garnishment to satis y such "udgments, is based on obvious considerations o public policy. Disbursements o public unds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as re=uired by law. &he unctions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyJed or disrupted by the diversion o public unds rom their legitimate and speci ic ob"ects, as appropriated by law. $$%>s monies, acilities and assets are government properties. Ergo, they are e#empt rom e#ecution whether by virtue o a inal "udgment or pending appeal. $$% is a government instrumentality charged with carrying out governmental unctions through the management, supervision, control and regulation o ma"or ports o the country. It is an attached agency o the Department o &ransportation and Communication pursuant to $D :;:. &his Court>s dis=uisition in ,anila 0nternational Airport Aut!orit4 v. Court of Appeals);- UUruling that +I%% is not a government.owned andAor controlled corporation 6/OCC7, but an instrumentality o the National /overnment and thus e#empt rom local ta#ation, and that its real properties are owned by the !epublic o the $hilippinesUUis instructive. &herein we ound that +I%% is neither a stocF or a non.stocF corporation, or its capital is not divided into shares nor does it have members. +oreover, the airport lands and buildings it administers are owned by the !epublic, which certainly taFes them outside the commerce o man and maFes +I%% a mere trustee thereo . &hese indings are s=uarely applicable to $$%, as it is similarly situated as +I%%. Dirst, $$% is liFewise not a /OCC or not having shares o stocFs or members. $econd, the docFs, piers and buildings it administers are liFewise owned by the !epublic and, thus, outside the commerce o man. -!ird, $$% is a mere trustee o these properties. 4ence, liFe +I%%, $$% is clearly a government instrumentality, an agency o the government vested with corporate powers to per orm e iciently its governmental unctions.);, &here ore, an undeniable conclusion is that the unds o $$% partaFe o government unds, and such may not be garnished absent an allocation by its 'oard or by statutory grant. I the $$% unds cannot be garnished and its properties, being government properties, cannot be levied via a writ o e#ecution pursuant to a inal "udgment, then the trial court liFewise cannot grant discretionary e#ecution pending appeal, as it would run a oul o the established "urisprudence that government properties are e#empt rom e#ecution. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

5rom the above discussion, we ind that the !&C committed grave abuse o discretion in its Euly -1, -;;; Order directing the e#ecution o the 5irst Compensation Order 6Euly );, -;;; Order7 pending appeal. Nevertheless, this issue o discretionary e#ecution has been rendered moot by our dispositions in this "udgment, more particularly on "ust compensation. %nent the last issue, that the C% erred in taFing cogniJance o $$%>s Supplemental petition, the Court treats the Supplemental petition as an amendment to the original petition in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1, since the issues raised therein are ine#tricably intertwined with those in the original petition. G.R. No. 1/82/2 T<% I$$u% $etitioner $$% comes to us on the sole issue o whether or not !% ?(*1 retroactively applies to Civil Case No. :11*, which was iled be ore the law tooF e ect on November -9, -;;;.);1 &he Court>s !uling &he Court recollects the antecedents that caused the iling o the instant petition2 On %ugust ):, -;;;, an !&C Order was issued i#ing the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter. On %ugust -,, -;;;, the !&C issued an Order speci ically naming !emedios !osales.'ondoc, et al. 6CruJ /roup7 as the lot owners covered by the %ugust ):, -;;; Order. On +ay ):, -;;-, the trial court directed $$% to release );D o the Jonal value deposited to the lot owners, including the CruJ /roup. On Eune )(, -;;-, the CruJ /roup iled a motion or partial reconsideration claiming payment o );;D o the Jonal value under !% ?(*1 and claiming urther that %O :; did not apply. On Euly )-, -;;-, the trial court granted the motion and ordered $$% to immediately release );;D o the Jonal valuation o the properties. $$% challenged the Euly )-, -;;- Order and other related orders in C%./.!. S$ No. *,?1?. &he C% dismissed $$%>s petition, ruling that %O :;, which prescribed guidelines or the ac=uisition o land or public use and re=uired only a deposit o );D o the amount o ered to initiate the e#propriation proceedings, was repealed by !% ?(*1. !% ?(*1 prescribed the immediate payment o );;D o the 'I! Jonal valuation. &he C% ratiocinated that !% ?(*1, a procedural law, was applicable retrospectively to Civil Case No. :11*. <astly, it relied on the statement o $$%>s %tty. %rturo 'ernardino that $$% had no ob"ection to the application o !% ?(*1, and that such mani estation was an admission against $$%>s interests.

In the instant petition, $$% asserts that !% ?(*1 is actually a substantive law that cannot be given retroactive e ect. &he Court agrees with $$%. &o resolve the issue o what rule or law on the deposit or provisional payment should apply, we need to determine which among !ule 9*, %O :; or !% ?(*1 should be o governing application to the e#propriation o the lands or the '$M pro"ect. Sec. - o !ule 9* provides or the deposit or initial payment o the total assessed value o the e#propriated property2 SEC. -. Entr4 of plaintiff upon depositing value it! aut!ori+ed government depositar4.Z@pon the iling o the complaint or at any time therea ter and a ter due notice to the de endant, the plainti shall have the right to taFe or enter upon the possession o the real property involved i he deposits with the authoriJed government depositary an amount e=uivalent to the assessed value o the property or purposes o ta#ation to be held by such banF sub"ect to the orders o the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereo the court authoriJes the deposit o a certi icate o deposit o a government banF # # #. 6Emphasis supplied.7 @nder Sec. - o %O :;, the deposit or provisional payment re=uired o the government agency is );D o the o ered amount 6the amount o ered in writing by the government agency e=uivalent to );D higher than the Jonal value o the sub"ect property7, thus2 SEC. -. E7propriation %roceedings.Z% ter the abovementioned period and no acceptance is made by the landowner, the concerned agency, in coordination with the Solicitor /eneral, shall initiate e#propriation proceedings in the proper court, depositing ten per cent 6);D7 o the o ered amount. 6Emphasis supplied.7 On the other hand, Sec. 1 o !% ?(*1 mandates a provisional payment o );;D o the 'I! Jonal value o the sub"ect land upon iling o the e#propriation case as well as the value o the improvements thereon, i any2 "%6,7o( -. *uidelines for E7propriation %roceedings.ZWhenever it is necessary to ac=uire real property or the right.o .way or location or any national government in rastructure pro"ect through e#propriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the e#propriation proceedings be ore the proper court under the ollowing guidelines2 6a7 @pon the iling o the complaint, and a ter due notice to the de endant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner o the property the amount e=uivalent to the sum o 6)7 one hundred percent 6);;D7 o the value o the property

based on the current relevant Jonal valuation o the 'ureau o Internal !evenue 6'I!7I and 6-7 the value o the improvements andAor structures as determined under Section * hereo I 6emphasis supplied.7 5or perspective, %O :; was issued on 5ebruary )*, )((( or be ore the complaint in Civil Case No. :11* was iled on October )1, )(((. On November *, -;;;, !% ?(*1 was signed into law and became e ective on November -9, -;;; a ter its publication. &he provisions o !ule 9* have remained unchanged since the )((* revision o the !ules o Civil $rocedure, which tooF e ect on Euly ), )((*. It is $$%>s posture that !ule 9*, as supplemented by %O :;, appliesI that !% ?(*1 cannot be applied retroactively or being a substantive law. &he CruJ and Ortega /roups maintain otherwise. &he !&C and the C% upheld the latter>s position and applied !% ?(*1. $$%>s contention is basically correct. Statutes are prospective and not retroactive in their operation, laws being the ormulation o rules or the uture, not the past. 4ence, the legal ma#im le7 de futuro, "ude7 de praeteritoZthe law provides or the uture, the "udge or the pastZ which is articulated in %rt. 1 o the Civil Code thusly2 3<aws shall have no retroactive e ect, unless the contrary is provided.3 &he legislative intent as to the retroactive application o a law is made mani est either by the e#press terms o the statute or by necessary implication.);: &he reason or the rule is the tendency o retroactive legislation to be un"ust and oppressive on account o its liability to unsettle vested rights or disturb the legal e ect o prior transactions.);9 % well.settled e#ception to the rule on prospectivity is when the law in =uestion is remedial in nature. &he rationale underpinning the e#ception is that no person can claim any vested right in any particular remedy or mode o procedure or the en orcement o a right.);* % perusal o !% ?(*1, %O :; and !ule 9* would readily show that they all deal with the sub"ect o e#propriation. Save or the matter o the amount to be deposited, !% ?(*1 is almost identical with the earlier issued %O :;. %ccordingly, !% ?(*1, owing to its repealing clause,);? would have superseded %O :; vis._.vis Civil Case No. :11*, were the ormer given retroactive operation. So would the prescription on deposit set orth under Sec. - o !ule 9*, which merely re=uires the e#propriating agency, upon property taFing, to deposit an amount e=uivalent to the assessed value o the lot to be e#propriated. &he =uestion to be resolved then is whether or not !% ?(*1 is a remedial statute and, hence, can be accorded retroactive e ect to apply to the e#propriation o lands or the development o $hase II o the '$M.

We answer the poser in the negative. In Republic v. *ingo4on,);( on the issue o how much must the government pay by way o initial deposit, the Court, a ter positing the applicability o !% ?(*1 to the e#propriation o N%I% $assenger &erminal III 6N%I% III7, stated the observation that the appropriate standard o "ust compensationUUinclusive o the manner o payment thereo and the initial compensation to the lot ownersUUis a substantive, not merely a procedural, matter. &he Court e#plained2 It liFewise bears noting that the appropriate standard o "ust compensation is a substantive matter. It is well within the province o the legislature to i# the standard, which it did through the enactment o !ep. %ct. No. ?(*1. Speci ically, this prescribes the new standards in determining the amount o "ust compensation in e#propriation cases relating to national government in rastructure pro"ects, as well as the payment o the provisional value as a prere=uisite to the issuance o a writ o possession. &his ruling was reiterated in this Court>s !esolution o 5ebruary ), -;;9 which urther states that2 3GIH the rule taFes away a vested right, it is not procedural, and so the converse certainly holds that i the rule or provision creates a right, it should be properly appreciated as substantive in nature. Indubitably, a matter is substantive when it involves the creation o rights to be en"oyed by the owner o property to be e#propriated. &he right o the owner to receive "ust compensation prior to ac=uisition o possession by the State o the property is a proprietary right, appropriately classi ied as a substantive matter and, thus, within the sole province o the legislature to legislate on.3 In 9intag v. /ational %o er Corporation,)); we reiterated that !% ?(*1 is a substantive law that cannot be applied retroactively2 It is well.entrenched principle that statutes, including administrative rules and regulations, operate prospectively unless the legislative intent to the contrary is mani est by e#press terms or by necessary implication because the retroactive application o a law usually divests rights that have already become vested. &his is based on the <atin ma#im2 <e# prospicit non respicit 6the law looFs orward, not bacFward7. In the application o !% No. ?(*1, the Court inds no "usti ication to depart rom this rule. 5irst, !% No. ?(*1 is a substantive law. Second, there is nothing in !% No. ?(*1 which e#pressly provides that it should have retroactive e ect. &hird, neither is retroactivity necessarily implied rom !% No. ?(*1 or in any o its provisions.

@n ortunately or the petitioners, the silence o !% No. ?(*1 and its Implementing !ules on the matter cannot give rise to the in erence that it can be applied retroactively. %pplying the lessons o /ingoyon, in relation to 9intag in the light o the a orementioned doctrinal pronouncements, !% ?(*1, to the e#tent that it imposes a certain re=uirement that is substantive in nature or disturbs substantive rights, cannot be made to apply to Civil Case :11*. Rul% 67 o( %?#0o#07',7o( '##l7%$ /iven the oregoing consideration, the ne#t =uestion that comes to mind is which between %O :; and !ule 9* applies to the instant e#propriation case. &he poser should not be di icult to resolve. While it tasFs the appropriating agency to o er, during the negotiation, a certain amount to the lot owner andAor deposit with the court a pre.determined amount or i#ed percentage o the value o the lot to be e#propriated, %O :; is no more than an internal issuance promulgated by the $resident as administrative head. @nder the %dministrative Code o )(?*, 3G%Hcts o the $resident which relate to particular aspects o government operations in pursuance o his Gor herH duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders.3))) % perusal o %O :; would readily disclose that it partaFes the nature o instructions or guide to 3all government agencies and instrumentalities # # # engaged in public in rastructure pro"ects.3))- %nd the standards enumerated therein or the assessment o the value o the land sub"ect to e#propriation are addressed to the e#propriating agency or its duly authoriJed assessor, only 3in order to acilitate the immediate "udicial determination o "ust compensation during the e#propriation proceedings.3)), &he provisions o %O :;, as couched, and the nature o administrative orders bind the o icials and agencies in the e#ecutive branch that e#ercise the power o eminent domain. 'ut not the !&C which, needless to stress, does not looF up to the $resident as administrative head in the irst place. %ny valuation or standard that may be set orth in %O :; or "ust compensation may serve only as guiding norm or one o the actors in arriving at an ideal amount. 'ut it may not taFe the place o the court>s own disposition as to what amount should be paid and how to arrive at such amount.))1 % ter all, the determination o "ust compensation in e#propriation cases is a "udicial unction.)): %O :;, or any e#ecutive issuance or that matter, cannot decree that the e#ecutive, or the department>s own determination, shall have primacy over the court>s indings.))9 &hese pronouncements can, however, be applied only to pending condemnation proceedings prior to November -9, -;;; when !% ?(*1 tooF e ect. %s o that date, !% ?(*1 had repealed %O :; or being inconsistent with the said law.

@pon the oregoing holdings, !ule 9* should be viewed in Civil Case No. :11* as governing the instant e#propriation o private respondents> lots. Since the negotiation by $$% with the lot owners or the "ust compensation bogged down, !ule 9* should have been applied independently o %O :; to Civil Case No. :11*. &hus, the correct amount o deposit or the appropriated lots should have been the assessed value o the sub"ect lots per ta# declarations pursuant to !ule 9*, given the act that courts are not bound by %O :; or by !% ?(*1 which cannot be applied retroactively in the irst place. In the actual setting at bar, the !&C can either order a deposit e=ual to the total assessed value o the lots in =uestion, as re lected in the ta# declarations o the sub"ect lotsI or, in the alternative, order the level o deposit as proposed by $$%, as it correctly did through the +ay ):, -;;- Order pegging the deposit e=uivalent to );D o the o ered amount or the e#propriated lots pursuant to Sec. - o %O :;. &hus, the +ay ):, -;;- !&C Order should be a irmed. 'ut the !&C later committed a miscue and gravely abused its discretion by issuing the Euly )-, -;;- and Euly -(, -;;- Orders applying !% ?(*1, which cannot be applied retroactively. &he recall o the Euly )- and -(, -;;- Orders is in order. &he issue o the payment o correct deposit or initial payment, however, has been rendered moot by our determination o "ust compensation or the e#propriated lots in these consolidated petitions, considering that the lot owners can already be paid the "ust compensation upon the inality o this decision. One last point on the application o !% ?(*1 and !ule 9*. !% ?(*1 amended !ule 9* e ective November -9, -;;;, but only with regard to the e#propriation o right. o .way sites and locations or national government in rastructure pro"ects. On the other hand, in all other e#propriation cases outside o right.o .way sites or locations or national government in rastructure pro"ects, the provisions o !ule 9* o the !ules o Court shall still govern. G.R. No. 166200 T<% I$$u%$ $etitioner $$% urges the allowance o its petition or certiorari on the ground that the C% committed grave abuse o discretion2 I. # # # IN DENBIN/ &4E $E&I&ION 5O! CE!&IO!%!I %ND CONC<@DIN/ &4%& &4E DECE+'E! -, -;;, O!DE! O5 !ES$ONDEN& E@D/E $%&E!NO &%C.%N 4%D %<!E%DB %&&%INED 5IN%<I&B.

II. # # # IN DEC<ININ/ &O %NN@< %ND SE& %SIDE &4E 5O<<OWIN/ O!DE!S O5 !ES$ONDEN& E@D/E $%&E!NO &%C.%N ### &O WI&2 6I7 O!DE! D%&ED DECE+'E! -, -;;,I 6II7 O!DE! D%&ED DECE+'E! )?, -;;,I 6III7 O!DE! D%&ED 5E'!@%!B ),, -;;1I 6I07 O!DE! D%&ED +%!C4 -1, -;;1I 607 O!DE! D%&ED %$!I< )-, -;;1I %ND 60I7 S@$$<E+EN&%< O!DE! D%&ED %$!I< ):, -;;1. III. IN !@<IN/ &4%& &4E $!I0%&E !ES$ONDEN&S> +O&ION 5O! ISS@%NCE O5 W!I& O5 E8EC@&ION +%B 'E &!E%&ED %S % +O&ION 5O! E8EC@&ION $ENDIN/ %$$E%<.))* &o recall, this petition turns on the C%>s ruling in C%./.!. S$ No. ?,:*;, a certiorari proceeding in which $$% assailed2 a7 the December -, -;;, !&C order declaring the lots o a ected landowners G%gustin /roupH to be industrial with an applicable Jonal valuation o $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter and directing the release, as initial payment, o the amount e=uivalent to );;D o the Jonal valuationI b7 the December )?, -;;, order directing the $$% to release );D o the Jonal value o $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meterI c7 the 5ebruary ),, -;;1 order granting the writ o e#ecution o the December -, -;;, orderI d7 the +arch -1, -;;1 order denying $$%>s motion to stay e#ecutionI e7 the %pril )-, -;;1 order and %pril ):, -;;1 supplemental order directing the urther release o :;D o the Jonal valuation at $h$ 1,-:;I and 7 the %pril )9, -;;1 writ o e#ecution. &he C% a irmed the legality o the a orelisted !&C Orders. &he Court>s !uling %nent the irst issue o the inality o the December -, -;;, Order and the third issue that the e#ecution o said Order is considered by the trial court as e#ecution pending appeal, the Court rules that said issues have been resolved, albeit indirectly, by our

ruling in G.R. No. 1/82/2 where we held that !% ?(*1, being a substantive law, could not be applied retroactively to Civil Case No. :11*. It should be borne in mind that the +otion or Immediate $ayment dated September -:, -;;, iled by the %gustin /roup was based on Sec. 16a7 o !% ?(*1 in relation to Sec. ), o its Implementing !ules and !egulations. Sec. 16a7 provides2 6a7 @pon the iling o the complaint, and a ter due notice to the de endant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner o the property the amount e=uivalent to the sum o 6)7 one hundred percent 6);;D7 o the value o the property based on the current relevant Jonal valuation o the 'ureau o Internal !evenue 6'I!7I and 6-7 the value o the improvements andAor structures as determined under Section * hereo I Due to the inapplicability o !% ?(*1 to the instant e#propriation proceedings be ore the 'atangas !&C, the December -, -;;, Order must be revoFed and set aside or want o basis. In view o our disposition in G.R. No$. 170683 and 173392, which shall be touched upon shortly, substantially pruning the compensation i#ed by the trial court, then the e#ecution o the Court>s "udgment on the "ust compensation will veritably supersede the en orcement o the assailed orders seeFing to implement the trial court>s orders on the compensation in =uestion. &hus, the issue o the legality and propriety o said !&C orders has become moot. With regard to the second issue as to whether or not the C% gravely abused its discretion in a irming the a oresaid December -, -;;, !&C Order, applying the valuation certi ied to by 'I! %sst. !DO %bencio &orres o 'atangas City or the e#propriated lots at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter as initial payment under !% ?(*1, the Court liFewise inds that this issue has also been mooted by our ruling that !% ?(*1 has no prospective application. Even i we resolve the issue on the merits, the December -, -;;, Order has to be nulli ied. +uch reliance was made by the trial "udge on the Euly (, -;;- Certi ication issued by %sst. !DO &orres o the 'atangas City 'I! o ice that the e#propriated lots had a Jonal value o $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter, and that the lots were industrial in nature. &his was a gross abuse o discretion on the part o Eudge &ac.an. 5or one, the 'I! o icial who certi ied the Jonal value was not even the head o the 'I! revenue district o ice, but an assistant. It had not been demonstrated that he had the power or authority to issue such certi ication as to the value o the lots in =uestion. &he certi ication was not under oath. &orres was not called to testi y on the contents o his certi ication. &he contents, there ore, are sel .serving and hearsay. &orres liFewise did not cite the basis or his certi ication, nor did he e#plain the process

used to reach the conclusions contained therein. %s such, the &orres certi ication is totally bere t o weight and credit. What was patently erroneous on the part o Eudge &ac.an was his ailure to apply Department Order No. 6DO7 ,).(* issued by the Department o 5inance 6DO57 on 5ebruary )), )((*, when said order was the o icial issuance o the DO5 on the current Jonal valuation o lots in the province o 'atangas. &he Secretary o 5inance irst approves the Jonal valuation be ore it is given legal e ect. Said DO became e ective on Euly )1, )((*. DO ,).(* is the o icial government repository o the Jonal valuations o lots in the province o 'atangas, which is used by the 'I! and other government agenciesZespecially the !egistrar o DeedsZwith regard to the trans ers o titled lots. &he Jonal valuations contained in DO ,).(* are the results o a rigorous process and cannot be the sole handiworF o a mere %ssistant !evenue District O icer liFe &orres. %s e#plained during the +arch -:, -;;? oral arguments, the current relevant Jonal valuation o an area is arrived at ollowing a particular process. &he 'I! orms a technical committee to gather all the recent sales and conveyances submitted to the 'I! or purposes o capital gains ta#, estate ta# and 0%& in a particular area. &he committee liFewise gets the schedule o values rom the local assessor>s o ice. %rmed with these data, the committee conducts a public hearing where the landowners, broFers, businessmen and those who will be a ected by the resultant Jonal valuation usually attend. &herea ter, an e#ecutive committee o the 'I! endorses the proposed Jonal valuation to the Commissioner o Internal !evenue 6CI!7 who, in turn, recommends the same to the Secretary o 5inance or approval. &he Euly (, -;;- Certi ication o %sst. !DO &orres has not been shown to have been the product o such process and, hence, is not worthy o weight or credit. &hus, Eudge &ac.an, as a veteran trial "udge, should have Fnown o the e#istence o DO ,). (* and taFen "udicial notice thereo . Eudge &ac.an>s stance o using the &orres certi ication instead o DO ,).(* only reveals his ailure to Feep abreast with the recent developments in law and "urisprudence as re=uired o all magistrates under the Code o Eudicial Conduct. 4ad Eudge &ac.an repaired to the Jonal values contained in DO ,).(*, he would have readily Fnown that the Jonal value o the lots in 'rgy. Calicanto, 'atangas City, is $h$ 1;; per s=uare meter and $h$ -(; per s=uare meter or lots in 'rgy. 'olboF. In both barangays, the classi ication o all the lots were agricultural and not industrial as declared in the assailed December -, -;;, Order. &he Jonal values o $h$ 1;; per s=uare meter or Calicanto lots and $h$ -(; per s=uare meter or 'olboF lots were a ar cry rom the amount o $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter i#ed by &orres, which was undeniably unconscionable and un"ust. &hus, the December -, -;;, Order has to be nulli iedI andZtogether with the December )?, -;;,, 5ebruary ),, -;;1, +arch -1, -;;1, %pril )-, -;;1, and %pril ):, -;;1 OrdersZmust, liFe a stacF o cards, all to the ground or total absence o support and basis.

G.R. No. 168272 T<% I$$u% $etitioners !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo argue that the C% erred in setting aside the !&C decision o November 9, -;;, and related processes that allowed e#ecution vis._.vis their claim or "ust compensation o $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter based on the !&C>s Euly );, -;;; Order. ))? T<% Cou0,9$ Rul7(; &his petition concerns only lot owners !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo, who, a ter securing a avorable ruling on November 9, -;;, rom the !&C, lost in C%./.!. S$ No. ?-()*, on the issue o whether or not they are included within the ambit o the Euly );, -;;; !&C Order 65irst Compensation Order7. &o recall, the trial court issued the "ust compensation orderZthe Euly );, -;;; Order))( Zthe allo o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, #l'7(,7:: 7$ <%0%5y o0)%0%) ,o #'y ,<% '5o=%.('8%) )%:%()'(,$ the price o $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter o their lands sub"ect o e#propriation as a condition precedent or trans erring ownership, pursuant to Sec. 1, !ule 9* o the !evised !ules o Court. SO O!DE!ED.)-; 6Emphasis ours.7 &he Order listed and enumerated the ollowing de endants2 ). Spouses Ernesto Curata L <ourdes 5. CurataI -. Eduardo +. +ontalboI ,. Spouses +arcelino Dalangin L 0italiana DalanginI 1. $ablo SumangaI :. 4eirs o +ateo +acaraigI 9. 4eirs o $aulina %costaI *. 4eirs o Nicolas %ldoverI ?. Spouses +arciano +analo L <ucila /abia, /regorio 5altado, Silverio !osales and Cesario IlaoI (. 4eirs o %ldoverI );. Catalina $ereJ, <orna $antangco, Sonia $antangco, 'elen $antangco, Ireneo $antangco, Er., $edro ChaveJ, Saturnina $ereJ, Estelita C. $ereJ, Estelita +. $ereJ, !omeo $ereJ, !uben $ereJ, +ario $ereJ, Nabocho DonaJa $ereJ, +anuel $ereJ, 4erminigildo $ereJ, +ayhayda $ereJ, %l redo $ereJ, Ernesto $ereJ and %raceli $ereJ 6represented by !osario $ereJ !osel7I )). 5red +. 4ernandeJ 6married to Susana Ilao7 and 0icente /utierreJI )-. +aria <acsamanaI ),. Euana +acaladladI )1. 5elisa 4ernandeJ, 5elino 4ernandeJ and 5lorentino +acatangayI ):. 4eirs o 'asilio +acaraig and $acienca del +undo. Since petitioners 'uena e and Castillo are not among those listed in the Euly );, -;;; Order, then the C% correctly ruled that they were not covered by said order and could not bene it there rom. Said 5irst Compensation Order speaFs or itsel , and

there is no room or doubt as to its coverage. $lainly, 'uena e and Castillo cannot claim compensation, or the assailed order has no legal orce and e ect on them. In a vain attempt on the part o 'uena e and Castillo to use the Euly );, -;;; Order as basis or a writ o e#ecution, they iled a +otion on October )1, -;;- asFing the trial court to implement the September -(, -;;; writ o e#ecution pursuant to the =uestioned Euly );, -;;; Order. On November 9, -;;,, the trial court issued an order granting the issuance o the writ o e#ecution, thus2 Considering that the landownersAde endants !osalinda 'uena e married to +elencio Castillo is included in the complaint and that she had iled an %nswerI that the area involved is -,;(- s=. m. with air marFet value arrived by the Court at $hp:,:;;.;;I that she was included in the Writ o E#ecution dated September -(, -;;; and that she was not included as party de endant in the appeal iled by plainti I let a Writ o E#ecution be issued, it appearing that the amounts sub"ect o e#ecution has become inal and e#ecutory. SO O!DE!ED. &he C% nulli ied the a ore.=uoted Order on the ground that the Euly );, -;;; Order had not attained inality with respect to 'uena e and Castillo, since they were not included in said order in the irst place, and there ore there was no need to include them in the appeal interposed by $$% rom the said Euly );, -;;; Order. &he lot owners challenge the C% ruling in the instant petition. &he plea o 'uena e and Castillo must ail. It is simple logic that said petitioners were not included in the $$%>s appeal, since they were not covered by the Euly );, -;;; Order. 4ence, they cannot claim that because they were not included in the appeal, then they can demand e#ecution o an order that does not apply to them in the irst place. +ore importantly, since they are not included in the 5irst Compensation Order, then such order cannot be considered as an ad"udication in their avor. Conse=uently, the nulli ication o the November 9, -;;, Order utiliJing the Euly );, -;;; Order is proper. Where the Order o e#ecution is not in harmony with and e#ceeds the inal order that gives it li e, the order has pro tanto no validity. Even i we concede that petitioners 'uena e and Castillo are included in the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6the Second Compensation Order7 based on the catch.all clause 3those similarly situated, including those who did not ile answer3 in said order, still the November 9, -;;, Order granting to them $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter has to be amended in light o our ruling in G.R. No. 173392 on "ust compensation. G.R. No. 170683 '() G.R. No. 173392

T<% I$$u%$ In G.R. No. 170683 O $etitioner $$% raises the ollowing grounds or our consideration2 I $E&I&IONE! W%S DE$!I0ED O5 I&S !I/4& &O % $!E.&!I%< %ND &O $!ESEN& E0IDENCE %ND, 4ENCE, I&S !I/4& &O D@E $!OCESS. II &4E E8$!O$!I%&ED <O&S %!E %/!IC@<&@!%< <O&S. III &4E GC%H +IS%$$!E4ENDED &4E 5%C&S %ND %C&ED WI&4 /!%0E %'@SE O5 DISC!E&ION IN %55I!+IN/ &4E &!I%< CO@!&>S O!DE! D%&ED SE$&E+'E! *, -;;;.)-) In G.R. No. 170683 O $$% seeFs reconsideration o the Court>s %ugust -*, -;;* Decision on the ollowing grounds2 I. &4E /O0E!N+EN& &I+E<B IN&E!$OSED %N %$$E%< 5!O+ &4E %@/@S& ):, -;;; O!DE!, W4IC4 IS &4E 5IN%< O!DE! &4%& DIS$OSED O5 &4E +E!I&S O5 &4E E8$!O$!I%&ION C%SE. II. !@<ES ON CI0I< C%SES !E<%&I0E &O E8EC@&IONS $ENDIN/ %$$E%< S4O@<D NO& 'E %$$<IED &O &4E S$ECI%< CI0I< %C&ION O5 E+INEN& DO+%IN, <ES& &4E !E+EDB O5 %$$E%< 'ECO+ES N@/%&O!B. III. &4E 3E@S& CO+$ENS%&ION3 %S DE5INED 'B &4E &!I%< CO@!& IN I&S %@/@S& ):, -;; O!DE!, &4%& ISZ$:,:;;.;; $E! SO@%!E +E&E! O5 !%W +%!S4<%ND IN '%&%N/%S 6IN%CCESSI'<E %ND S@'+E!/ED IN W%&E! %& &4E &I+E O5 &4E &%PIN/7ZIS $%&EN&<B @NE@S&. I0.

&4E IN&E!ES& !%&E %$$<IC%'<E &O E8$!O$!I%&ION $!OCEEDIN/S IS 9D $E! %NN@+.)-/iven that the petitions in G.R. No$. 1/-211.12, G.R. No. 170683 and G.R. No. 173392 involve related appeals rom the !&C Orders i#ing "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter, as well as the three 6,7 other petitions bearing on the same issue o the proper compensation, the Court, to avoid repetitiousness, will enter a "oint ruling on the said issue o "ust compensation that should be paid to the lot owners sub"ect o Civil Case No. :11*. In the interest o e#peditious dispensation o "ustice, the Court will no longer await the resolution o the issue o "ust compensation sub"ect o $$%>s reinstated appeal in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1, involving the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7, and instead decide $$%>s appeal in these consolidated petitions. <iFewise, the legality and propriety o all assailed orders o the 'atangas !&C relating to the main issue o "ust compensation in Civil Case No. :11* shall be resolved "ointly in these petitions. T<% Cou0,9$ I(7,7'l Rul7(; 7( G.R. No. 173392 On %ugust -1, -;;*, the Court, through its 5irst Division, rendered the Decision, now under reconsideration, denying $$%>s petition or review on certiorari and a irming the resolution o the C% in the consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ Nos. ?*?11 and (;*(9. In dismissing $$%>s petition, the %ugust -1, -;;* Decision 65irst Division o the Court7 e#plained that the %ugust ):, -;;; Order was interlocutory and, there ore, could not be the sub"ect o appeal. Even i it were, the Court adopted the inding o the C% that the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter had basis and was consistent with statutory standards. It urther ruled that $$%>s petition be ore the C% assailing the +ay -(, -;;) Order granting the e#ecution o the %ugust -,, -;;; Order 6CruJ /roup7 and related !&C orders was iled late, having been iled more than three 6,7 years and si# 697 months rom receipt o the +ay -(, -;;) Order. Even i iled on time, there was no error on the part o the trial court, since there was no appeal iled by $$% rom the %ugust -,, -;;; Order 6in avor o the CruJ /roup7 which had become inal and e#ecutory. %nent the third issue, it was ruled that the immediate payment o the Jonal value o the sub"ect lots based on the Euly (, -;;'I! certi ication o %sst. !DO &orres pursuant to !% ?(*1 was proper, and that the !&C did not commit any grave abuse o discretion in ordering the payment thereo . <astly, the petition to cite Eudge &ac.an or contempt o court has become moot and academic as he has retired compulsorily rom the Eudiciary. &he allo o the Decision under reconsideration reads2

W4E!E5O!E, we DENB the petition. &he assailed !esolution o the Court o %ppeals in these consolidated cases2 C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, and C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9 is %55I!+ED. &he &!O we issued on %ugust *, -;;9 is <I5&ED. &he trial court is directed to implement its :7('l '() %?%6u,o0y O0)%0 dated %ugust -,, -;;; re=uiring petitioner G$$%H to pay respondents, represented by %tty. Cesar CruJ, "ust compensation at $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter o their e#propriated lots, with )-D interest per annum rom the date o petitioner>s entry on the lots or on September )), -;;) until ully paid. <iFewise, the trial court is directed to implement the ollowing :7('l '() %?%6u,o0y O0)%0$ re=uiring petitioner to pay respondents "ust compensation at $:,:;;.;; per s=uare meter pursuant to its Order dated %ugust ):, -;;;, with )-D interest per annum rom the date o e#propriation on September )), -;;) until ully paid2 ). Order dated Euly );, -;;; or respondents represented by %tty. !eynaldo DimayacyacI -. Order dated %ugust )*, -;;; or respondents represented by %tty. Emmanuel %gustinI ,. Order dated %ugust )?, -;;; or respondents represented by %tty. /regorio OrtegaI and 1. Order dated %ugust -,, -;;; or respondent $astor !ealty Corporation. It is understood that the Jonal value per s=uare meter o the e#propriated lots, classi ied as industrial, is increased rom $1;;.;; to $1,-:;.;; per s=uare meter. &he initial deposit paid by petitioner to respondents shall be deducted rom the total amount o "ust compensation payable to them. SO O!DE!ED.)-, &he allo reveals that the legality o the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7 issued in avor o the Dimayacyac /roup, which was actually the sub"ect o the unresolved appeal in C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1 be ore the C%, was decided by the Court 65irst Division7 in /.!. No. )*,,(-. On September *, -;;*, $$% interposed a motion or reconsideration. On December );, -;;*, the %ugust -1, -;;* Decision o the 5irst Division in G.R. No. 173392, with the pending motion or reconsideration, was re erred en consulta to

the Court En 8anc. On Eanuary -(, -;;?, it was accepted as a case or the Court En 'anc.)-1 In its motion or reconsideration, $$% argues that2 6)7 the government timely interposed an appeal rom the %ugust ):, -;;; Order, which was the inal order that disposed o the merits o the e#propriation caseI 6-7 rules on civil cases relative to e#ecutions pending appeal should not be applied to the special civil action o eminent domain, lest the remedy o appeal becomes nugatoryI 6,7 3"ust compensation3 as de ined by the trial court in its %ugust ):, -;;; OrderZthat is, $hp :,:;; per s=uare meter o raw marshland in 'atangas 6inaccessible and submerged in water at the time o the taFing7Zis patently un"ustI and 617 the interest rate applicable to e#propriation proceedings is 9D per annum. 'e ore we decide the main issue o "ust compensation, we irst resolve the procedural issue o whether or not the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 is a inal or interlocutory order. % second hard looF constrains the Court to recall its previous ruling that the assailed order is interlocutory in nature. D7$,7(6,7o( 5%,>%%( '( 7(,%0lo6u,o0y '() ' :7('l o0)%0 In 0nvestments, 0nc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court e#plained the nature o a inal order and how it di ers rom one that is interlocutory, in the ollowing wise2 &he concept o 3final "udgment3, as distinguished rom one which has 3become inal3 R is de inite and settled. % 3 inal3 "udgment or order is one that inally disposes o a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an ad"udication on the merits which, on the basis o the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations o the parties are and which party is in the rightI # # #. Once rendered, the tasF o the Court is ended, as ar as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities o the litigants is concerned. No,<7(; 8o0% 0%8'7($ ,o 5% )o(% 5y ,<% Cou0, %?6%#, ,o '>'7, ,<% #'0,7%$9 (%?, 8o=% 6which, among others, may consist o the iling o a motion or new trial or reconsideration, or the taFing o an appeal7 '() ul,78',%ly, o: 6ou0$%, ,o 6'u$% ,<% %?%6u,7o( o: ,<% Bu);8%(, o(6% 7, 5%6o8%$ E:7('lE or, to use the established and more distinctive term, 3final and e7ecutor4.3 #### Conversely, an order that does not inally dispose o the case, and does not end the court>s tasF o ad"udicating the parties> contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is 3interlocutory,3 e.g., # # #. @nliFe a 3 inal3 "udgment or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an interlocutory order may not be

=uestioned on appeal e#cept only as part o an appeal that may be eventually taFen rom the inal "udgment rendered in this case.)-: 6Emphasis ours.7 %ccording to Sec. ), !ule )1) o the !ules o Court, governing appeals rom the regional trial courts to the C%, an appeal may be taFen only rom a "udgment or inal order that completely disposes o the case or o a matter therein when declared by the !ules to be appealable. Said provision, thus, e#plicitly states that no appeal may be taFen rom an interlocutory order. While the general rule proscribes the appeal o an interlocutory order, there are also recogniJed e#ceptions to that rule. Where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inade=uacy o an appeal, then the special civil action o certiorari or prohibition may e#ceptionally be allowed.)-9 &his Court recogniJes that, under certain situations, recourse to e#traordinary legal remedies, such as a petition or certiorari, is considered proper to =uestion the denial o a motion to =uash 6or any other interlocutory order7 in the interest o a 3more enlightened and substantial "usticeI3)-* or to promote public wel are and public policyI )-? or when the cases 3have attracted nationwide attention, maFing it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereo I3)-( or when the order was rendered with grave abuse o discretion.),; Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order2 6)7 when the tribunal issued such order without or in e#cess o "urisdiction or with grave abuse o discretionI and 6-7 when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy o appeal would not a ord ade=uate and e#peditious relie .),) Au;u$, 1/, 2000 O0)%0 D"%6o() Co8#%($',7o( O0)%0A 7$ ' :7('l o0)%0 Essentially, an e#propriation suit is commenced because the parties concerned cannot come to an agreement as to the price o ered or the lot needed by the e#propriating agency. Once e#propriation is ruled to be proper, then the irst compensation or the lot to be taFen must be determined. Once the "ust compensation is i#ed, then the rights o the landowners and the corresponding obligation o the e#propriating government agency are conte#tually de ined and settled, and there is really nothing to be done save the en orcement o the corresponding order. %s this Court stressed in ,unicipalit4 of 8iOan v. *arcia2 3&he order i#ing the "ust compensation on the basis o the evidence be ore Gthe courtH, and indings o , the commissioners would be :7('l, tooG, as itH would # # # leave nothing more to be done by the GcHourt regarding GthisH issue.3),&he pertinent portion o the Second Compensation Order 6%ugust ):, -;;; Order7 reads2 +'$%) o( ,<% :o0%;o7(; 6o($7)%0',7o($, ,<% Cou0, <%0%5y $%,$ ,<% :'70 8'0H%, ='lu% o: < /,/00 #%0 $@u'0% 8%,%0 o: ,<% lo,$ o: ,<% '5o=%.('8%) )%:%()'(,$ '() ,<o$% $787l'0ly $7,u',%) 7(6lu)7(; ,<o$% ><o )7) (o, :7l% '($>%0.

T<% Cou0, 0ul%$ ,<', ,<% Au;u$, 1/, 2000 O0)%0 7$ ' :7('l o0)%0. Our ruling on the meaning o a inal order in '% 5inance Corp. v. C% is illuminating2 Section -, !ule 1) o the !evised !ules o Court provides that 36o7nly inal "udgments or orders shall be sub"ect to appeal.3 Interlocutory or incidental "udgments or orders do not stay the progress o an action nor are they sub"ect o appeal 3until inal "udgment or order is rendered or one party or the other.3 &he test to determine whether an order or "udgment is interlocutory or inal is this2 3Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits o the caseT I it does, it is interlocutoryI i it does not, it is inal.3 % court order is inal in character i it puts an end to the particular matter resolved or settles de initely the matter therein disposed o , such that no urther =uestions can come be ore the court e#cept the e#ecution o the order. &he term 3 inal3 "udgment or order signi ies a "udgment or an order which disposes o the cause as to all the parties, reserving no urther =uestions or directions or uture determination. &he order or "udgment may validly re er to the entire controversy or to some de inite and separate branch thereo . 3In the absence o a statutory de inition, a inal "udgment, order or decree has been held to be # # # one that inally disposes o , ad"udicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights o the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some de inite and separate branch thereo , and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside.3 &he central point to consider is, there ore, the e ects o the order on the rights o the parties.),, 5rom the oregoing, it is beyond any e=uivocation that the assailed Order de initely settles the issue o what is the "ust compensation or the de endants outside o the Dimayacyac /roup who were covered by the Euly );, -;;; Order which is by the way also a inal order. &he %ugust ):, -;;; Order inally disposes o the issue o valuation or the lots o said de endants, leaving nothing more or uture determination. It, thus, i#ed the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter and nothing remains e#cept the e#ecution o the Order. &he trial court was actually about to e#ecute the inal %ugust ):, -;;; Order and other implementing orders were it not or the restraining order and writ o in"unction issued by the Court. 5urthermore, even a simple perusal o the Second Compensation Order easily reveals the "usti ication and arguments in support o the trial court>s inding that the "ust compensation is at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter 6-nd paragraph o %ugust ):, -;;; Order7. It cited the Euly );, -;;; Order i#ing the "ust compensation or the lots o Dimayacyac /roup at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter. It cited the indings and recommendations o Cuervo %ppraisers, Inc. that the air marFet value ranges rom $h$ :,:;; to a ma#imum o $h$ 9,;;;. It mentioned the sales in avor o Demetrio +arasigan, %ndrea $alacios and 5irst /as where the prices ranged rom $h$ :,;;; per s=uare meter to $h$ );,;;; per s=uare meter. It liFewise considered Dimaano v. $$%, which pegged the price at $h$ );,;;; per s=uare meter. <astly, it cited &oledo

City v. 5ernandes where it was ruled that the air marFet valuation is greatly guided by prior sales near the date o e#propriation. &he te#t o the assailed order and the concluding paragraph pegging the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter ully complies with Sec. ) o !ule ,9 which reads2 Rendition of "udgments and final orders.Z% "udgment or inal order determining the merits o the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the "udge, stating clearly and distinctly the acts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and iled with the clerF o the court. &he %ugust ):, -;;; Order was signed by the issuing "udge who stated therein the acts and the law on which it was based. &he same order declared the rights o the lot owners to "ust compensation and the obligation o $$% to pay the private respondents "ust compensation or their lots taFen to be well.nigh de ined or at least ascertainable. &he Order is, there ore, an ad"udication on the merits o the issue o "ust compensation, as it declares the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter. Such inding is in avor o the above.named de endants and those similarly situated including those who did not ile an answer. $er orce, we vacate our holding in the assailed %ugust -1, -;;* Decision in /.!. No. )*,,(- that the %ugust ):, -;;; !&C Order is an interlocutory order. Indeed said order was a inal order that could be the sub"ect o appeal, which was timely interposed by $$%. W<7l% 7, 7$ ,0u% ,<', ,<% 6o(6lu)7(; #'0';0'#< 7$ (o, ,<% ,y#76'l )7$#o$7,7=% #o0,7o( ,<', $,'0,$ >7,< ,<% >o0) EWHEREFOREE o0 ,<% #<0'$% EIN &IEW OF THE FOREGOING,E ,<% :l'>, 7: 7, 6'( 5% 6o($7)%0%) '$ $u6<, 0%l',%$ o(ly ,o :o08 '() 7$ u(78#o0,'(,. W<', 7$ 6l%'0 ,o ,<% Cou0, 7$ ,<', ,<% 6o(6lu)7(; #'0';0'#< 6o(,'7($ ,<% )7$#o$7,7o( o: ,<% ,07'l 6ou0,, ><76< :7('lly 0%$ol=%$ ,<% 7$$u% o: Bu$, 6o8#%($',7o(. "u5$%@u%(, O0)%0$ 78#l%8%(,7(; ,<% Au;u$, 1/, 2000 O0)%0 '0% 8%0% 7(,%0lo6u,o0y o0)%0$ &he orders issued to en orce the Second Compensation Order are the !&C Orders dated %ugust )*, )?, and -,, -;;;, which named and speci ied the lot owners indicated in the %ugust ):, -;;; Order as 3above.named de endants and those similarly situated including those who did not ile answer.3 %ll these orders are anchored or based on the %ugust ):, -;;; Order as they are all uni ormly pre aced as having been issued 3 u0$u'(, ,o ,<% O0)%0 o: 1/ Au;u$, 2000.3 Clearly the mother order was the %ugust ):, -;;; Order which ruled on the "ust compensation or the e#propriated lots. &he subse=uent orders principally served merely to implement the %ugust ):, -;;; Order and were mere interlocutory, as the issue o "ust compensation had already been resolved in the %ugust ):, -;;; Order, a inal order. &he subse=uent orders 6%ugust )*, )?, and -,, -;;; Orders7 did not dispose

o the issue o "ust compensation or declare the rights and obligations o the parties, as these matters were already decided in the %ugust ):, -;;; Order. Said orders were issued simply to clari y the %ugust ):, -;;; Order, or the =uestion o who were 3the above.named de endants and those similarly situated including those who did not ile answer3 had to be straightened out. &hese were simply clari icatory and implementing orders o the %ugust ):, -;;; Order, but nevertheless o interlocutory nature and did not need to be appealed, as the %ugust ):, -;;; Order had already been sub"ect o an appeal to the C% 6C%./.!. C0 No. **99?7. 4ence, the %ugust )*, )?, and -,, -;;; Orders, speci ically mentioning the lot owners, cannot be e#ecuted on the sole ground that the same have became inal. &hese orders will rise or all depending on the outcome o the appeal rom the %ugust ):, -;;; Order in C%./.!. C0 No. **99?. Even i it is conceded that the %ugust )*, )?, and -,, -;;; Orders are inal orders, $$% need not interpose an appeal rom each one, since it has already appealed the principal orderZthe %ugust ):, -;;; OrderUUand the decision in said appeal will be binding and conclusive on the said implementing orders. Eust compensation In view o our ruling that the %ugust ):, -;;; Order is the inal order that can be appealed to the C%, thus removing the technical hurdle, the correctness o the ruling o the trial court that the "ust compensation is $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter will have to be e#amined anew on the merits. %s earlier stated, G.R. No. 173392, which was an appeal rom C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 that stemmed rom the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7, revolves around the issue o "ust compensation. &he other si# petitionsZparticularly G.R. No$. 1/-211.12, which pertain to the appeal o $$% rom the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7 a ecting lot owners Ernesto Curata, et al. 6Dimayacyac /roup7Zare to be resolved "ointly with /.!. No. )*,,(-, as these also pivot on the issue o "ust compensation. 5air marFet value, as an eminent domain concept, is determined by, among other actors, the 6<'0'6,%0 o: ,<% #0o#%0,y ', ,<% ,78% o: ,<% ,'H7(; o: ,<% #0o#%0,y.),1 It is basic that the nature and character o the land at the time o the taFing is the principal criterion or determining how much "ust compensation is to be given to the lot owner,),: not the potential o the e#propriated area.),9 With these principles in mind, it is clear that the act that the sub"ect lots would eventually be developed as an integral part o the '$M and conse=uently devoted to industrial use is o little moment or purposes o determining "ust compensation. %nd the adaptability or conversion in the uture o the lots ound within the '$M is a actor, but not the ultimate in determining "ust compensation.

% ter a circumspect reevaluation and analysis o the records and evidence at hand and taFing into care ul account the in ormation gathered rom the oral arguments, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the "ust compensation or the ull and air e=uivalent o the property sought to be e#propriated),* at the time o taFing is $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. &he reasons or recalling our previous ruling a irming the C% decision pegging the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter are2 No l'() 6l'$$7:76',7o( u()%0 EO 38/ '() -31 /irst, the sub"ect e#propriated properties at the time o the taFing were classi ied as neither industrial nor commercial, since EO ,?:),? and EO 1,)),( did not convert the sub"ect lots within the '$M into industrial or commercial. EO ,?:, as couched, did no more than set the metes and bounds o , in ine delineate, the '$M to acilitate and regulate the taFing o private properties or the development o the port Jone. &he complementing EO 1,) e#panded the '$M. 'oth EOs are not land.reclassi ying instruments. &he te#ts o both e#ecutive acts suggest as much. Contrary to what the respondents maintain, the issuances EOs ,?: and 1,), standing alone, did not convert the lots within the Jone rom agricultural into industrial or commercial. A%07'l #<o,o;0'#<$ $<o> '6,u'l 6<'0'6,%07P',7o( o: l'() ,econd, the characteriJation o the disputed lots is undeniably agricultural lands coming in the orm o horticultural land, salt bed, ish ponds and swampy areas. Since EO ,?: and EO 1,) did not ipso facto reclassi y the sub"ect e#propriated lands into commercial or industrial, they remain agricultural. %dding corroborative, but certainly signi icant, support to the above conclusion on the agricultural nature o the lots at the proposed port site are the uncontroverted aerial photographs )1; o the areas that were submitted by the $$%. I the adage 3pictures don>t lie3 is to be ollowed, then those aerial photographs give a conclusive dimension to what they depict. T'? D%6l'0',7o($ $<o> $u5B%6, l'()$ '0% ';076ul,u0'l l'()$ Third, the ta# declarations o private respondentsZveritable admissions against interestZclearly show that the sub"ect e#propriated lots were agricultural. &he e#hibits)1) submitted by, inter alia, the private respondents, represented by %tty. Ortega 6Ortega /roup7, indicate that all but three described their landholdings as agricultural. In the ordinary scheme o things, these e#hibits carry a high evidentiary value, being, as to the ta#.declaring respondents, in the nature o admissions against interest.

% scrutiny o these ta# declarations in =uestion readily shows that only three 6,7, out o some ?? lot owners, characteriJed their lands as non.agricultural. We re er to EsperanJa Dimaandal, who declared her property in 'rgy. 'olboF to be industrial.)1- 3!esidential,3 on the other hand, was how $ablo D. +endoJa, with respect to one o his lots,)1, and Segundina '. /ualberto as to her landholding)11 in the same barangay, declared their respective properties. 'ut whether or not any o the three actually used his or her land or residential or industrial purposes was an important actual matter le t undetermined by the trial court. Such claim, moreover, was not buttressed by clear and convincing proo . Eudging rom said ta# declarations, it may sa ely be deduced that the lands sought to be occupied by the '$M are generally, i not wholly, agricultural, salt bed, horticultural andAor swampy ishponds. &he nagging act, however, remainsZthat an overwhelming ma"ority o the lots were neither commercial nor industrial in character and were not viewed or even used as such by the very owners themselves. DO 31.97 $<o>$ ';076ul,u0'l 6l'$$7:76',7o( o: $u5B%6, l'()$ /ourth, the adverted DO ,).(*, setting Jonal valuation o several localities in 'atangas City, which include 'arangays 'olboF and Calicanto where the sub"ect lands are located, clearly indicates that the sub"ect e#propriated lands were agricultural. %s discussed above in our resolution o G.R. No. 166200, DO ,).(* covering the barriosAbarangays where the e#propriated lands are located did not have any lot classi ied as industrial. &his is another piece o evidence that accentuates the real nature o sub"ect lands as agricultural prior to and during the taFing by $$%. $er DO ,).(*, the e#propriated lots located at 'rgy. Calicanto, 'atangas City, were assigned the value o $h$ 1;; per s=uare meterI and those located at 'rgy. 'olboF, 'atangas City, the value o $h$ -(; per s=uare meter. &he valuation made under DO ,).(* is re lected in the 'atangas City 'I! !evenue District No. :? Jonal valuation as Jonal valuation o agricultural lands in 'arangays Calicanto and 'olboF. )1: &his is not to mention that the sub"ect e#propriated lots are duly itemiJed in the <ists or Deposit 'ased on the )((? Monal 0aluation as per Court Order. )19 !egarding the lots ound in 'rgy. Sta. Clara, DO ,).(* does not have any Jonal valuation or said lots. 4owever, under the guidelines set or 'I! Jonal valuations through department orders, the rule is thatZwhere there is no Jonal value prescribed or a particular classi ication o real property in one barangayZthe Jonal value prescribed or the same classi ication o real property located in an ad"acent barangay o similar conditions shall be used. No. )6b7 o the guidelines under DO ,).(* covering !DO No. :?, 'atangas City pertinently provides2

CE!&%IN /@IDE<INES IN &4E I+$<E+EN&%&ION O5 MON%< 0%<@%&ION O5 !E%< $!O$E!&IES 5O! !D No. :?.'atangas City ). No Monal 0alue has been prescribed or a particular classi ication o !eal $roperty. Where in the approved Schedule o Monal 0alues or a particular 'arangay Z a7 No Monal 0alue has been prescribed or a particular classi ication in a particular streetAsubdivision in a 'arangay, the Monal 0alue prescribed or the same classi ication o real property located in the other streetAsubdivision within the same 'arangay o similar conditions shall be usedI and b7 No 1o('l &'lu% <'$ 5%%( #0%$6075%) :o0 ' #'0,76ul'0 6l'$$7:76',7o( o: R%'l 0o#%0,y 7( o(% +'0'(;'y, ,<% 1o('l &'lu% #0%$6075%) :o0 ,<% $'8% 6l'$$7:76',7o( o: R%'l 0o#%0,y lo6',%) 7( '( ')B'6%(, +'0'(;'y o: $787l'0 6o()7,7o($ $<'ll 5% u$%). #### $ursuant to the above guidelines, it is clear that 'rgy. Sta. Clara, being ad"acent to 'rgys. 'olboF and Calicanto, with the sub"ect lots therein having similar conditions as the latter, would have a Jonal value o either $h$ -(; and $h$ 1;;Zthe Jonal valuation o 'rgys. 'olboF and Calicanto, respectivelyZor a Jonal value within the range o the two. "u5B%6, l'()$ >%0% u()%=%lo#%) '() ='6'(,, %?6%#, :o0 :7$<#o()$ /ifth, the sub"ect lands were undeveloped and vacant e#cept or ishponds, as can be gleaned rom the "udicial admissions during the +arch -:, -;;? oral arguments o %tty. CruJ and %tty. Dimayacyac, counsels o some o the private respondents, that the lands o their clients were vacant, undeveloped and earning no income prior to and during the time o the taFing, e#cept or the ishponds. &his lends corroborative evidence to the agricultural nature and classi ication o sub"ect e#propriated lands. When asFed during the +arch -:, -;;? oral arguments, %tty. CruJ admitted that, at least, the properties o his clients were vacant, without any income and totally undeveloped. Some e#cerpts o %tty. CruJ> answers2 %SSOCI%&E E@S&ICE 0E<%SCO2 Do you agree that the lots o your clients are commercial in natureT What were ound at that time on the lots o your clientsT

%&&B. C!@M2 Well, it was vacant land, Bour 4onor. E. 0E<%SCO2 It was vacant. Do you thinF that said lots can be treated as commercial i they are not being used or commercial purposesT %&&B. C!@M2 Bes, Bour 4onor. 'ecause there is such principle, that the owner o the land is entitled to the highest and best use o the property. It need not be re erring to the actual use at the time it was e#propriated, as !epublic %ct ?(*1 says2 3&he classi ication and the suitability o the use o the land whether it is or commercial, industrial or residential.3)1* #### E. 0E<%SCO2 What are the buildings, i any, in 'arangay Calicanto in )(?(T %&&B. C!@M2 &here are no buildings, i we are talFing o buildings, but we are talFing o what is the potential o the property. # # # E. 0E<%SCO2 &o what particular use did your clients devote their lots in )(?(, what did they do with itT %&&B. C!@M2 In )(?(, Bour 4onor, as I said, the property is vacant because o the E#ecutive Orders o $resident %=uino o )(?( and )((;. # # # E. 0E<%SCO2 $rior to that particular issuance, what is the use to which the particular lots o your client are devoted toT 4ow did they use it, prior to the declaration o the CourtT %&&B. C!@M2 Well, all that I can say, Bour 4onor, is it is vacant because our clients, %merican citiJens and Canadian citiJens, they reside in 'oston and in Canada so they don>t Fnow what is being used e#cept that it is a vacant lot. E. 0E<%SCO2 So they are not using it, you have to admit at that time, because your clients were abroad in Canada, as you said. %&&B. C!@M2 Bes, Bour 4onor. E. 0E<%SCO2 %nd they did not, apparently, derive any income rom the lot since they have not been using it, is that correctT %&&B. C!@M2 Well, presumably.)1?

&he same actual situation can be said o the other e#propriated lands e#cept or those that were used as ishponds, which clearly were under water during high tide as shown by the aerial photographs. +oreover, %tty. Dimayacyac, Sr. also categorically a irmed that the seaside properties o his clients were not developed beach resorts o any Find at the time o the taFing.)1( Co(=%y'(6% o: $o8% o: ,<% $u5B%6, lo,$ ,i(th, the compromise andAor purchase agreements entered into by and between $$% and around -? o private respondents rom the year -;;- and onwards priced their respective lands at $h$ :;; per s=uare meter. &he purchase price as consideration or the conveyances persuasively shows the actual air marFet value o the sub"ect e#propriated lands. &hese agreements represent clear and convincing evidence that was ignored by the trial court and the C% but should have been assigned strong weight and credit. &he landowners, among others,):; were the spouses /erardo %bacan and %licia 5abul,):) +anuel D. +agadia married to %ida Catala,):- and the 4eirs o Eulalio 'uena e.):, % very recent compromise agreement was e#ecuted on October ):, -;;* between $$% and $acita 'erba.$anopio covering an area o -,-,; s=uare meters located at 'olboF, 'atangas City also or the price o $h$ :;; per s=uare meter. @nliFe in the three sales in )((9 and )((* adverted to in the a orementioned commissioners> report, the unit cost price agreed upon in the conveyances e ected by respondents %bacan, et al., re lected the true air marFet value o the e#propriated lots at the time o the taFing, which was in the vicinity o $h$ :;; per s=uare meter. On the other hand, the !&C committed reversible error in the two 6-7 compensation orders when it relied on evidence not worthy o weight and credit, thus2 6)7 , prior land salesAtransactions purportedly within the G'$MH between )((9.)((* 6GaH deed o absolute sale between Demetrio +arasigan in avor o $$% dated December )), )((9 at $h$ :,;;; per s=uare meterI GbH "udgment via compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 191) between %ndrea $alacios and the City /overnment o 'atangas or a road right o way at $h$ :,-)) per s=uare meterI GcH purchase o land ronting 'atangas 'ay by 5irst /as Co. purportedly at $h$ );,;;; per s=uare meter.7I):1 6-7 the Eanuary -;, )((( Decision by Compromise %greement in the GC%H in Dimaano v. %%A with a $h$ );,;;; per s=uare meter priceI 6,7 the report o Salvador D. Oscianas o the Cuervo %ppraisers, Inc. &he acts disclosed during the oral arguments shed light on the a orementioned conveyances. &he more telling o these was that the said prior sales involved lands o di erent categoriJation and located outside the area covered by $hase II o the port

pro"ect. 5or instance, the residential ,:;.s=uare.meter +arasigan property $$% bought in December )((9 or $h$ :,;;; per s=uare meter was residential in character and had a bungalow standing thereon. It was located outside '$M $hase II. &he same can be said o the September )((* 'atangas City.%ndrea $alacios compromise agreement, covering the ac=uisition o a road right.o .way with an area o 1, s=uare meters ound a Filometer away rom '$M $hase II. Standing on the lot o $alacios, which was residential in nature, were a bodega, a garage and some mango trees, which may e#plain why a higher valuation was agreed to by the city government o 'atangas. What was more telling was the slide presentation by the OS/ during the +arch -:, -;;? oral arguments. When Eustice Carpio posed clari icatory =uestions to Solicitor /eneral Devanadera, the latter showed that these properties, as shown by the map slides, were un=uestionably outside the '$M $hase II pro"ect, thus2 %SSOCI%&E E@S&ICE C%!$IO2 OFay. Can you lash again theZthat slide on the three lots that was mentioned by the Cuervo %ppraisal, the three lots, the residential, those small lots that were purchased rom ive thousandT SO<. /ENE!%< DE0%N%DE!%2 &he three lots, Bour 4onor. E. C%!$IO2 OFay. What barrio is the irst lot locatedT S./. DE0%N%DE!%2 +arasigan property, Bour 4onor. E. C%!$IO2 Beah. What is the barrioT):: #### S./. DE0%N%DE!%2 Santa Clara, Bour 4onor. E. C%!$IO2 Is that Santa ClaraT S./. DE0%N%DE!%2 Bes, Bour 4onor. &hat is outside, Bour 4onor. &hat is outside the pro"ect. E. C%!$IO2 Beas, that is outside the pro"ect. S./. DE0%N%DE!%2 Bes, Bour 4onor. #### E. C%!$IO2 So these are =uite ar rom the area 6interrupted7
):9

S./. DE0%N%DE!%2 &he sub"ect o this e#propriation case, Bour 4onor.):* +oreover, the !&C, in the 5irst Compensation Order o Euly );, -;;;, categorically made re erence to the 5irst $artial !eport o the court.appointed commissioners, who described the +arasigan and $alacios properties as being ar rom the =uestioned lots, thus2 NOW &4E!E5O!E, 'E I& !ESO<0ED %S I& IS 4E!E'B !ESO<0ED, that in view o all the oregoing, it is the most considered view o the herein Commissioners to submit the cost o 5O@! &4O@S%ND EI/4& 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$1,?;;.;;7 per s=uare meter, or payment o "ust compensation, sub"ect to urther review, evaluation, discretion and sound "udgment o this 4onorable Court. Commissioner <auro C. %ndaya appeared in Court in behal o other Commissioners to identi y the said report and to answer to the clari icatory =uestion propounded by the court and the parties. 4e stated that the basis o the $1,?;;.;; compensation per s=uare meter was the Deed o %bsolute Sale e#ecuted by Demetrio E. +arasigan in avor o the $hilippine $orts %uthority, e#ecuted on December )), )((9 6E#hibit 3,37. 4e admitted that he is aware o the compromise agreement between %ndrea $alacios and the City /overnment o 'atangas which was the basis o the "udgment by compromise on September --, )((* on Civil Case No. 191), presided by !egional &rial Court, 'ranch ?1. &he price per s=uare meter was agreed upon to be $:,-)).;;. &he land area involved is about * Filometers upon the properties in =uestion. # # # 6Emphasis supplied.7 It is, thus, clear that these properties were clearly located outside and ar rom the sub"ect e#propriated properties. Not much detail was presented regarding the undocumented 5irst /as purchase o land ronting 'atangas 'ay at a purported price o $h$ );,;;; per s=uare meter, save or the act that the transaction transpired rom )((: to )((*. Signi icantly, the appraisal report adduced in evidence by the Ortega /roup only mentioned that0%#o0,%)ly said ac=uisition by 5irst /as o raw land property was at a price o $h$ );,;;; without documentary support. %t any rate, liFe the two other transactions, the said 5irst /as purchase covers a lot outside the $hase II development Jone, which was con irmed by %tty. Dimayacyac during the oral argument2 %SSOCI%&E E@S&ICE 0E<%SCO2 When you aver in your answer that the air marFet value is $?,;;;.;;, did you use as basis the sale in avor o $alacios, +arasigan and 5irst /asT did you use that as basisT %&&B. DI+%B%CB%C2 We consider that, we don>t consider the 5irst /as because that is ar away although it has been re.classi ied. It is ar, ar away and we did not

consider that. We consider the $:,-)).;; and may I mention along that line, Bour 4onor, # # #.):? %s to the Dimaano lot, allegedly worth $h$ );,;;; per s=uare meter, we taFe note that no details were provided by the !&C about the Compromise %greement in Dimaano v. $$%. &he agreement was not presented, albeit it was mentioned in passing during the %ugust ):, -;;; hearing. It should be noted also that the price or value o a lot that is sub"ect o a trans er covered by a compromise agreement between the parties to a case cannot be a reliable gauge or basis o the determination o the air marFet value that must be assigned to a lot sub"ect o an e#propriation case. &he price can be consented to by the parties, even without much regard or the current air marFet value, as there may have been other considerations that came into play in the price. i#ing or the lot. 0erily, the !&C should not have relied on the ac=uisition o the Dimaano property to prop up the air marFet value o $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter or want o actual basis. &he Oscianas !eport o Cuervo %ppraisers, Inc., dated Euly )*, -;;;, deserves scant weight or credit. 5or one, the services o +r. Oscianas were engaged and paid or by the Ortega /roup. &hus, he can be considered a biased witness or the lot buyers. % witness is biased when his relationship to a party is such that he has an incentive to e#aggerate or give alse color to his statements or 3suppress or revert the truth.3 It is said that bias is a 3disposition to see and report matters as they wished or rather than as they are.3):( 'ias on the part o +r. Oscianas was revealed when he "usti ied his recommendation o $h$ 9,;;; per s=uare meter this way2 +r. Oscianas stated that the lands in the area in =uestion are or commercialAlight industrial purposes. &hese are developed areas as per his ocular inspection. It is accessible by National highways 6Calicanto7 rom 'atangas City 4all and the 'auanADiversion !oad as well as +unicipal !oad 6the bypass road7, and by the sea 6$ort o 'atangas7. It has water, lighting, communications and garbage acilities. 'atangas City and province en"oy continuous boom o industrial and commercial developments. It has not e#perienced recession, unliFe other regions, although it has e#perienced also the depreciation o the peso and the rise o the prices o prime commodities and real properties, much higher than $):,;;;.;; per s=uare meter than the recorded past sales prices.)9; &hese indings o +r. Oscianas are totally bere t o actual basis. &he aerial photographs o $hase II, where the lots in =uestion are located, indubitably demonstrate that said lots are agricultural or horticultural lands, salt beds, ishponds and swampy lands. Even the lot owners themselves admit that said lots are classi ied as agricultural per their respective ta# declarations, and not industrial or commercial as +r. Oscianas erroneously concluded. Contrary to the bare claim o +r. Oscianas that these lots are developed areas, %ttys. CruJ and Dimayacyac during the +arch

-:, -;;? oral arguments revealed that the lots o their clients were vacant, totally undeveloped and unable to generate income. &he seaside lots were not developed beach resorts or used or commercial purposes. &he Oscianas !eport was liFewise controverted by the indings o the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. ?);() entitled $hilippine $orts %uthority v. &ac.anZwhere it nulli ied the October -(, -;;, !&C Order directing payment to the heirs o $opula <lana at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meterZ anchored on the Second Compensation Order o %ugust ):, -;;;. Said C% Decision characteriJed the lot o <lana, which was similarly situated as other lots in =uestion, as swampy, salt bed and horticultural in nature. It succinctly elucidated why the sub"ect lots could not command the price o $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter, thus2 %lso, the "ust compensation o $:,:;;.;; in Civil Case No. :11* or the e#propriated lands o the other de endants which are situated in di erent barangays, cannot be a air gauge specially considering that the property was a swamp land at the time $$% condemned the same. +oreover, sub"ect property cannot be compared to those near !iJal %venue, as the <<%N% 4eirs assert, considering that these two 6-7 properties Z!iJal %venue and 'arangay Sta. ClaraZare di erently situated. It only happened that part, or even the whole, o !iJal %venue is located at 'arangay Sta. Clara liFe the sub"ect property. 4owever, there is evidence on record showing that !iJal %venue teems with residential and commercial establishments. On the other hand, the photographs o sub"ect property reveal that it is not even suitable or residential use as it is a swamp land. &here ore, the amount or $*(?,,*:,-:;.;; or a parcel o )?*,?:, s=uare meters which is bound on the Northern and Eastern portions by a creeF, and the Western portion by a river, with only a provisional value o $:1,1**,,*;.;; at $-(;.;; per s=uare meter obviously based upon its assessed value appearing on the 'I! Certi ication dated ;( Euly -;;-, is indeed, unconscionable. # # # No saltbed, horticultural and swampy land located beside a pier, with no residences nor commercial establishments and almost no structure at all which are seen or ound thereon could command such a antabulous price. # # # &he C%>s decision is inal with respect to lot owner $opula <lana. While it may be true that said ruling speci ically deals with the <lana lot, still, the C%>s indings can be taFen "udicial cogniJance o by the Court, considering that the <lana lot is located in the same area as the lots o other lot owners. <astly, the appraisal report o +r. Oscianas cannot be given weight or credit by reason o the sudden increase in the valuation o the lots rom $h$ ),);; per s=uare meter when the same lots were appraised by Cuervo %ppraisers, Inc. on %ugust -1, )((( to $h$ :,:;; to $h$ 9,;;; per s=uare meter based on the report o Oscianas o the same Cuervo %ppraisers, Inc., submitted on Euly )*, -;;;. &he %ugust )1, )((( Cuervo !eport was commissioned by the CruJ /roup, while the Euly )*, -;;; Cuervo !eport 6Oscianas> prepared report7 was commissioned by the Ortega /roup. One year had not yet passed rom %ugust )1, )(((, and yet the Cuervo !eport prepared by Oscianas on Euly )*, -;;; revealed a highly unusual increase o 1;;D in the air marFet value o the lots in =uestion. It is unbelievable that the lots in

=uestion were suddenly trans ormed rom agricultural to industrial in less than one 6)7 year. +oreover, it is a cause or concern that Eudge &ac.an accepted +r. Oscianas as amicus curiae, when the ormer ully Fnew that the latter was commissioned by the lot owners 6Ortega /roup7 to maFe an e#amination o the lots in =uestion and submit a report thereon, in consideration o a ee or his services. In this sense, the testimony o +r. Oscianas is o doubt ul value and sub"ect to serious challenge on the ground that he was a biased witness who gave baseless and untruth ul statements. &he Court rules, there ore, that the %ugust ):, -;;; Order i#ing the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter has no solid actual leg to stand onI and said order, together with other implementing orders, is nulli ied or want o actual basis. 'ased on the oregoing considerations, the Court inds that the value o $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter is a reasonable and air compensation or the e#propriated lots in Civil Case No. :11*, especially taFing into account that the highest 'I! Jonal valuation or said lots per DO ,).(* does not e#ceed $h$ 1;; per s=uare meter. %nent our holding that the +ay -(, -;;) Order granting the e#ecution o the %ugust -,, -;;; Order in avor o the CruJ /roup are inal orders and can be e#ecuted, the same has to be recalled and set aside in the light o our disposition that the %ugust ):, -;;; Order was the inal order that set the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter, and that the assailed %ugust -,, -;;; Order is merely an interlocutory order that does not attain inality. %s a conse=uence, the subse=uent +ay -(, -;;) Order, as well as other orders implementing the %ugust -,, -;;; Order, is annulled. <astly, said orders have been rendered moot by our ruling on the "ust compensation, which drastically changed the payments, sub"ect o said orders. %nent the third issue, our ruling that the immediate payment o the Jonal valuation, per the Euly (, -;;- &orres Certi ication pursuant to !% ?(*1, has to be reversed. &his reversal is in view o our ruling that it is 'I! DO ,).(*, not the Euly (, -;;&orres Certi ication, that is the legal basis or payment under !% ?(*1I and in view o the more cogent reason that !% ?(*1 does not apply to Civil Case No. :11*. Eudge $aterno &ac.an guilty o contempt With regard to the citation o Eudge $aterno &ac.an or contempt, the ollowing antecedent acts andAor events related to Civil Case No. :11* are relevant2 ). %ugust ):, -;;; Order i#ing in general the "ust compensation o $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter or the lots o de endant.owners e#cluding the Dimayacyac /roup.

-. %ugust -,, -;;; Order listing the names o the lot owners represented by di erent lawyers led by %tty. Cesar C. CruJ 6CruJ /roup7, the ta# declarations o the lots, the area, and the compensation to be paid or each lot. ,. +ay -(, -;;) Order granting the motion or e#ecution o the %ugust -,, -;;; Order iled by the CruJ /roup. 1. November )?, -;;1 Order granting the motion o the CruJ /roup or the issuance o a writ o e#ecution. :. November )?, -;;1 Supplemental Order. 9. &he issuance o the November --, -;;1 Writ o E#ecution. *. &he issuance o the November -,, -;;1 Notices o /arnishment addressed to the National &reasury, D'$, $N' and $0'. ?. On December ):, -;;1, the iling by $$% o a petition or certiorari with the C%, docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 =uestioning the a orementioned +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 Orders, November )?, -;;1 Supplemental Order, November --, -;;1 Writ o E#ecution and November -,, -;;1 Notices o /arnishments against the National &reasury and several banFs. (. December )9, -;;1 Order granting the e#ecution o the November -1, -;;1 Supplemental Order. );. December )9, -;;1 Order denying the $0' !eply and +ani estation dated November ,;, -;;1. )). Eanuary :, -;;: Order re"ecting the reply and mani estation o $0'. )-. Eanuary 9, -;;: Order directing D'$ to deliver $$%>s deposit o $h$ 11),;9*,?(,.9, to the CruJ /roup. ),. Eanuary );, -;;: Order directing the '& to hold in escrow $$%>s investments in treasury bills maturing on Eanuary )-, -;;:, Eanuary )(, -;;:, and %pril ),, -;;:. )1. On Eanuary );, -;;:, the &!O that the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 issued through a !esolution o even date en"oining respondent "udge rom implementing and en orcing the +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 Orders, November )?, -;;1 Supplemental Order, November --, -;;1 Writ

o E#ecution, and November -,, -;;1 Notices o /arnishment against the National &reasury and several banFs, thus2 O!DE! is hereby issued ENEOININ/ the public respondent 4on. $aterno 0. &ac.an and all persons acting under his authority rom implementing the assailed Orders dated +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1, the Supplemental Order dated November )?, -;;1, the Writ o E#ecution dated November --, -;;1, the Notices o /arnishment dated November -,, -;;1 addressed to the National &reasury, the GD'$H, the G$N'H, and the G0'$H. &he &!O was valid up to +arch );, -;;:. ):. &he issuance by Eudge &ac.an, despite the e ectivity o the Eanuary );, -;;: &!O, o the ollowing orders, to wit2 a. 5ebruary ), -;;: Order directing the issuance o a writ o e#ecution o the November -1, -;;1 Supplemental OrderI b. 5ebruary -, -;;: Writ o E#ecutionI c. 5ebruary ,, -;;: Notice o /arnishment addressed to the $0'. )9. On 5ebruary *, -;;:, the iling by $$% o a Supplemental $etition in C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, assailing the 5ebruary ), -;;: Order, the 5ebruary -, -;;: Writ o E#ecution and the 5ebruary ,, -;;: Notice o /arnishment against $0'. )*. On +arch ):, -;;:, the writ o preliminary in"unction issued by the C%>s Ninth Division in relation to the assailed orders and processes sub"ect o the Eanuary );, -;;: !esolution granting the &!O, thus2 W4E!E5O!E, let a Writ o $reliminary In"unction issue under !ule :? o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, as amended. &he public respondent, his o icials, and agents are hereby prohibited and restrained rom causing the e#ecution o the assailed Orders dated +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1, the Supplemental Order dated November )?, -;;1, the Writ o E#ecution dated November --, -;;1, the Notices o /arnishment dated November -,, -;;1 addressed to the National &reasury, the Development 'anF o the $hilippines, the $hilippine National 'anF, and the 0eterans 'anF o the $hilippines. )?. On %pril )(, -;;:, the issuance by the C%>s Ninth Division o a &!O against Eudge &ac.an, which reads2

In order not to render ine ectual the instant petition and considering that with the advent o the supervening events which transpired a ter the issuance by this Court o its !esolution dated +arch ):, -;;:, great or irreparable in"ury would result to the herein petitioner i the acts complained o are not restrained, a &E+$O!%!B !ES&!%ININ/ O!DE! is hereby issued ENEOININ/ the public respondent 4on. Eudge $aterno 0. &ac.an and all persons acting under his authority rom implementing the ollowing orders and processes2 I. &he Order dated December )9, -;;1 granting the private respondents> +otion 5or E#ecution dated December ),, -;;1 o the Supplemental Order dated November -1, -;;1I II. &he Order dated December )9, -;;1 denying the petitioner>s +otion or !econsideration dated December 9, -;;1 rom the Order and Supplemental Order both dated November )?, -;;1I III. &he Order dated December )9, -;;1 re"ecting the $hilippine 0eterans 'anF 6$0'7 !eply and +ani estation dated November ,;, -;;1I I0. &he Order dated Eanuary :, -;;: re"ecting the a oresaid reply and mani estation o the $hilippine 0eterans 'anF or the second timeI 0. &he Order dated Eanuary 9, -;;: directing the Development 'anF o the $hilippines to deliver the petitioner>s deposits amounting to $11),;9*,?(,.9, to private respondentsI 0I. &he Order dated Eanuary );, -;;: directing the 'ureau o &reasury to hold in escrow the petitioner>s investments on treasury bills maturing on Eanuary )-, -;;:, Eanuary )(, -;;:, and %pril ),, -;;:I 0II. &he Order dated Eanuary )), -;;: denying the petitioner>s +otion 5or !econsideration dated December );, -;;1 o the Supplemental Order dated November -1, -;;1I 0III. &he Order dated 5ebruary ), -;;: denying the petitioner>s motion or reconsideration o the Supplemental Order dated November -1, -;;1 and directing the immediate issuance o the corresponding writ o e#ecutionI

I8. &he Writ o E#ecution dated 5ebruary -, -;;: issued pursuant to the Supplemental Order dated 5ebruary ), -;;:I and 8. &he Notice o /arnishment dated 5ebruary ,, -;;: addressed to the $hilippine 0eterans 'anF and the National &reasurer. )(. On %pril )1, -;;:, the +ani estation and +otion iled by the 'ureau o &reasury 6'&7. -;. On %pril -;, -;;:, the Order issued by Eudge &ac.an setting the '&>s +ani estation and +otion or hearing on %pril -:, -;;: at );2;; a.m. -). On %pril -:, -;;:, the ailure o the hearing to push through because o the iling by the '& o another +ani estation and +otion dated %pril -), -;;:, praying that it be e#cused rom attending the hearing. --. On Eune ,, -;;:, the issuance by the C%>s );th Division o a !esolution in the consolidated cases o C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, en"oining respondent Eudge rom urther proceeding with Civil Case No. :11*, the allo o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, this Court hereby orders as ollows2 6)7 the &emporary !estraining Order issued by the 4onorable Court through its !esolution promulgated on )( %pril -;;: e#tends to respondent Eudge $aterno 0. &ac.an>s Orders dated : and -9 %pril -;;: and all other orders and processes issued by him subse=uent to the iling o $etitioner>s G$$%H Supplemental $etition dated * 5ebruary -;;: which implement the orders and processes assailed in said supplemental petition and which threaten to render the present cases moot and academicI 6-7 respondent Eudge should orthwith cease and desist rom urther proceeding with Civil Case No. :11* until urther orders rom the 4onorable Court. SO O!DE!ED. 6Emphasis ours.7 -,. On Eune -), -;;:, despite the Eune ,, -;;: C% cease.and.desist Order in the consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, Eudge &ac.an>s decision to proceed with a hearing in Civil Case No. :11*, despite resistance thereto.

-1. On %ugust ?, -;;:, the petition iled by $$% be ore the C% to cite Eudge &ac.an or contempt, docFeted as CA.G.R. " No. 90796. Eudge &ac.an iled his comment on the petition 6C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(97. In its assailed Euly ,, -;;9 !esolution, the C%>s &enth Division denied $$%>s 3$etition to Cite !espondent $aterno 0. &ac.an in Contempt3 or lacF o merit, reasoning this way2 With respect to the 3$etition to Cite !espondent $aterno 0. &ac.an In Contempt3, the same must be denied or lacF o merit. %ccording to $$%, therein respondent Eudge committed indirect contempt o Court when he conducted a hearing on -; %pril -;;: and heard a motion on -) Eune -;;: despite the issuance o a G&!OH by this Court contained in its !esolution o )( %pril -;;:. 4erein respondent Eudge e#plained that there was no hearing scheduled or conducted on -; %pril -;;: with regard to Civil Case No. :11* although an Order dated -; %pril -;;: was issued in connection with the +ani estation and +otion dated )1 %pril -;;: iled by the 'ureau o &reasury represented by the GOS/H setting the same or hearing on -) %pril -;;:. &he Order dated -; %pril -;;: issued by herein respondent Eudge merely states that2 36t7here being no proo o receipt to the opposing counsel, schedule the +ani estation and +otion iled by the 'ureau o &reasury on -: %pril -;;: at );2;; in the morning. &he scheduled hearing on -: %pril -;;: did not push through because the 'ureau o &reasury iled a +ani estation and +otion dated -) %pril -;;: praying that it be e#cused rom attending the hearing. We see no contumacious act in regard to this instance on the part o herein respondent Eudge. Neither can We rule as contumacious the act o herein respondent Eudge in hearing a motion iled by de endants not parties in the main and Supplemental $etitions o the $$% on -) Eune -;;:. In Our !esolution o )( October -;;:, We made it clear that the G&!OH issued by this Court in its !esolution o )( %pril -;;: had already e#pired on Eune )(, -;;: and a hearing was set on -? October -;;: or $$%>s application or the issuance o a writ o preliminary in"unction. +oreover, the hearing on -) Eune -;;: does not involved the private respondents in the main and Supplemental $etition. On the other hand, the 5irst Division o the Court considered as moot the issue raised by $$% on the denial o its contempt petition, in view o the compulsory retirement o Eudge &ac.an on Euly ?, -;;*. $$%, in its September 9, -;;* +otion or !econsideration in G.R. No. 173392, assails the denial o its contempt petition by the C%. $$% moves or reconsideration o our %ugust -1, -;;* Decision re"ecting, or being moot, its challenge o the C%>s denial o its petition to cite Eudge &ac.an or contempt.

&he threshold issue is whether the retirement o Eudge &ac.an has rendered unnecessary the resolution o $$%>s petition to set aside the C%>s Euly ,, -;;: !esolution denying the petition to cite said respondent or contempt. We rule or $$%. &he ob"ective o criminal contempt is to vindicate public authority. It is an e ective instrument o preserving and protecting the dignity and authority o courts o law. %ny act or omission that degrades or demeans the integrity o the court must be sanctioned, lest it pre"udice the e icient administration o "ustice i le t unpunished. Contempt o court applies to all persons, whether in or out o government. &hus, it covers government o icials or employees who retired during the pendency o the petition or contempt. Otherwise, a civil servant may strategiJe to avail himsel o an early retirement to escape the sanctions rom a contempt citation, i he perceives that he would be made responsible or a contumacious act. &he higher interest o e ective and e icient administration o "ustice dictates that a petition or contempt must proceed to its inal conclusion despite the retirement o the government o icial or employee, more so i it involves a ormer member o the bench. While there is still no de initive ruling on this issue when the respondent charged with contempt has retired, we apply by analogy the settled principle in administrative disciplinary cases that separation rom service does not render the case moot and academic. )9) Now to the issue whether respondent Eudge &ac.an is guilty o indirect contempt or alleged disregard o the C% resolutions. We ind that Eudge &ac.an committed contumacious acts in utter disobedience o the Eanuary );, -;;:, +arch ):, -;;:, %pril )(, -;;: and Eune ,, -;;: !esolutions o the C%. Consider the ollowing2 ). $rior to the Order o Eudge &ac.an on %pril -;, -;;: setting the +ani estation and +otion o the 'ureau o &reasury or hearing on %pril -:, -;;: at );2;; a.m., he was already aware o the Eanuary );, -;;: !esolution o the C%>s Ninth Division granting a &!O. &his &!O prohibited him rom implementing his +ay -(, -;;) Order granting the e#ecution o the %ugust -,, -;;; Order, i#ing the compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter in avor o the CruJ /roupI and the November )?, -;;1 Order granting the Writ o E#ecution and the November -,, -;;1 Notice o /arnishment addressed to the 'ureau o &reasury. &he &!O was e ective or si#ty 69;7 days rom notice to the party en"oined, pursuant to Sec. :, !ule :?. %ssuming that the Eanuary );, -;;: &!O was received by the trial court on the same day, the &!O lapsed on +arch (, -;;:. Bet on 5ebruary ), -;;:, Eudge &ac.an issued an order directing that a Writ o E#ecution be issued to implement the November -1, -;;1 Supplemental Order. On 5ebruary -, -;;:, he also issued the Writ o E#ecution and on 5ebruary ,, -;;:, a Notice o

/arnishment addressed to $0'. 5rom these acts, it is clear that Eudge &ac.an violated the Eanuary );, -;;: &!O. -. On +arch ):, -;;: or therea ter, Eudge &ac.an was already noti ied that a writ o preliminary in"unction was issued against him, prohibiting and restraining him rom e#ecuting the +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 Orders and the Notice o /arnishment addressed to the National &reasury and several banFs. &o e ectively restrain Eudge &ac.an rom implementing the assailed +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 Orders and the Notice o /arnishment, the C% again issued another &!O on %pril )(, -;;: notwithstanding the issuance o a writ o preliminary in"unction per the +arch ):, -;;: C% !esolution to speci ically prohibit Eudge &ac.an rom implementing certain orders, which were designed to implement the +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 Orders, all relating to the payment o "ust compensation to the CruJ /roup. Despite the +arch ):, -;;:.issued writ o preliminary in"unction and the %pril )(, -;;: &!O, Eudge &ac.an still acted on the +ani estation and +otion o the 'ureau o &reasury pertaining to the money deposited by $$% with said bureau, when he Fnew ully well that such incident was already sub"ect o the in"unctive writ and the C% &!O, which was a clear breach o said processes. !espondent Eudge should not have acted on '&>s +ani estation and +otion by setting it or hearing on %pril -:, -;;:. 'y such act, Eudge &ac.an betrayed his intention to continue implementing the compensation order in avor o the CruJ /roup. We deem his actuation as a contumacious breach o the C%>s in"unctive writ and &!O. ,. %gain on %pril -9, -;;:, Eudge &ac.an issued another order urther implementing the 5ebruary -, -;;: Writ o E#ecution and ordering the '& to deliver the escrowed proceeds, again in violation o the %pril )(, -;;: &!O and the +ay ):, -;;: in"unctive writ. &he breach was e#plained by the C% in its Eune ,, -;;: !esolution2 !espondent Eudge in issuing the -9 %pril -;;: Order clearly de ies the !esolution o )( %pril -;;: issued by the Ninth Division o this Court. # # # 'e that as it may, once the lower court learned o the issuance o the temporary restraining order issued by the Ninth Division o this Court, it should have re rained rom doing any act to implement any order or issuance listed in the temporary restraining order. # # # While the : and -9 %pril -;;: Orders, were not part o the !esolution o )( %pril -;;: o this Court, the act remains that said : %pril -;;: and -9 %pril -;;: Orders o the respondent Eudge were issued pursuant to the orders and issuances which had already been restrained by the Ninth Division o this Court. 1. <astly, Eudge &ac.an set and conducted a hearing o Civil Case No. :11* on Eune -), -;;:. On Eune -), -;;:, the Eudge was already noti ied o the Eune ,, -;;: C% !esolution ordering him to 3cease and desist rom urther proceeding in Civil Case No. :11*

until urther orders rom the 4onorable Court.3 Bet, over the ob"ection in open court by petitioner $$%, he continued with the hearing o 6)7 the 3+otion or the !elease o %dditional Sum or 4umanitarian $urposes3 iled by de endants /regorio 'aliwag, Eliseo 'aliwag and Crisanta 'aliwag, who had no counsel, but placed under the CruJ /roup and included in the %ugust -,, -;;; Order the sub"ect matter o both C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11I and 6-7 the 3@rgent +otion or Immediate $ayment o the );;D Jonal valuation o the properties o Caridad %ldover 'lay, Eovencio M. %ldover, %lvaro M. %ldover, <amberto M. %ldover, Danilo M. %ldover, et al.3 iled by the property owners, not the de endants, in Civil Case No. :11*. While it may be true that the Eune -), -;;: hearing also re ers to other lot owners 6%ldovers7UUnot parties to consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 which principally involved some o the respondents belonging to the CruJ /roupUUstill, respondent Eudge was aware that C%./.!. C0 No. **99? was $$%>s appeal rom the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7 setting the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter. 'ased on the %ugust ):, -;;; Order, he issued the %ugust -,, -;;; Order, speci ically naming the CruJ /roup as the lot owners re erred to in the %ugust ):, -;;; Order. &he Eune -), -;;: setting re ers to the hearing o the two motions iled by de endant 'aliwags, who were named in the %ugust -,, -;;; !&C Order as property owners and not de endants in Civil Case No. :11*, but who were asserting rights in the instant e#propriation case. &hus, the Eune ,, -;;: &!O in the consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 covered the motion o de endants 'aliwags, which pertains to the sub"ect matter o the appeal in C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 pertaining to the %ugust -,, -;;; Order. %ssuming even or the saFe o argument that the Eune -), -;;: hearing did not relate to C%./.!. C0 No. **99? and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, still, the act that there was a C% &!O ordering respondent "udge to altogether 6%'$% '() )%$7$, :0o8 #0o6%%)7(; >7,< C7=7l C'$% No. /--7 was a clear directive that he should altogether stop acting on said case and wait or urther instructions rom the appellate court. 'ased on the totality o the oregoing circumstances, the Court inds Eudge $aterno &ac.an guilty o indirect contempt o court. 4is actsUUissuing the 5ebruary ) and -, -;;: Orders implementing the +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 Orders and the related 5ebruary -, -;;: Notice o /arnishment in de iance o the Eanuary );, -;;: &!OI setting the 'ureau o &reasury>s +ani estation and +otion or hearing on %pril -:, -;;: in disregard o the +arch ):, -;;: in"unctive writ o the C%I issuing the %pril -9, -;;: Order disobeying the %pril )(, -;;: &!O and the +arch ):, -;;: writ o preliminary in"unctionI and lastly, conducting a hearing on Eune -), -;;: or Civil Case No. :11*, thus violating the Eune ,, -;;: C% OrderUUare contumacious, continuing acts in clear disobedience and disrespect o the resolutions o the C%.

% person guilty o indirect contempt may be punished by a ine not e#ceeding $h$ ,;,;;; or imprisonment not e#ceeding si# 697 months or both. Eudge &ac.an violated our 617 resolutionsAprocesses o the C%, namely2 the Eanuary );, -;;; &!O, the +arch ):, -;;: Writ o $reliminary In"unction, the %pril )(, -;;: &!O and the Eune ,, -;;: !esolution, or which he is hereby ined $h$ ,;,;;; or each violation. <et this serve as a warning to all trial courts to strictly comply with the resolutions and orders o the appellate courts and this Court. S@++%!B &he ollowing are our dispositions2 ). In G.R. No$. 1/-211.12, the Court a irms the Euly ,;, -;;) Decision o the C% and its Euly )), -;;- !esolution in the consolidated cases C%./.!. S$ Nos. 9;,)1 and 9,:*9, which granted both petitions o $$%. In C%./.!. S$ No. 9;,)1, the ollowing Orders o the 'atangas !&C in Civil Case No. :11* were annulled2 a. Euly -1, -;;; Order granting the +otion or E#ecution $ending %ppeal o respondents Ernesto Curata, et al. 6Dimayacyac /roup7I b. Euly ,), -;;; Order granting the Writ o E#ecutionI c. %ugust - and ,, -;;; Notices o /arnishmentI d. %ugust -:, -;;: Order denying $$%>s notice o appeal with motion or e#tension to pay appellate docFet ees and record on appealI e. %ugust -?, -;;; Order denying $$%>s !ecord on %ppeal . September )?, -;;; Order denying $$%>s +otion or !econsideration o the %ugust -:, -;;; OrderI In C%./.!. S$ No. 9,:*9, the ollowing Orders were annulled and set aside2 a. December ),, -;;; Order dismissing $$%>s appeal, striFing out the record on appeal, and declaring the %ugust )?, -;;; Order inal and e#ecutory. %ll the assailed orders in C%./.!. S$ Nos. 9;,)1 and 9,:*9 were annulled by the writ o certiorari issued by the C%, and $$%>s appeal was allowed.

In the instant consolidated petitions, the Court, in the interest o an e#peditious dispensation o "ustice, resolves to dispose o the appeal o $$% on the legality o the Euly );, -;;; Order 65irst Compensation Order7 issued in avor o the Dimayacyac /roup, setting the "ust compensation at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meterI and rules that the "ust compensation or the lots o the owners speci ied in the Euly );, -;;; Order is $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. &he Euly );, -;;; Order is accordingly amended. -. In G.R. No. 1/82/2, the Court reverses and sets aside the +ay )9, -;;, Decision o the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. *,?1?. Conse=uently, the ollowing Orders o the 'atangas !&C in Civil Case No. :11* are annulled and set aside2 a. Euly )-, -;;- Order ordering $$% to release to respondents !emedios 'ondoc, et al. 6CruJ /roup7 );;D o the Jonal valuation o the lotsI b. Euly -(, -;;- Order denying $$%>s Omnibus +otion to Withdraw the Eune -*, -;;- +ani estation o %tty. %rturo S. 'ernardino interposing no ob"ection to the +otion or $artial !econsideration o respondent CruJ /roupI c. September :, -;;- Order denying $$%>s motion or reconsideration. In this petition, the Court rules that, to the amount o deposit to be made by $$% in Civil Case No. :11*, !ule 9* o the !ules o Court shall apply and not !% ?(*1. !% ?(*1, being a substantive law, does not apply retroactively to Civil Case No. :11*, which was iled be ore !% ?(*1>s e ectivity. ,. In G.R. No. 166200, the Court reverses and sets aside the November --, -;;1 C% Decision in C%./.!. S$ No. ?,:*;. Conse=uently, the ollowing Orders o the 'atangas !&C in Civil Case No. :11* are annulled and set aside2 a. December -, -;;, Order ordering $$% to pay );;D Jonal value o the lots at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meterI b. December )?, -;;, Order directing $$% to release in avor o 5elipa %costa, et al. 6%gustin /roup7 );D o the Jonal valuation at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meterI c. 5ebruary ),, -;;1 Order which issued a Writ o E#ecution ordering $$% to pay to the lot owners the Jonal value at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meterI

d. +arch -1, -;;1 Order directing <and 'anF o the $hilippines to cause the release o );;D o the Jonal value at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter pursuant to the December -, -;;, OrderI e. %pril )-, -;;1 Order, which ordered the partial e#ecution o the December -, -;;, in the amount o :;D o the Jonal value at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meterI . %pril ):, -;;1 Supplemental Order, which directed $$% to pay :;D o the Jonal value o the properties at $h$ 1,-:; per s=uare meter to the lot owners speci ied therein. &he Court rules that the resolution o the issues o the legality and propriety o the a ore.listed assailed orders has been rendered moot by our ruling that the "ust compensation be pegged at $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. &he assailed orders are nulli ied and set aside, and "ust compensation payment to respondents 5elipa %costa, et al. 6%gustin /roup7 shall be based on $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. 1. In G.R. No. 168272, the Court a irms the +arch ,), -;;: Decision and the +ay -9, -;;: !esolution o the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. ?-()*. Said C% decision nulli ied the November 9, -;;, !&C Order granting the writ o e#ecution in avor o lot owners !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo. &he Court rules that the "ust compensation or the lots o !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo shall be i#ed at $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter pursuant to our ruling in G.R. No. 173392 and consolidated petitions. :. In G.R. No. 170683, the Court reverses and sets aside the Euly -?, -;;: Decision and the November -1, -;;: !esolution o the C% in C%./.!. C0 No. *;;-, involving the lots o Caroline '. %costa, %bigail '. %costa, Nemesio '. 'alina and Erlinda '. 'alina. Conse=uently, the September *, -;;; Order o the !&C in Civil Case No. :11* adopting the Euly );, -;;; and %ugust ):, -;;; Orders and setting the air marFet value at $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter is annulled and set aside. &he Court rules that the "ust compensation or lot owners Caroline '. %costa, et al. is i#ed at $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. 9. In G.R. No. 173392, the Court reconsiders and sets aside its %ugust -1, -;;* Decision and grants $$%>s basic petition. &he Euly ,, -;;9 !esolution o the C% in the consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 and C%. /.!. S$ No. (;*(9 is reversed and set aside. In resolving $$%>s appeal 6C%./.!. C0 No. **99? rom the %ugust ):, -;;; Order GSecond Compensation OrderH7, the

Court amends said order in that the "ust compensation to be paid or the lots o the %gustin /roup, CruJ /roup, Ortega /roup, $astor !ealty Corp., et al. and other lot owners 6e#cluding the Dimayacyac /roup7 shall be i#ed at $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. Conse=uently the amount o compensation in the !&C Orders in implementation o the %ugust ):, -;;; Order is correspondingly reduced to $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter, to witI a. %ugust )*, -;;; Order or the %gustin /roupI b. %ugust )?, -;;; Order or the Ortega /roupI c. %ugust -,, -;;; Order or the CruJ /roupI d. %ugust -,, -;;; Order or the $astor !ealty Corporation, et al. 5or all the lots sub"ect o Civil Case No. :11*, the "ust compensation or their ac=uisition shall be i#ed at $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. In C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, the Court hereby nulli ies and sets aside the ollowing orders involving the lots o the CruJ /roup2 ). +ay -(, -;;) OrderI -. November )?, -;;1 Order granting the +otion or the issuance o writ o e#ecutionI ,. November )?, -;;1 Supplemental OrderI and 1. November -1, -;;1 Supplemental Order. %s to the Supplemental petition o $$% vis._.vis C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, the ollowing !&C Orders are nulli ied and set aside2 a. &he Order dated December )9, -;;1 granting the private respondents> +otion 5or E#ecution dated December ),, -;;1 o the Supplemental Order dated November -1, -;;1I b. &he Order dated December )9, -;;1 denying the petitioner>s +otion or !econsideration dated December 9, -;;1 rom the Order and Supplemental Order both dated November )?, -;;1I

c. &he Order dated December )9, -;;1 re"ecting the $0' !eply and +ani estation dated November ,;, -;;1I d. &he Order dated Eanuary :, -;;: re"ecting the a oresaid reply and mani estation o the $hilippine 0eterans 'anF or the second timeI e. &he Order dated Eanuary 9, -;;: directing the Development 'anF o the $hilippines to deliver $$%>s deposits amounting to $h$ 11),;9*,?(,.9, to private respondentsI . &he Order dated Eanuary );, -;;: directing the 'ureau o &reasury to hold in escrow $$%>s investments in treasury bills maturing on Eanuary )-, -;;:, Eanuary )(, -;;:, and %pril ),, -;;:I g. &he Order dated Eanuary )), -;;: denying $$%>s +otion or !econsideration dated December );, -;;1 o the Supplemental Order dated November -1, -;;1I and h. &he Order dated 5ebruary ), -;;: denying $$%>s motion or reconsideration o the Supplemental Order dated November -1, -;;1 and directing the immediate issuance o the corresponding writ o e#ecution. %s earlier ruled, $$% shall pay the amount o $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter to the lot owners covered by the %ugust ):, -;;; Order as "ust compensation. &he Court rules that the %ugust ):, -;;; !&C Order is a inal order, while the OrdersUUdated %ugust )*, -;;; 6%gustin /roup7, %ugust )?, -;;; 6Ortega /roup7, %ugust -,, -;;; 6CruJ /roup7, %ugust -,, -;;; 6$astor !ealty Corp., et al.7 and other orders in implementation o the %ugust ):, -;;; Order 6Second Compensation Order7UUare interlocutory. In C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9, the Court reconsiders its ruling in the assailed %ugust -1, -;;* Decision and grants $$%>s petition. Conse=uently, the ruling in C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9 is reversed and set aside. &he Court rules that Eudge $aterno &ac.an is guilty o indirect contempt and is, thus, ordered to pay a ine in the total amount o $h$ )-;,;;;. W4E!E5O!E, the Court hereby disposes and orders the ollowing2 ). &he petition in G.R. No$. 1/-211.12 is DENIED or lacF o merit. %ccordingly, the Euly ,;, -;;) Decision and Euly )), -;;- !esolution o the Court o %ppeals in consolidated cases C%./.!. S$ Nos. 9;,)1 and 9,:*9 are hereby AFFIRMED.

In the interest o speedy and ine#pensive dispensation o "ustice, the Court resolves the appeal o $$% rom the Euly );, -;;; Order and amends the same, reducing the "ust compensation or the lot owners Ernesto Curata, et al. 6Dimayacyac /roup7 rom $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter to $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. -. &he petition in /.!. No. ):?-:- is /!%N&ED. &he appealed +ay )9, -;;, Decision o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. *,?1? is hereby !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE accordingly. <iFewise, the Orders dated Euly )-, -;;-, Euly -(, -;;- and September :, -;;- o the 'atangas City !&C, 'ranch ?1, in Civil Case No. :11* are %NN@<<ED and SE& %SIDE. &he Court declares that !ule 9*, not !% ?(*1, applies to Civil Case No. :11* and the !&C 'atangas City, 'ranch ?1, shall act accordingly. ,. &he petition in /.!. No. )99-;; is hereby /!%N&ED. &he November --, -;;1 C% Decision in C%./.!. S$ No. ?,:*; is accordingly !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. <iFewise, the Orders dated December -, -;;,, December )?, -;;,, 5ebruary ),, -;;1, +arch -1, -;;1, %pril )-, -;;1 and the %pril ):, -;;1 Supplemental Order o the 'atangas City !&C, 'ranch ?1, in Civil Case No. :11* are %NN@<<ED and SE& %SIDE. 5elipa %costa, et al. 6%gustin /roup7 shall be paid < -2/ per s=uare meter as "ust compensation or their respective lots, and the initial payment o the compensation or deposit sub"ect o the assailed orders is rendered moot by our ruling on the issue o "ust compensation. 1. &he petition in G.R. No. 168272 is DENIED or lacF o merit, and the +arch ,), -;;: Decision and the +ay -9, -;;: !esolution o the C% in C%./.!. S$ No. ?-()* are hereby AFFIRMED I" T!T!. !osalinda 'uena e and +elencio Castillo shall be paid "ust compensation or their lots at $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter. :. &he petition in G.R. No. 170683 is GRANTED. &he Euly -?, -;;: Decision and the November -1, -;;: !esolution o the C% in C%./.!. C0 No. *;;-, are accordingly hereby !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. Correspondingly, the September *, -;;; !&C Order o the 'atangas City !&C, 'ranch ?1 in Civil Case No. :11* is also %NN@<<ED and SE& %SIDE. <ot owners Caroline '. %costa, et al. shall be paid $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter as "ust compensation or their respective lots. 9. &he +otion or !econsideration o the Decision in /.!. No. )*,,(- is hereby /!%N&ED. %ccordingly, the Decision o the Court dated %ugust -1, -;;* is &ACATED. &he Euly ,, -;;9 !esolution o the C% in consolidated cases C%./.!. C0 No. **99?, C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 and C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9 is !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. &he OrdersUU dated %ugust ):, -;;; 6Second Compensation Order7, %ugust )*, -;;;

6%gustin /roup7, %ugust )?, -;;; 6Ortega /roup7, %ugust -,, -;;; 6CruJ /roup7 and %ugust -,, -;;; 6$astor !ealty Corporation, et al.7UUare hereby AMENDED, reducing the "ust compensation rom $h$ :,:;; per s=uare meter to < -2/ per s=uare meter. &he Orders dated +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1I November -,, -;;1 Writ o E#ecution and November -,, -;;1 Notices o /arnishmentI November )? and -1, -;;1 Supplemental OrdersI three 6,7 Orders dated December )9, -;;1 and Orders dated Eanuary :, Eanuary 9, Eanuary );, Eanuary )), and 5ebruary ), -;;:I and 5ebruary -, -;;: Writ o E#ecution and 5ebruary ,, -;;: Notice o /arnishment, all issued by the 'atangas City !&C, 'ranch ?1, in Civil Case No. :11*, are ANN*LLED and "ET A"IDE. &he petition to cite Eudge $aterno 0. &ac.an or contempt sub"ect o C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9 is GRANTED. Eudge &ac.an is ordered to pay a FINE o < 120,000. &he $$% is hereby DI!EC&ED to pay with dispatch the lot owners who are parties to these consolidated petitions the "ust compensation or their respective lots at the unit price o $h$ 1-: per s=uare meter, with )-D interest per annum rom the date o $$%>s entry to the lots or on September )), -;;) until ully paid,)9- less whatever initial payments they have already received. In case o overpayment, the a ected lot owners shall re und the e#cess to $$%. No costs. SO O!DE!ED.
Fo,(o,%$ X On o icial leave. XX No part. ) /.!. No. )*,,(-, :,) SC!% )(?. !ollo 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, pp. ??.);?. $enned by %ssociate Eustice !omeo %. 'rawner 6deceased7 and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !emedios SalaJar.5ernando and !ebecca De /uia.Salvador. , Id. at )):.)-;. 1 Id. at -):.-)*. $enned by $residing Eudge $aterno 0. &ac.an 6retired7. : Rollo 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, pp. );,.);9. 9 !ollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, pp. ,;.,*. $enned by %ssociate Eustice ElieJer !. de <os Santos and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !omeo %. 'rawner 6now deceased7 and !egalado E. +aambong. * !ollo 6/.!. No. )99-;;7, pp. :*.*;. $enned by %ssociate Eustice +onina %revalo.Menarosa and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !emedios %. SalaJar.5ernando and Danilo '. $ine 6retired7. ? Rollo 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, pp. ,1.1). $enned by %ssociate Eustice +ariano C. del Castillo and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !omeo %. 'rawner and +agdangal +. de <eon. ( Id. at 1,. ); Id. at )?9. )) Rollo 6/.!. No. )*;9?,7, pp. 1*.99. $enned by %ssociate Eustice 0icente S.E. 0eloso and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !oberto %. 'arrios and %melita /. &olentino. )Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. ?;:.*,. ), Id. at ),;;.),11, dated September 9, -;;*. )1 Id. at ))*,.))(9I supra note ). ): Id. at 9:.);,. $enned %ssociate Eustice %ndres '. !eyes, Er. and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices Pahim S. %bdulwahid and Estela +. $erlas.'ernabe.

)9 )*

Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, p. ,1(. Id. at ,().,(:. )? Id. at ,(*.,((. )( Id. at 1;;.1;,. -; !ollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, pp. 1(,.1(1. EO ,?: pertinently reads2 EIEC*TI&E ORDER No. 38/ EI ANDING AND DELINEATING THE +ATANGA" ORT 1ONE AND LACING THE "AME *NDER THE ADMINI"TRATI&E J*RI"DICTION OF THE HILI INE ORT" A*THORIT! I, CO!%MON C. %O@INO, $resident o the $hilippines, by virtue o the powers vested in me by the law, do hereby order2 Sec. ). &he territorial "urisdiction o the $ort o 'atangas is hereby e#panded and delineated as ollows2 'eginning at a point marFed ) on the plan located at the northeast corner o Sta. Clara Elementary School, 'atangas CityI # # # comprising a total area o ,,1??,1-;.1 s=uare meters or ,1?.?1 hectares, more or less. Sec. -. &he 'atangas $ort Mone as e#panded and delineated is hereby placed under the administrative "urisdiction o the $hilippine $orts %uthority which shall, consistent with law and the regional industrial plans o the /overnment, implement a program or the proper Joning, planning, development and utiliJation o the port areas in the said $ort Mone. Sec. ,. %ll orders and issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereo which are inconsistent with this E#ecutive Order are hereby revoFed or modi ied accordingly. Sec. 1. &his E#ecutive Order shall taFe e ect immediately. DONE in the City o +anila, this )(th day o December, in the year o Our <ord, nineteen hundred and eighty.nine. -) Id. at 1(;.1(). EO 1,) pertinently reads2 F*RTHER EI ANDING THE DELINEATED +ATANGA" ORT 1ONE A" RO&IDED FOR *NDER EIEC*TI&E ORDER NO. 38/, DATED DECEM+ER 19, 1989 I, CO!%MON C. %O@INO, $resident o the $hilippines, by virtue o the power vested in me by law, do hereby order2 Sec. ). &he territorial "urisdiction o the $ort o 'atangas is hereby urther e#panded and delineated as ollows2 'eginning at a point marFed ) on the plan located at the northeast corner o Sta. Clara Elementary # # # comprising a total area o :,,?;.?(,.* s=uare meters o :,?.;( hectares, more or less. Sec. -. &he 'atangas $ort Mone, as e#panded and delineated, is hereby placed under the administrative "urisdiction o the $hilippine $orts %uthority which shall, consistent with law and regional industrial plans o the /overnment, implement a program or the proper Joning, titling, planning, development, and utiliJation o the port areas in the said $ort Mone. Sec. ,. E#ecutive Order No. ,?:, dated December )(, )(?(, and all orders and issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereo which are inconsistent with this E#ecutive Order are hereby revoFed or modi ied accordingly. Sec. 1. &his E#ecutive Order shall taFe e ect immediately. -!ollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. );1.)1). -, &he ollowing de endants in Civil Case No. :11* are represented by %tty. !eynaldo Dimayacyac2 )7 Spouses Ernesto Curata L <ourdes 5. CurataI -7 Eduardo +. +ontalboI ,7 Spouses +arcelino Dalangin L 0italiana DalanginI 17 $ablo SumangaI :7 4eirs o +ateo +acaraigI 97 4eirs o $aulina %costaI *7 4eirs o Nicolas %ldoverI ?7 Spouses +arciano +analo L <ucila /abia, /regorio 5altado, Silverio !osales, and Cesaro IlaoI (7 4eirs o %ldoverI );7 Catalina $ereJ, <orna $antangco, Sonia $antangco, 'elen $antangco, Ireneo $antangco, Er., $edro ChaveJ, Saturnina $ereJ, Estelita C. $ereJ, Estelita +. $ereJ, !omeo $ereJ, !uben $ereJ, +ario $ereJ, Nabocho DonaJa $ereJ, +anuel $ereJ, 4erminigildo $ereJ, +ayhayda $ereJ, %l redo $ereJ, Ernesto $ereJ and %raceli $ereJ 6!epresented by !osario $ereJ !osel7I ))7 5red +. 4ernandeJ, married to Susana Ilao, 0icente /utierreJI )-7 +aria <acsamanaI ),7 Euana +acalaladI )17 5elisa 4ernandeJ, 5elino 4ernandeJ and 5lorention +acatangayI ):7 4eirs o 'asilio +acaraig and $aciencia del +undo. -1 &he ollowing de endants in Civil Case No. :11* are represented by %tty. /regorio 5. Ortega2 )7 $edro %lcantara married to Dorotea +acatangayI -7 CoraJon Ilao married to Ce erino $ereJI ,7 <uis <ira L Menaida <iraI 17 +ilagros +acatangayI :7 <ilia SinguimotoI 97 /erardo %bacan married to %licia 5abulI *7 /erardo %bacan, Erlinda %bacan, <iliana %bacan, Cristeta %bacan, %naliJa %bacanI ?7 <ibrada +acatangay vda. de %basI (7 Eose Noel +. %gbing, Eose Nereus +. %gbing, +a. 'ernadette +. %gbing, +arie 5rances &h. +. %gbingI );7 Cecile Olivia 5. CuisiaI ))7 E ren $. Espino married to Erlinda Espino,

Delia Espino married to Eoseph 0elasco, %l redo $. Espino married to Eloisa S. EspinoI )-7 Esteban EspinoI ),7 5elisa 4ernandeJI )17 %l redo 'autista married to +aria !ita 'autistaI ):7 !a ael <lana L !ustica <lanaI )97 Euana <. Carnero, %delaida 'elegalI )*7 'ienvenido +aralitI )?7 <uisa '. 0da de +ontalboI )(7 %Jucena $ereJ L %rnel $ereJI -;7 Constancia 0illamor 'arcelo married to %l onso 'arceloI -)7 Cesar $ereJ, !omeo $ereJ, !uben $ereJ, +ario $ereJ, Narocho DonaJa $ereJ, 4erminigildo $ereJ, Saturnina $ereJI --7 $ricilla 'uena eI -,7 %urea %costa married to !oman %costa, Consolacion %costa married to Severo +alimban, 'etty %costa married to Carlos Caabay, Constancio %costa married to %raceli !eraida, %raceli %costaI -17 Consuelo %lcantaraI -:7 Simeon 'alita married to Elena +. 'alitaI -97 +aria Clara &. 'erba, 5elimon &. 'erba, %Jucena &. 'erba, Eduardo &. 'erba, +a. <ourdes &. 'erba, Edgardo &. 'erba, Edmundo &. 'erbaI -*7 $acita +. 'erba, %le"andro +. 'erba, Clara +. 'erba, +artina +. 'erba, /remauldo +. 'erba, Evelina +. 'erbaI -?7 %melia +. 'erba, $ablo +. 'erba, !icardo +. 'erba, 5rancisco +. 'erbaI -(7 !a ael S. 'erbaI ,;7 %doracion %costa CabralI ,)7 Carlito Casas married to Enri=ueta CasasI ,-7 'en"amin Castillo married to Erlinda <aredoI ,,7 %ugusto ClaveriaI ,17 EsperanJa Dimaandal married to Eosue 'agsitI ,:7 +ariano DioFno, Ernesto '. DioFno, +ariano '. DioFno, Er., +aria Clara '. DioFno, %ngelita '. DioFnoI ,97 +aria EspaNolI ,*7 !u ino /eron married to +atilde /eronI ,?7 Segundina /ualbertoI ,(7 Si#to /ualberto married to +aria /ualbertoI 1;7 CoraJon Ilao, Isabelle +. Ilao, Concepcion +. Ilao, +ichelle I. Ilao, 'lanca I. Susi, Enrico %ntonio +. IlaoI 1)7 +aria <acsamanaI 1-7 Dorotea +acatangay married to &eodorico %lcantaraI 1,7 $edro +arasiganI 117 $ablo +endoJa married to +aria <ourdes +endoJaI 1:7 Eaime &auro married to !eynada &auroI 197 heirs o <ucila %ldoverI 1*7 %ndrea 'alina L +oises +acatangay 6heirs7I 1?7 4eirs o /regorio DapatI 1(7 $opula <lana 6heirs7I :;7 %rsenio %bacan 6heirs7I :)7 <auro %braham 6heirs7I :-7 +anuel %mul, Sr. L +arcosa +arasigan 6heirs7I :,7 Eulalio 'uena e 6heirs7I :17 /enerosa 'uena e 6heirs7I ::7 +arciana 'uena e 6heirs7I :97 4eirs o /uadalupe DayanghirangI :*7 4eirs o 5elino 4ernandeJI :?7 4eirs o 5lorentino +acatangayI :(7 'rigido <ontoc 6heirs7I 9;7 4eirs o $edro +agadiaI 9)7 !osa $. +agdala 6heirs7I 9-7 4eirs o Daniel +agadiaI 9,7 Eose +aranan L Concha +agadia 6heirs7I 917 4eirs o +aria +ontalboI 9:7 4eirs o /odo redo !osalesI 997 4eirs o +aria ConsolacionI 9*7 4eirs o <uisa 0illanuevaI 9?7 Evarista 'auan 6heirs7I 9(7 4eirs o +aria CaedoI *;7 4eirs o %gripina /arciaI *)7 5eliJa +acatangay 6heirs7I *-7 4eirs o 'asilio +acaraeg L $acencia del +undo. -: &he ollowing de endants in Civil Case No. :11* are represented by %tty. Cesar C. CruJ2 )7 !emedios !osales 'ondoc and Eose P. !osalesI -7 4eirs o <umin %ntolin. &he ollowing de endants have been lumped together under the CruJ group but have their own various counsels in bracFets2 )7 %nita /. EscaNo, <ydia /. Capulong, Erlinda /ermer /onJales and !omulo 5. /onJales G%tty. 5elipe /. CapulongHI -7 5rancisco %balos and !emedios %lano G%tty. Cipriano @. %siloHI ,7 Severo %lano, Soledad %lano, Inocencia %lano, $etra %lano, !emedios %lano, %ntonino %lano, 5elipe %lano G%tty. Cipriano @. %siloHI 17 %nunciacion /utierreJ G%tty. !amon /utierreJHI :7 5elipe Serrano and Spouse G%tty. Eugenio +endoJaHI 97 Silverio %tienJa L Eocelyn 5elio G%tty. Bolando %tienJaHI *7 Silverio %tienJa G%tty. Bolando %tienJaHI ?7 E.<. /andionco !ealty G%tty. /lenn +endoJaHI (7 <ourdes +ercado, %ugusto +ercado, 4eirs o 5idencio +ercado and 4eirs o Concepcion +ercado G%tty. Norberto <. Ca"ucomHI );7 Cecilia $asion Dimaandal, %rnel Eoseph Dimaandal, !o#anne Socorro Dimaandal, &eresita Dimaandal, %aron +artin Dimaandal, !achel 0ictoria Dimaandal, %ris %nthony Dimaandal G%tty. Delia C. 0ivarHI ))7 /regorio 'aliwag, Eliseo 'aliwag, Crisanta 'aliwag GNo CounselH. -9 &he ollowing de endants in Civil Case No. :11* are represented by %tty. Emmanuel %gustin2 )7 5elipa D. %costa married to 4onesto 4ernella, 4eirs o Eleuterio D. %costa married to +artha /alang, $acita D. %costa married to Emilio 'erberabe, <amberto D. %costa married to %ngelina IturaldeI -7 Sps. Emilio 'erberabe and $acita D. %costaI ,7 4eirs o Sps. %nastacia %ldover and Cesario !iveraI 17 !omulo S. 'alinaI :7 %doracion +agtibayI 97 Sole 4eir o Sps. $edro +ontalbo and +auricia 'alina, Catalina +ontalbo %ldoverI *7 4eirs o <eocadio and <eonila %lano, 4eirs o Sps. <eodacio %lano L 5elipa +acatangayI ?7 4eirs o Simeon +agtibayI (7 /abriela %costa or hersel and as Sole 4eir o Estanislawa %costaI );7 4eirs o Nestora %lcantara L brothersI ))7 Sps. Moilo %ldover L Catalina +ontalbo %ldoverI )-7 Catalina D. 'alina married to Euan !amireJI ),7 Simeon D. 'alina 6as de endant.in.intervenor7I )17 Erlinda D. 'alina married to %lberto !eyesI ):7 Sole 4eir o 5ortunata D. 'alina married to 5austino 'rual, Eose a /race 'rualI )97 Nemesio D. 'alina married to Conchita +oralesI )*7 4eirs o &omasa 'alinaI )?7 5rancisco %. 'erberabe, Emilio 5rancisco %. 'erberabe, Er., &homas %. 'erberabe married to Nympha %tienJa, and Eoel %. 'erberabe married to +urita !eyesI )(7 4eirs o Cecilia DimaandalI -;7 Sps. Edilberto Dimaandal L <ilia /arciaI -)7 Euana DimaandalI --7 4eirs o 0icenta /utierreJI -,7 4eirs o Evaristo +ontalbo L 5elisa +ontalboI and, -17 4eirs o 5rancisco Sumanga. -* Rollo 6/.!. No. ):1-)).)-7, pp. )9?.)*;. &he G5irstH $artial !eport in its entirety reads2 CO++ISSIONE!S $%!&I%< !E$O!&

W4E!E%S, upon Order o this 4onorable Court dated 1th %pril -;;;, that herein appointed Commissioners in relation to CI0I< C%SE NO. :11* or e#propriation o !eal $roperty are mandated to ascertain "ust compensation o the lots o the ollowing de endants who iled answer, thru Counsels, to wit2 ). S$O@SES E!NES&O C@!%&% L <O@!DES 5. C@!%&%I -. ED@%!DO +. +ON&%<'OI ,. S$O@SES +%!CE<INO D%<%N/IN L 0I&%<I%N% D%<%N/INI 1. $%'<O S@+%N/%I :. 4EI!S O5 +%&EO +%C%!%I/I 9. 4EI!S O5 $%@<IN% %COS&%I *. 4EI!S O5 NICO<%S %<DO0E!I ?. S$O@SES +%!CI%NO +%N%<O L <@CI<% /%'I%, /!E/O!IO 5%<&%DO, SI<0E!IO !OS%<ES, and CES%!O I<%OI (. 4EI!S O5 %<DO0E!I );. C%&%<IN% $E!EM, <O!N% $%N&%N/CO, SONI% $%N&%N/CO, 'E<EN $%N&%N/CO, I!ENEO $%N&%N/CO, E!., $ED!O C4%0EM, S%&@!NIN% $E!EM, ES&E<I&% C. $E!EM, ES&E<I&% +. $E!EM, !O+EO $E!EM, !@'EN $E!EM, +%!IO $E!EM, N%'OC4O DON%M% $E!EM, +%N@E< $E!EM, 4E!+INI/I<DO $E!EM, +%B4%BD% $E!EM, %<5!EDO $E!EM, E!NES&O $E!EM and %!%CE<I $E!EM 6!epresented by !OS%!IO $E!EM !OSE<7 )). 5!ED +. 4E!N%NDEM, married to S@S%N% I<%O, 0ICEN&E /@&IE!!EMI )-. +%!I% <%CS%+%N%I ),. E@%N% +%C%<%<%DI )1. 5E<IS% 4E!N%NDEM, 5E<INO 4E!N%NDEM and 5<O!EN&INO +%C%&%N/%BI ):. 4EI!S O5 '%SI<IO +%C%!%I/ and $%CIENCI% DE< +@NDO, W4E!E%S, the Commissioners have care ully studied, e#amined and analyJed the mani estation and its anne#es o the %5O!EN%+ED DE5END%N&S, thru Counsels, attached hereto and made integral parts o this !eport, together with all the records o the proceedings and other documentsI W4E!E%S, the Commissioners are guided with the three 6,7 basic concepts underlying the appraisal o real estate, such as2 6a7 %n appraisal is an opinion o an appraiser which is based upon interpretation o acts and belie as o given dateI 6b7 3!eal Estate3 is a term used to designate the rights o real estate ownership, rather than the land, building and other improvement. It is actually the rights o ownership that are appraised. Di erent owners may own one or more o the rights. 6c7 &he value appraised is the value to the typical user or investor, and not necessarily to the owner or any speci ic person or organiJation. W4E!E%S, current marFet value o real property is the marFet value which is acceptable to a willing buyer and a willing seller who are not obliged to buy and to sell, and marFet value o real property is never determined but merely estimated or it is only the Court that can i# value o real propertyI W4E!E%S, the commissioners noted paragraph ) o de endants> answer which states2 3# # # that i ever, it is vested with any power and authority to condemn or e#propriate private properties surrounding any port or harbor, or the development o any port District, or public use and purpose, as in the instant case, the same must be within the constitutional limitations, and as provided under 3)((* !ules o Civil $rocedure3, to the e ect that 3NO $!I0%&E $!O$E!&B S4%<< 'E &%PEN 5O! $@'<IC @SE, WI&4O@& E@S& CO+$ENS%&ION3 and must be determined as o the date o the taFing o the property, O! &4E 5I<IN/ O5 &4E CO+$<%IN&, whichever comes irstI3 W4E!E%S, a orementioned DE5END%N&S vehemently re used $<%IN&I55>S o ered price o $,,9.?per s=uare meter or being too little and does not constitute "ust compensationI W4E!E%S, DE5END%N&S herein are willing and ready to accept $?,;;;.;; per s=uare meter considering the attached 3Eudgment by Compromise %greement3 and 3Deed o %bsolute Sale3 costing real property within the vicinity o the $ort Site o $:,-)).;; per s=uare meter in )((* and $:,;;;.;; per s=uare meter in )((9 by reason o acceleration o prices at the time o the iling o the complaint in Eune )), )((*I W4E!E%S, the Commissioners cannot ignore the 5indings o the City %ppraisal Committee o 'atangas City o i#ing the cost o real properties a ected by the Southern &agalog %rterial !oad E#tension $acFage III, 'alagtas.$ort %rea Section particularly in 'arangay 'alagtas, %langilan, 'anaba South and 'olboF area at $1,;;;.;; per s=uare meter in )(((, copy o the +inutes o Committee 4earing is attached and made integral part hereo or being connected to the $ort Mone.

NOW &4E!E5O!E, 'E I& !ESO<0ED %S I& IS 4E!E'B !ESO<0ED, that in view o all the oregoing, it is the most considered view o the herein Commissioners to submit the cost o 5O@! &4O@S%ND EI/4& 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$1,?;;.;;7 per s=uare meter, or payment o "ust compensation, sub"ect to urther review, evaluation, discretion and sound "udgment o this 4onorable Court. 'atangas City, +ay -(, -;;;. -? Id. at -)-.-)1. -( Supra note 1. ,; Id. at -)*. ,) Rollo 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, pp. -)?.--:. ,Rollo 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, pp. --9.-,). ,, Id. at -,-.-,:. ,1 Id. at -,?.-,(, addressed to the <'$ 'atangas City. ,: Rollo 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, pp. -1,.-91, $etition or Certiorari and $rohibition 6With @rgent $rayer or Immediate Issuance o &emporary !estraining Order and Writ o $reliminary In"unction7 dated %ugust )?, -;;;. ,9 Id. at ,,).,,-, dated %ugust (, -;;;. ,* Id. at ,19.,1*. ,? Id. at ,9?. ,( Id. at ,9(.,*). 1; Id. at ,*-.,(;, Supplemental $etition 6With @rgent $rayer or Immediate Issuance o &emporary !estraining Order and Writ o $reliminary In"unction7 dated September ), -;;;. 1) Id. at );?. 1Rollo 6/.!. No. )*;9?,7, pp. ,;-.,;:. &he GSecondH $artial !eport in its entirety reads2 CO++ISSIONE!S $%!&I%< !E$O!& W4E!E%S, upon Order o this 4onorable Court dated Euly )?, -;;;, the herein appointed Commissioners in relation to CI0I< C%SE NO. :11* or e#propriation o !eal $roperty are liFewise mandated to ascertain the "ust compensation o lots o the ollowing de endants, to wit2 ). E!<IND% D. '%<IN%I -. NE+ESIO '%<IN%I ,. 5E<I$% %COS&%I 1. 4EI!S O5 E<E@&E!IO %COS&%I :. $%CI&% %COS&%I 9. <%+'E!&O %COS&%I *. E+I<IO 'E!'E!%'EI ?. SO<E 4EI! O5 /%'!IE<% %COS&%I (. ES&%NIS<%W %COS&%I );. 4EI!S O5 CECI<I% DI+%%ND%<I )). 4EI!S O5 5!%NCISCO S@+%N/%I )-. 4EI!S O5 SI+EON +%/&I'%BI ),. 4EI!S O5 CES%!IO !I0E!% %ND %N%S&%CI% %<DO0E!I )1. 5!%NCISCO %. 'E!'E!%'EI ):. E+I<IO 5. 'E!'E!%'E, E!.I )9. EOE< 'E!'E!%'EI )*. &O+%S 'E!'E!%'EI )?. 4EI!S O5 NES&O! %<C%N&%!%I )(. EN!ICO %<C%N&%!%I -;. <EON%!DO %<C%N&%!%I -). !O+@<O '%<IN%I --. 4EI!S O5 $ED!O +ON&%<'OI -,. E@%N% DI+%%ND%<I -1. C%&%<IN% D. '%<IN%I -:. 4EI!S O5 5O!&@N%&% '%<IN%I -9. S$S. MOI<O %<DO0E! %ND C%&%<IN% +ON&%<'OI -*. 4EI!S O5 $ED!O +ON&%<'OI -?. +%@!ICI% '%<IN%I -(. %DO!%CION +%/&I'%BI ,;. 4EI!S O5 0ICEN&% /@&IE!!EMI

,). EDI<'E!&O DI+%%ND%<I ,-. <I<I% /%!CI%I ,,. 4EI!S O5 E0%!IS&O +ON&%<'OI ,1. 5E<IS% +ON&%<'OI ,:. 4EI!S O5 <EOC%DIO %<%NOI ,9. 5E<I$% +%C%&%N/%BI ,*. <EOC%DIO %<%NOI ,?. <EO0I<% %<%NOI ,(. &O+%S% '%<IN%I 1;. <E%ND!O !. /%<0EMI 1). 5!%NCISCO %'%<OSI 1-. $E&!% %<%NOI 1,. 4EI!S O5 SE0E!O %<%NOI 11. 4EI!S O5 SO<ED%D %<%NOI 1:. 4EI!S O5 INOCENCI% %<%NOI 19. 4EI!S O5 !E+EDIOS %<%NOI 1*. 4EI!S O5 %N&ONIO %<%NOI 1?. %ND 4EI!S O5 5E<I$E %<%NOI W4E!E%S, the herein Commissioners have submitted $artial !eport recommending marFet value o 5our &housand Eight 4undred $esos 6$1,?;;.;;7 per s=uare meter, based on the legal document enumerated therein through CounselsI W4E!E%S, we have received additional evidences or evaluation such as the ollowing2 ). !eport o Cuervo %ppraisers, Inc., -. &ranscript o !ecords ,. Copy o E#ecutive Order ,?: 1. Copy o E#ecutive Order 1,) urther e#panding EO ,?: W4E!E%S, a ter evaluation, it was established that the evidences submitted are "ust the same evidences being considered in this CaseI W4E!E%S, the Commissioners noted that the properties o the DE5END%N&S are ad"acent to the other properties being e#propriated since they are all within the port Jone as described and mandated in GEOH ,?: which was later amended by GEOH 1,) on October )(, )((; # # #I W4E!E%S, it is the belie and view o the undersigned Commissioners that since )((; the e ectivity o GEOH 1,), the port Jone is already converted to industrial JoneI W4E!E%S, being considered prime lands, the presence o utilities such as electricity, water and communication services are available on the area nearby the properties o the %5O!EN%+ED DE5END%N&SI NOW &4E!E5O!E, 'E I& !ESO<0ED %S I& IS 4E!E'B !ESO<0ED, on the basis o the above premise, it is the consistent stand o the undersigned Commissioners that we adhere to the previous recommendations and indings o "ust compensation in the amount o 5O@! &4O@S%ND EI/4& 4@ND!ED $ESOS 6$1,?;;.;;7 per s=uare meter, as there appears to have no cogent reason that would "usti y the changes o previous recommendation. 'atangas City, %ugust -, -;;;. 11 Supra note :, at );,.);9. 1: &he %gustin, Ortega and CruJ /roups, and $astor !ealty Corp., et al. 19 In C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11, $$% assailed the +ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 !&C Orders, the November --, -;;1 Writ o E#ecution and November -,, -;;1 Notices o /arnishment issued in avor o the %gustin /roup. In C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9, $$% iled a petition to cite Eudge $aterno &ac.an or contempt or continuing to hear the e#propriation case despite the C% cease and desist Order. 1* Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, p. );,. 1? Id. at ?;:.:9 to ?;:.:(. 1( Id. at ?;:.9; to ?;:.9*. :; Id. at ?;:.*; to ?;:.*-, also at ,,(.,1). :) Id. at ?;:.9? to ?;:.9(. :Supra note 1?. :, Supra note 1(. :1 Supra note 1(. :: Supra note -. :9 Supra note :;.

:* :?

!ollo 6/.!. No. ):1-)).)-7 pp. --9.-,). Rollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, pp. ),9.)1,. :( Id. at )11. 9; Id. at )1:. 9) Id. at -:9. 9Id. at -:*. 9, Id. at )19.):). 91 Issued on 5ebruary )*, )((( by then $resident Estrada. 9: Rollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, pp. ):-.):1, dated Eune )?, -;;-.. 99 Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. ,9).,**, dated Eune )(, -;;-. 9* On November *, -;;; and during the pendency o Civil Case No. :11*, !epublic %ct No. 6!%7 ?(*1 was signed into law, pertinently providing as ollows2 Section 1. /uidelines or E#propriation $roceedings.ZWhenever it is necessary to ac=uire real property or the # # # location or any national government in rastructure pro"ect through e#propriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the e#propriation proceedings # # # under the ollowing guidelines2 6a7 @pon the iling o the complaint, and a ter due notice # # #, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner o the property the amount e=uivalent to the sum o 6)7 one hundred percent 6);;D7 o the value o the property based on the current relevant Jonal valuation o the 'ureau o Internal !evenue 6'I!7I # # # 6b7 In # # # areas where there is no Jonal valuation, the 'I! is hereby mandated within the period o si#ty 69;7 days rom the date o the e#propriation case, to come up with a Jonal valuation o said areaI and #### @pon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to taFe possession o the property # # #. #### In the event that the owner o the property contests the implementing agency>s pro erred value, the court shall determine the "ust compensation to be paid # # #. When the decision o the court becomes inal and e#ecutory, the implementing agency shall pay the owner the di erence between the amount already paid and the "ust compensation as determined by the court. 6Emphasis supplied.7 9? Rollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, pp. -9?.-9(. 9( Id. at )::. *; Id. at ,(.1;. *) Id at ):9.)9). %ccording to the $$%, %tty. 'ernardo>s con ormity letter was without $$%>s management clearance. *Id. at 1).1*. *, Id. at ,*. *1 Issued on 5ebruary )*, )((( by then $resident Estrada. *: Supra note :;. *9 Rollo 6/.!. No. )*;9?,7, pp. -?-.-?1. ** Id. at 9*. *? Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. ,;;.,,?, 'rie or the $lainti .%ppellant dated Euly )(, -;;-. *( Supra note )). ?; Supra note )-. ?) Rollo 6/.!. No. )*;9?,7, p. 99. ?Rollo 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, pp. )?;.)?:. ?, Rollo 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, pp. 1,).1,1. ?1 Rollo 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, p. )?9. ?: Id. at )(?. ?9 Id. at )((.-;). ?* Id. at -;1.-)?. ?? Supra note ?. ?( Rollo 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, pp. 1;.1). (; Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. :1,.:9(, dated Euly -?, -;;:. () %s a orementioned, C%./.!. S$ No. (;*(9 was consolidated with C%./.!. C0 No. **99? 6appeal rom the %ugust ):, -;;; Order GSecond Compensation OrderH and C%./.!. S$ No. ?*?11 6assailing the

+ay -(, -;;) and November )?, -;;1 !&C Orders, the November --, -;;1 Writ o E#ecution and November -,, -;;1 Notices o /arnishment7 be ore the C%>s &enth Division. (Rollo 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, p. :-). (, Rollo 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, pp. ,;.,). (1 Camposagrado v. Camposagrado, /.!. No. )1,)(:, Sept. ),, -;;:, 19( SC!% 9;-, 9;*I $t. 9ouis Eniversit4 v. Cordero, /.!. No. )11))?, Euly -), -;;1, 1,1 SC!% :*:I (ambao v. CA, /.!. No. )1;?(1, Nov. -*, -;;;, ,19 SC!% )1), )19. (: /.!. No. )*,(1-, October ):, -;;*, 1(: SC!% -:-. (9 See *inete v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. )-*:(9, Sept. -1, )((?, -(9 SC!% ,?I Da"ardo v. Cas, /.!. No. )1;,:9, +arch -;, -;;), ,:1 SC!% *,9I *o v. -ong, /.!. No. ):)(1-, Nov. -* -;;,, 1)9 SC!% ::*, :9*I 4eirs o 'ertuldo 4inog v. +elicor, /.!. No. )1;(:1, )- %pril -;;:, 1:: SC!% 19;, 1*:I 5ar Corporation v. +agdaluyo, /.!. No. )1?*,(, Nov. )(, -;;1, 11, SC!% -)?. (* See (ambao v. Court of Appeals, supra note (1, at )19. (? /.!. No. )1(--*, December )), -;;,, 1)? SC!% ,?;, ,?*I citing 8uenaflor v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. )1-;-), November -(, -;;;, ,19 SC!% :9,, :9*. (( Enri=ueJ v. Enri=ueJ, /.!. No. ),(,;,, -: %ugust -;;:, 19? SC!% **, ?9. );; 1; $hil. ::;, :9- 6)()(7. );) No. <.,;;(?, 5ebruary )?, )(*;, ,), SC!% 9)9, 9-:. );/.!. No. )::9:;, Euly -;, -;;9, 1(: SC!% :(). );, Id. at 91-. );1 Rollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, p. ,(,. );: -olentino v. Al+ate, (? $hil. *?), *?,.*?1 6)(:97. );9 <.E. /onJaga, Statutes and &heir Construction 1* 6)st ed., )(:?7I citing 'lacF, Interpretation o <aws ,?;.,?). );* Mulueta v. %sia 'rewery, Inc., /.!. No. ),?),*, +arch ?, -;;), ,:1 SC!% );;. );? Section )1. Repealing Clause.UU%ll laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereo inconsistent with this %ct are hereby repealed or amended accordingly. );( /.!. No. )991-(, December )(, -;;:, 1*? SC!% 1*1. )); /.!. No. ):?9;(, Euly -*, -;;*, :-? SC!% -?*. ))) Sec. ,, Chap. -, &itle I, 'ooF III. ))%O :;, Sec. ). )), Id., Sec. ,. ))1 /ational %o er Corporation v. %urefoods Corporation, /.!. No. )9;*-:, September )-, -;;?I citing E$M% v. Dulay, No. <.:(9;,, %pril -(, )(?*, )1( SC!% ,;:. )): 9and 8anC of t!e %!ilippines v. Celada, /.!. No. )91?*9, Eanuary -,, -;;9, 1*( SC!% 1(:. ))9 E%LA v. Dula4, supra note ))1, at ,)9. ))* Rollo 6/.!. No. )99-;;7, pp. ,(1.,(:. ))? Rollo 6/.!. No. )9?-*-7, p. -;. ))( Supra note 1. )-; !ollo 6/.!. Nos. ):1-)).)-7, p. -)*. )-) Rollo 6/.!. No. )*;9?,7, p. );-9. )-Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. ),);.),)). )-, Supra note )1, at ))(1.))(:. )-1 In the same En 8anc !esolution o Eanuary -(, -;;?, /.!. No. )*,,(- was consolidated with /.!. No. ):?-:-, which was liFewise earlier re erred to the Court En 'anc on October )*, -;;*, and En 8anc case /.!. No. )99-;;. )-: No. <.9;;,9, Eanuary -*, )(?*, )1* SC!% ,,1, ,,(.,1). )-9 $rincipio v. 'arrientos, /.!. No. )9*;-:, December )(, -;;:, 1*? SC!% 9,(, 919. )-* +ead v. 4on. %rgel, -;; $hil. 9:;, 9:9 6)(?-7I Bap v. <utero, );: $hil. ),;*, ),;? 6)(:(7. )-? $ineda v. 'artolome, (: $hil. (,;, (,* 6)(:17I citing $eople v. Mulueta, ?( $hil. *:-, *:9 6)(:)7. )-( Id. ),; Id. ),) Casil v. Court o %ppeals, ,1( $hil. )?*, )(9.)(* 6)((?7. ),/.!. No. 9(-9;, December --, )(?(, )?; SC!% :*9, :?1I cited in /ational %o er Corporation v. #ocson, /.!. Nos. (1)(,.((, 5ebruary -:, )((-, -;9 SC!% :-;, :,9. ),, /.!. No. ?1-(1, October )9, )(?(, )*? SC!% :?(, :(9. ),1 ,unicipal *overnment of $aga4 v. #ison, );1 $hil. );-9, );,, 6)(:?7.

),:

/ational %o er Corporation v. C!iong, /.!. No. ):-1,9, Eune -;, -;;,, 1;1 SC!% :-*, :,(, citing/ational %o er Corporation v. Fenson, /.!. No. )-(((?, December -(, )((?, ,;; SC!% *:), *:9. ),9 /ational %o er Corporation v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. :9,*?, Eune --, )(?1, )-( SC!% 99:, 9*,I citing ,unicipal *overnment of $aga4 v. #ison, supra note ),1. ),* ,anila Railroad Co. v. &elasque+, ,- $hil. -?9 6)():7I Association of $mall 9ando ners in t!e %!ilippines, 0nc. v. $ecretar4 of Agrarian Reform, /.!. Nos. *?*1-, *(,);, *(*11, and *(***, Euly ),, )(?(, )*: SC!% ,*?. ),? Supra note -;. ),( Supra note -). )1; Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. ),::.),9;. )1) !ecord, /.!. No. )*,,(-, 5older or E#hibits ).(9, de endants represented by %tty. /regorio Ortega. &he e#hibits however are numbered until (*. No reason has been given or the inconsistency. &he complete list is as ollows2 Owner>s nameA$arty Description o land %gricultural <ocation o land 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, %rea 6s=. m7 )-,-1) +arFet 0alue $h$ 1),1:). ,, $h$ -*,-1;. ;9 $h$ 1,1,-.1 $h$ -,;-*.( ( $h$ *,:;1.? ? $h$ 1,-9;.* * $h$ (,,(,.1 : $h$ (,))-.1 : $h$ (,))-.1 E# hib it )

). %urea %costa

-. %urea %costa

%gricultural

?,,;)

,. Consuelo %lcantara

%gricultural

,,;;,

1. <ucila %ldover

%gricultural

9)?

:. Spouses +oises +acatangay and %ndrea 'alina 9. Evarista 'auan

%gricultural

-,-?*

%gricultural

),--;.:;

*. !a ael S. 'erba

4orticultural land

-,9()

?. %melia +. 'erba

4orticultural land

-,9()

(. $acita +. 'erba

4orticultural land

-,9()

'atangas City );. $acita +. 'erba 4orticultural land 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City -,*(,

: $h$ (,1:*.? : $h$ (,191.9 $h$ (,);(.; 9 $h$ )),11(. -( $h$ ?,,;-.( $h$ (,))-.1 : $h$ ):,?-9. ?9 $h$ :,9?9.( ; $h$ ?*;:., $h$ (,);(.; 9 $h$ -),;-;. ;; );

-). EsperanJa Dimaandal

Industrial

'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City

1,;;;

$h$ ,??,;; ;.;; $h$ 1,?((., , $h$ :,1?,.1 : $h$ 1,1*9.; ) $h$ )*,(;*. ,9 $h$ ,(;1., 9 $h$ 1?,?.( * $h$ ))?,-;.;; $h$ (,))-.1 : $h$ ),,(-,. :* $h$ -;,-9,. :; $h$ ,,1*).? 9

-)

--. +aria Espanol )) -,. %gri ina /arcia )-1. Spouses !u ino '. /eron and +atilde $. /eron -:. Segundina '. /ualberto )1 -9. Segundina '. /ualberto ): -*. Segundina '. /ualberto )9 -?. Segundina '. /ualberto )* -(. <uisa '. +ontalbo )? ,;. CoraJon Ilao )( ,). CoraJon Ilao -; ,-. CoraJon Ilao

%gricultural

),1(,

--

)). +aria '. Caedo

4orticultural land

-,*(:

%gricultural

),9*)

-,

)-. +aria Clara &. 'erba

4orticultural land

-,9(;

%gricultural

),,91

-1

),. %doracion %. Cabral

%gricultural

,,1?(

),

%gricultural

:,1,*

-:

)1. %doracion %costa Cabral

%gricultural

-,:,;

4orticultural land

),):,

-9

):. +aria '. Caedo

4orticultural land

-,9()

4orticultural land

),1-(

-*

)9. 'en"amin Castillo

%gricultural

1,?,:

!esidential

-:*

-?

)*. Erlinda <aredo Castillo

%gricultural

),*,,

4orticultural land

-,9()

-(

)?. %ugusto +. Claveria

%gricultural

-,9:,

%gricultural

1,-1,

,)

)(. +ariano DioFno

4orticultural land

-,9(;

%gricultural

9,)*:

,-

-;. Spouses Carlito Casas and Enri=ueta Casas 6)A-7 and Spouses Emilio 'erberabe and $acita C. %costa

%gricultural

);,;99

%gricultural

),;:?

,,

,,. +aria <acsamana

%gricultural

'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City

),):*

$h$ ,,*(9.* 1 $h$ 1,91;.; ( $h$ )9,9(9. 1* $h$ )9,)91. ?9 $h$ :,:(:.; -

,1

11. /erardo %bacan

%gricultural

,1. +aria <acsamana

%gricultural

),1)1

,: 1:. /erardo %bacan %gricultural

'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City

,,(?,

$h$ ),,;*;. ,*

1?

,,)-?

$h$ );,-91. 9:

1(

,:. Spouses 'asilio +acaraig and $acencia Del +undo ,9. Spouses 'asilio +acaraig and $acencia Del +undo ,*. $edro +arasigan

%gricultural

:;??

,9 19. Spouses /erardo %bacan and %licia 5abul %gricultural

);,;))

%gricultural

1,(-9

,*

$h$ ,-,?:). 1(

:;

%gricultural

),*;:

1;

1*. Spouses +anuel %mul and +arcosa %mul

%gricultural

:,,9;

$h$ )*,:?(. ;:

:)

,?. $ablo D. +endoJa

%gricultural !esidential

,,;;; $h$ 6%gricult );,):?. ural7 ?) 11* $h$ 6!esidenti -;:,9al7 ;.;; 9;( $h$ ),9?(.) ( $h$ ,,,;*., ( $h$ )*,?:1. ?:

1)

1?. %Jucena and %rnel $ereJ

%gricultural

-,):?

$h$ *,;?).: ?

:-

,(. Spouses Eaime &auro and !eynada D. &auro 1;. Spouses Eaime &auro and !eynada D. &auro 1). <auro C. %braham

%gricultural

'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay 'olboF, 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City

1,

1(. Cecile Olivia 5. Cuisia

%gricultural

9,*;;

$h$ -),(?9. ,)

:,

%gricultural

),:?1

11

:;. %l redo 'autista

4orticultural land

91,

$h$ --11.* )

:1

%gricultural

:,11)

1:

:). +arciana 'uena e

%gricultural

-,);9

$h$ 9();.( )

::

1-. %rsenio %bacan

%gricultural

),1:1

$h$ 1,**)., :

19

:-. +arciana 'uena e

%gricultural

,,*(9

$h$ )-,1:9. *-

:9

1,. 5rancisco %bacan and <etecia % Claveria

%gricultural

)-,,?1

$h$ 1),(,:. :9

1*

:,. +arciana 'uena e

%gricultural

),;(;

$h$ ,,:*9.? *

:*

:1. $riscila 'uena e

%gricultural

'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City

-,---

$h$ *,-().: ?

:?

91. $edro &. +agadia and !ose +agadia

%gricultural

'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City

),;?1

$h$ ,,::*.) ?

*;

::. /enerosa 'uena e

%gricultural

-,)-?

$h$ 9,(?,.) )

:(

9:. !osa D. +agadia

%gricultural

),;?:

$h$ ,,:9;.1 *

*)

:9. Eulalio 'uena e

%gricultural

,,;:,

$h$ );,;)?. :1

9;

99. Spouses Eose +aranan and Concha +. +aranan

%gricultural

-,-(-

$h$ *,::-). -?

*-

:*. Esteban Espino

%gricultural

-,?;1

$h$ (,-;).1 ,

9,

9*. <ibrada +acatangay

%gricultural

),9(1

$h$ :,::?.( -

*,

:?. Dr. E rem $. Espino, et al.

%gricultural

)1,:(;

$h$ :;,(,,. 9(

91

9?. <ibrada +acatangay

%gricultural

19,

$h$ ),:)(., :

*1

:(. /uadalupe Dayanghirang

%gricultural

9,91-

$h$ -),*(:. (?

9:

9(. 5rancisco %bacan and <etecia %. Claveria

%gricultural

)-,,?1

$h$ 1),(,:. :9

*:

9;. 5elino 5ernandeJ, et al.

%gricultural

)),,9:

$h$ ,(,9*:. -)

99

*;. Constancia 0illamor.'arcelo

4orticultural land

?,,*)

$h$ -*,19(. **

*9

9). !a ael <lana and !ustica <lana $ereJ

%gricultural

),,,(:

$h$ 1,,(:9. --

9*

*). +aria +. +ontales

%gricultural

:,;1)

$h$ )9,::-. ;?

*?

9-. 'rigido <ontoc, et al.

%gricultural

),)):

$h$ ,,9:?.( -

9?

*-. <uisa '. +ontalbo

%gricultural

)),*??

$h$ ,(,()*. ,:

*(

9,. Daniel +agadia

%gricultural

-,)1;

$h$ *,;--.1 ;

9(

*,. <uisa '. +ontalbo

4orticultural land

:,1?9

$h$ )?,;;-. :,

?;

*1. /odo redo !osales

%gricultural

'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Calicanto , 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City

)),;?;

$h$ ,?,9?;. ,?

?) ?1. +ilagros +acatangay ??:. <ilia Suingimoto Salt bed 5ishpond 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City -(,,)(

;; $h$ :?,91;. ;; (-

*:. +aria Consolacion Sarmiento

%gricultural

),,:?,

$h$ 11,:*,. ):

)-,,1(

$h$ ))-,?: ,.::

(1

*9. <uisa 0illanueva

%gricultural

(1:

$h$ ,,);).; :

?, ?9. $opula <lana Salt bed 6)*,(((7 4orticultural land 6-:,*9(7 Swampy 619,;)97 5ishpond 6(?,;9(7 Salt bed

)?*,?:,

$h$ ),)99,? (*.?-

(:

**. <uisa 0illanueva

%gricultural

)?,-;(

$h$ :(,*:,. :9

?1

*?. Spouses $edro %. %lcantara and Dorotea +acatangay

4orticultural land

),:?)

$h$ :,)??.) )

?:

?*. <uis C. <ira

'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City 'arangay Sta. Clara, 'atangas City

)(,9,;

$h$ )*(,,( -.-(

(9

*(. <ucila %ldover

%gricultural

),-:)

$h$ 1,);:.;

?9

??. !osario $ereJ, et al.

4orticultural land

)*,***

$h$ :?,,,:. (,

(*

?;. %ndrea %lbina

4orticultural land

1,;:)

$h$ ),,-(,. :)

?*

)1)1, )11

?). /regoria Dapat

Salinal 6Salt land7

)),(,?

$h$ );(,;( *.::

??

?-. CoraJon Ilao, et al.

4orticultural land

(,,:)

$h$ ,;,9?:. 9?

?(

?,. +ilagros +acatangay

5ishpond Salt bed

,1,9-; 65ishpond 7 -,;;; 6Salt bed7

$h$ 9(,-1;. ;; $h$ 1;,;;;.

(;

Id., E#hibit No. -). Id., E#hibit No. 1). Id., E#hibit No. -?. )1: Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. :(9.9)1. )19 Rollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, pp. )19.):). )1* &SN, +arch -:, -;;? Oral %rguments, pp. -;(.-);. )1? Id. at -)).-):. )1( Id. at -((.,;;. ):; Other landowners who sold their properties to $$% pending the instant e#propriation case are2 )7 Cecile Olivia 5. CuisiaI -7 $astor !ealty CompanyI ,7 Cecile Olivia 5. CuisiaI 17 Caridad 'uena e !amosI :7 +anuel D. +agadiaI 97 +anuel D. +agadiaI *7 E.<. /andionco !ealty Development Corporation by2 !omana S. /andioncoI ?7 E.<. /andionco !ealty Development Corporation by2 !omana S. /andioncoI (7 $astor !ealty CompanyI );7 /erardo %bacan and %licia 5abulI ))7 'rigido <ontoc, Euana Cornero and %delaida 'elegalI )-7 <uJ 'almesI ),7 4eirs o Esteban EspinoI )17 /abriela and Estanislawa %costaI ):7 !u ino '. /eron and +atilde /eronI )97 !aymund &. $astor and Carlo /. $astorI )*7 Segundina /ualbertoI )?7 %nita EscanoI )(7 %nita EscanoI -;7 %nita Escano. %nne#es SS to SS.)9 o $etition or !eview, Rollo 6/.!. No. )*,,(-7, pp. 91-.*-?. $ee also %nne#es %%Z%%.): o $etition or !eview, Rollo 6/.!. No. )*;9?,7, pp. 1,*.:-, on the landowners who sold their properties to $$% pending resolution o the e#propriation case2 )7 %nita /. Escano, <ydia /. Capulong L Erlinda /onJales. /ermarI -7 %nita /. Escano, <ydia /. Capulong, !omulo /. /onJaels L Erlinda /onJales./ermarI ,7 4eirs o Esteban '. Espino 65lordeliJa E. Cantos, Euana <. Carnero, +anuel del +undo, Severion Espino, Dionisia D. 0ellon, !icardo Espino, %l redo $. Espino, Er.7I 17 <igaya 0illanueva.<ontoF, Euana <. Carnero L %delaida <. 'elegalI :7 $astor !ealty CompanyI 97 %le# 'uena e, 'renda 'uena e, Eulalio

'uena e, Er. L Caridad 'uena eI *7 Cecile Olivia 5. CuisiaI ?7 Spouses /erardo %bacan L %licia 5abulI (7 +anuel D. +agadiaI );7 E.<. /andionco !ealty Development CorporationI ))7 <uJ 'almesI )-7 4eirs o /abriela L Estanislawa %costa 6+ario %. Castillo, <uis %. Castillo, Elpidia !esurreccion Castillo L %ntonio %. Castillo7I ),7 Spouses !u ino '. /eron L +atilde $. /eronI )17 !aymund &. $astor L Carlo /. $astorI and, ):7 Segundina '. /ualberto. ):) Rollo 6/.!. No. ):?-:-7, pp. )??.)(;. ):Id. at )().)(,. ):, Id. at )(1.)(9. &he heirs are2 6)7 %le# 'uena e married to Cenelinda 'almesI 6-7 'renda 'uena e married to 0irgilito +angalinoI 6,7 Dennis 'uena e and 617 Eulalio 'uena e, Er., represented by their %ttorney.in.5act, Caridad 'uena e.!amos. ):1 Supra note )1, at ))*(.))?;. ):: &SN, +arch -:, -;;?, pp. 1:.19. ):9 Id. at 1*.1?. ):* Id. at :). ):? Id. at -?).-?-. ):( II +oore on 5acts )--:. )9; %ugust ):, -;;; Order. )9) See %agano v. /a+arro, #r., /.!. No. )1(;*-, September -), -;;*, :,, SC!% 9--, 9-?, citing Office of t!e Court Administrator v. #uan, %.+. No. $.;,.)*-9, -- Euly -;;1, 1,1 SC!% 9:1, 9:? and 'a=uer o v. SancheJ, %.+. No. $.;:.)(*1, 9 %pril -;;:, 1:: SC!% ),, )(.-;I ReN Report on t!e #udicial Audit Conducted in t!e Regional -rial Court, 8ranc! >, Dolores, Eastern $amar, %.+. No. ;9.9.,1;.!&C, October )*, -;;*, :,9 SC!% ,),, ,,?, citing Concerned -rial 9a 4ers of ,anila v. &eneracion, %.+. No. !&E.;:.)(-;, -9 %pril -;;9, 1?? SC!% -?:, -(?.-(( and Aquino, #r. v. ,iranda, %.+. No. $.;). )1:,, -* +ay -;;1, 1-( SC!% -,;, -,(I $antos v. 9acurom, %.+. No. !&E.;1.)?-,, %ugust -?, -;;9, 1(( SC!% 9,(, 91?, citing /eri v. Furtado, #r., %.+. No. !&E.;;.):?1, )? 5ebruary -;;1, 1-, SC!% -;;. )9!eyes v. National 4ousing %uthority, /.!. No. )1*:)), Eanuary -;, -;;,, ,(: SC!% 1(1, :;:.

G.R. No. 16-8/6

J'(u'0y 20, 2009

J*ANITO A. GARCIA '() AL+ERTO J. D*MAGO, $etitioners, vs. HILI INE AIRLINE", INC., !espondent. DECISION CAR IO MORALE", J.: $etitioners Euanito %. /arcia and %lberto E. Dumago assail the December :, -;;, Decision and %pril )9, -;;1 !esolution o the Court o %ppeals) in C%./.!. S$ No. 9(:1; which granted the petition or certiorari o respondent, $hilippine %irlines, Inc. 6$%<7, and denied petitioners> +otion or !econsideration, respectively. &he dispositive portion o the assailed Decision reads2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered and in view o the oregoing, the instant petition is hereby /I0EN D@E CO@!SE. &he assailed November -9, -;;) !esolution as well as the Eanuary -?, -;;- !esolution o public respondent National <abor !elations Commission GN<!CH is hereby %NN@<<ED and SE& %SIDE or having been issued with grave abuse o discretion amounting to lacF or e#cess o "urisdiction. Conse=uently, the Writ o E#ecution and the Notice o /arnishment issued by the <abor %rbiter are hereby liFewise %NN@<<ED and SE& %SIDE. SO O!DE!ED.&he case stemmed rom the administrative charge iled by $%< against its employees.herein petitioners, a ter they were allegedly caught in the act o sni ing shabu when a team o company security personnel and law en orcers raided the $%< &echnical Center>s &oolroom Section on Euly -1, )((:. % ter due notice, $%< dismissed petitioners on October (, )((: or transgressing the $%< Code o Discipline,1prompting them to ile a complaint or illegal dismissal and damages which was, by Decision o Eanuary )), )(((,:resolved by the <abor %rbiter in their avor, thus ordering $%< to, inter alia, immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect o the decision. $rior to the promulgation o the <abor %rbiter>s decision, the Securities and E#change Commission 6SEC7 placed $%< 6herea ter re erred to as respondent7, which was su ering rom severe inancial losses, under an Interim !ehabilitation !eceiver, who was subse=uently replaced by a $ermanent !ehabilitation !eceiver on Eune *, )(((.

5rom the <abor %rbiter>s decision, respondent appealed to the N<!C which, by !esolution o Eanuary ,), -;;;, reversed said decision and dismissed petitioners> complaint or lacF o merit.9 $etitioners> +otion or !econsideration was denied by !esolution o %pril -?, -;;; and Entry o Eudgment was issued on Euly ),, -;;;.* Subse=uently or on October :, -;;;, the <abor %rbiter issued a Writ o E#ecution 6Writ7 respecting thereinstatement aspect o his Eanuary )), )((( Decision, and on October -:, -;;;, he issued a Notice o /arnishment 6Notice7. !espondent thereupon moved to =uash the Writ and to li t the Notice while petitioners moved to release the garnished amount. In a related move, respondent iled an @rgent $etition or In"unction with the N<!C which, by !esolutions o November -9, -;;) and Eanuary -?, -;;-, a irmed the validity o the Writ and the Notice issued by the <abor %rbiter but suspended and re erred the action to the !ehabilitation !eceiver or appropriate action. !espondent elevated the matter to the appellate court which issued the herein challenged Decision and !esolution nulli ying the N<!C !esolutions on two grounds, essentially espousing that2 D1A a subse=uent inding o a valid dismissal removes the basis or implementing the reinstatement aspect o a labor arbiter>s decision 6the irst ground7, and D2A the impossibility to comply with the reinstatement order due to corporate rehabilitation provides a reasonable "usti ication or the ailure to e#ercise the options under %rticle --, o the <abor Code 6the second ground7. 'y Decision o %ugust -(, -;;*, this Court $%!&I%<<B /!%N&ED the present petition and e ectively reinstated the N<!C !esolutions inso ar as it suspended the proceedings, vi+2 Since petitioners> claim against $%< is a money claim or their wages during the pendency o $%<>s appeal to the N<!C, the same should have been suspended pending the rehabilitation proceedings. &he <abor %rbiter, the N<!C, as well as the Court o %ppeals should have abstained rom resolving petitioners> case or illegal dismissal and should instead have directed them to lodge their claim be ore $%<>s receiver. 4owever, to still re=uire petitioners at this time to re. ile their labor claim against $%< under peculiar circumstances o the caseU that their dismissal was eventually held valid with only the matter o reinstatement pending appeal being the issueU this Court deems it legally e#pedient to suspend the proceedings in this case. W4E!E5O!E, the instant petition is $%!&I%<<B /!%N&ED in that the instant proceedings herein are S@S$ENDED until urther notice rom this Court.

%ccordingly, respondent $hilippine %irlines, Inc. is hereby DI!EC&ED to =uarterly update the Court as to the status o its ongoing rehabilitation. No costs. SO O!DE!ED.? 6Italics in the originalI underscoring supplied7 'y +ani estation and Compliance o October ,;, -;;*, respondent in ormed the Court that the SEC, by Order o September -?, -;;*, granted its re=uest to e#it rom rehabilitation proceedings.( In view o the termination o the rehabilitation proceedings, the Court now proceeds to resolve the remaining issue or consideration, which is whether petitioners may collect their wages during the period between the <abor %rbiter>s order o reinstatement pending appeal and the N<!C decision overturning that o the <abor %rbiter, now that respondent has e#ited rom rehabilitation proceedings. Amplification of the /irst )round &he appellate court counted on as its irst ground the view that a subse=uent inding o a valid dismissal removes the basis or implementing the reinstatement aspect o a labor arbiter>s decision. On this score, the Court>s attention is drawn to seemingly divergent decisions concerning reinstatement pending appeal or, particularly, the option o payroll reinstatement. On the one hand is the "urisprudential trend as e#pounded in a line o cases including Air %!ilippines Corp. v. Lamora,); while on the other is the recent case o *enuino v. /ational 9abor Relations Commission.)) %t the core o the seeming divergence is the application o paragraph , o %rticle --, o the <abor Code which reads2 In any event, the decision o the <abor %rbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, inso ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be e#ecutory, pending appeal. &he employee shall either be admitted bacF to worF under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option o the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. &he posting o a bond by the employer shall not stay the e#ecution or reinstatement provided herein. 6Emphasis and underscoring supplied7 &he view as maintained in a number o cases is that2 # # # GEH=%( 7: ,<% o0)%0 o: 0%7($,',%8%(, o: ,<% L'5o0 A057,%0 7$ 0%=%0$%) o( '##%'l, 7, 7$ o5l7;',o0y o( ,<% #'0, o: ,<% %8#loy%0 ,o 0%7($,',% '() #'y ,<% >';%$ o: ,<% )7$87$$%) %8#loy%% )u07(; ,<% #%07o) o: '##%'l u(,7l 0%=%0$'l 5y ,<% <7;<%0 6ou0,. On the other hand, i the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with inality, the employee is

not re=uired to reimburse whatever salary he received or he is entitled to such, more so i he actually rendered services during the period.)- 6Emphasis in the originalI italics and underscoring supplied7 In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was avorably decided by the <abor %rbiter is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately e#ecutory. @nless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the <abor %rbiter to implement the order o reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith.), &he opposite view is articulated in *enuino which states2 I the decision o the labor arbiter is later reversed on appeal upon the inding that the ground or dismissal is valid, then ,<% %8#loy%0 <'$ ,<% 07;<, ,o 0%@u70% ,<% )7$87$$%) %8#loy%% o( #'y0oll 0%7($,',%8%(, ,o 0%:u() ,<% $'l'07%$ $J<% 0%6%7=%) while the case was pending appeal, or it can be deducted rom the accrued bene its that the dismissed employee was entitled to receive rom hisAher employer under e#isting laws, collective bargaining agreement provisions, and company practices. 4owever, i the employee was reinstated to worF during the pendency o the appeal, then the employee is entitled to the compensation received or actual services rendered without need o re und. Considering that /enuino was not reinstated to worF or placed on payroll reinstatement, and her dismissal is based on a "ust cause, then she is not entitled to be paid the salaries stated in item no. , o the fallo o the September ,, )((1 N<!C Decision.)1 6Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied7 It has thus been advanced that there is no point in releasing the wages to petitioners since their dismissal was ound to be valid, and to do so would constitute un"ust enrichment. $rior to *enuino, there had been no Fnown similar case containing a dispositive portion where the employee was re=uired to re und the salaries received on payroll reinstatement. In act, in a catena o cases,): the Court did not order the re und o salaries garnished or received by payroll.reinstated employees despite a subse=uent reversal o the reinstatement order. &he dearth o authority supporting *enuino is not di icult to athom or it would otherwise render inutile the rationale o reinstatement pending appeal. # # # G&Hhe law itsel has laid down a compassionate policy which, once more, vivi ies and enhances the provisions o the )(?* Constitution on labor and the worFing man.

#### &hese duties and responsibilities o the State are imposed not so much to e#press sympathy or the worFingman as to orce ully and meaning ully underscore labor as a primary social and economic orce, which the Constitution also e#pressly a irms with e=ual intensity. <abor is an indispensable partner or the nationKs progress and stability. #### # # # In short, with respect to decisions reinstating employees, the law itsel has determined a su iciently overwhelming reason or its e#ecution pending appeal. #### # # # &hen, by and pursuant to the same power 6police power7, the State may authoriJe an immediate implementation, pending appeal, o a decision reinstating a dismissed or separated employee since that saving act is designed to stop, although temporarily since the appeal may be decided in avor o the appellant, a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the li e o the dismissed or separated employee and his amily.)9 &he social "ustice principles o labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the civil law doctrine o un"ust enrichment espoused by Eustice $resbitero 0elasco, Er. in his Separate Opinion. &he constitutional and statutory precepts portray the otherwise 3un"ust3 situation as a condition a ording ull protection to labor. Even outside the theoretical trappings o the discussion and into the mundane realities o human e#perience, the 3re und doctrine3 easily demonstrates how a avorable decision by the <abor %rbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. &he employee, to maFe both ends meet, would necessarily have to use up the salaries received during the pendency o the appeal, only to end up having to re und the sum in case o a inal un avorable decision. It is mirage o a stop.gap leading the employee to a risFy cli o insolvency. %dvisably, the sum is better le t unspent. It becomes more logical and practical or the employee to re use payroll reinstatement and simply ind worF elsewhere in the interim, i any is available. Notably, the option o payroll reinstatement belongs to the employer, even i the employee is able and raring to return to worF. $rior to *enuino, it is unthinFable or one to re use payroll reinstatement. In the ace o the grim possibilities, the rise o concerned employees declining payroll reinstatement is on the horiJon.

5urther, the *enuino ruling not only disregards the social "ustice principles behind the rule, but also institutes a scheme unduly avorable to management. @nder such scheme, the salaries dispensed pendente lite merely serve as a bond posted in installment by the employer. 5or in the event o a reversal o the <abor %rbiter>s decision ordering reinstatement, the employer gets bacF the same amount without having to spend ordinarily or bond premiums. &his circumvents, i not directly contradicts, the proscription that the 3posting o a bond Geven a cash bondH by the employer shall not stay the e#ecution or reinstatement.3 )* In playing down the stray posture in *enuino re=uiring the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to re und the salaries in case a inal decision upholds the validity o the dismissal, the Court realigns the proper course o the prevailing doctrine on reinstatement pending appeal vis._.vis the e ect o a reversal on appeal. !espondent insists that with the reversal o the <abor %rbiter>s Decision, there is no more basis to en orce the reinstatement aspect o the said decision. In his Separate Opinion, Eustice $resbitero 0elasco, Er. supports this argument and inds the prevailing doctrine in Air %!ilippines and allied cases inapplicable because, unliFe the present case, the writ o e#ecution therein was secured prior to the reversal o the <abor %rbiter>s decision. &he proposition is tenuous. 5irst, the matter is treated as a mere race against time. &he discussion stopped there without considering the cause o the delay. Second, it re=uires the issuance o a writ o e#ecution despite the immediately e#ecutory nature o the reinstatement aspect o the decision. In $ioneer &e#turing Corp. v. N<!C,)?which was cited in %anuncillo v. CA% %!ilippines, 0nc.,)( the Court observed2 # # # &he provision o %rticle --, is clear that an award Gby the <abor %rbiterH or reinstatement s!all be immediatel4 e7ecutor4 even pending appeal and the posting o a bond by the employer shall not stay the e#ecution or reinstatement. &he legislative intent is =uite obvious, i.e., to maFe an award o reinstatement immediately en orceable, even pending appeal. &o re=uire the application or and issuance o a writ o e#ecution as prere=uisites or the e#ecution o a reinstatement award would certainly betray and run counter to the very ob"ect and intent o %rticle --,, i.e., the immediate e#ecution o a reinstatement order. &he reason is simple. %n application or a writ o e#ecution and its issuance could be delayed or numerous reasons. % mere continuance or postponement o a scheduled hearing, or instance, or an inaction on the part o the <abor %rbiter or the N<!C could easily delay the issuance o the writ thereby setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by %rticle --,. In other words, i the re=uirements o %rticle --1 Gincluding the issuance o a writ o e#ecutionH were to govern, as we so declared in ,arana , then the e#ecutory nature o a reinstatement order or award contemplated by %rticle --, will be unduly circumscribed and rendered ine ectual. In enacting the law, the legislature is presumed to have ordained a valid and sensible law, one which operates

no urther than may be necessary to achieve its speci ic purpose. Statutes, as a rule, are to be construed in the light o the purpose to be achieved and the evil sought to be remedied. # # # In introducing a new rule on the reinstatement aspect o a labor decision under !epublic %ct No. 9*):, Congress should not be considered to be indulging in mere semantic e#ercise. # # #-; 6Italics in the originalI emphasis and underscoring supplied7 &he Court rea irms the prevailing principle that even i the order o reinstatement o the <abor %rbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part o the employer to reinstate and pay the wages o the dismissed employee during the period o appeal until reversal by the higher court.-) It settles the view that the <abor %rbiterKs order o reinstatement is immediately e#ecutory and the employer has to either re.admit them to worF under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to their dismissal, or to reinstate them in the payroll, and that ailing to e#ercise the options in the alternative, employer must pay the employee>s salaries. -Amplification of the ,econd )round &he remaining issue, nonetheless, is resolved in the negative on the strength o the second ground relied upon by the appellate court in the assailed issuances. &he Court sustains the appellate court>s inding that the peculiar predicament o a corporate rehabilitation rendered it impossible or respondent to e#ercise its option under the circumstances. &he spirit o the rule on reinstatement pending appeal animates the proceedings once the <abor %rbiter issues the decision containing an order o reinstatement. &he immediacy o its e#ecution needs no urther elaboration.!einstatement pending appeal necessitates its immediate e#ecution during the pendency o the appeal, i the law is to serve its noble purpose. %t the same time, any attempt on the part o the employer to evade or delay its e#ecution, as observed in %anuncillo and as what actually transpired in Mimberl4,-, Composite,-1 Air %!ilippines,-: and Roquero,-9 should not be countenanced. A:,%0 ,<% l'5o0 '057,%09$ )%67$7o( 7$ 0%=%0$%) 5y ' <7;<%0 ,075u('l, ,<% %8#loy%% 8'y 5% 5'00%) :0o8 6oll%6,7(; ,<% '660u%) >';%$, 7: 7, 7$ $<o>( ,<', ,<% )%l'y 7( %(:o067(; ,<% 0%7($,',%8%(, #%()7(; '##%'l >'$ >7,<ou, :'ul, o( ,<% #'0, o: ,<% %8#loy%0. &he test is two. old2 6)7 there must be actual delay or the act that the order o reinstatement pending appeal was not e#ecuted prior to its reversalI and 6-7 the delay must not be due to the employer>s un"usti ied act or omission. I the delay is due to the employer>s un"usti ied re usal, the employer may still be re=uired to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal o the <abor %rbiter>s decision.

In *enuino, there was no showing that the employer re used to reinstate the employee, who was the &reasury Sales Division 4ead, during the short span o our months or rom the promulgation on +ay -, )((1 o the <abor %rbiter>s Decision up to the promulgation on September ,, )((1 o the N<!C Decision. Notably, the ormer N<!C !ules o $rocedure did not lay down a mechanism to promptly e ectuate the sel .e#ecutory order o reinstatement, maFing it di icult to establish that the employer actually re used to comply. In a situation liFe that in 0nternational Container -erminal $ervices, 0nc. v. /9RC-* where it was alleged that the employer was willing to comply with the order and that the employee opted not to pursue the e#ecution o the order, the Court upheld the sel .e#ecutory nature o the reinstatement order and ruled that the salary automatically accrued rom notice o the <abor %rbiterKs order o reinstatement until its ultimate reversal by the N<!C. It was later discovered that the employee indeed moved or the issuance o a writ but was not acted upon by the <abor %rbiter. In that scenario where the delay was caused by the <abor %rbiter, it was ruled that the inaction o the <abor %rbiter who ailed to act upon the employee>s motion or the issuance o a writ o e#ecution may no longer adversely a ect the cause o the dismissed employee in view o the sel .e#ecutory nature o the order o reinstatement.-? &he new N<!C !ules o $rocedure, which tooF e ect on Eanuary *, -;;9, now re=uire the employer to submit areport o compliance within ); calendar days rom receipt o the <abor %rbiter>s decision,-( disobedience to which clearly denotes a re usal to reinstate. &he employee need not ile a motion or the issuance o the writ o e#ecution since the <abor %rbiter shall therea ter motu proprio issue the writ. W7,< ,<% (%> 0ul%$ 7( #l'6%, ,<%0% 7$ <'0)ly '(y )7::76ul,y 7( )%,%087(7(; ,<% %8#loy%09$ 7(,0'($7;%(6% 7( 788%)7',%ly 6o8#ly7(; >7,< ,<% o0)%0. In the case at bar, petitioners e#erted e orts,; to e#ecute the <abor %rbiter>s order o reinstatement until they were able to secure a writ o e#ecution, albeit issued on October :, -;;; a ter the reversal by the N<!C o the <abor %rbiter>s decision. &echnically, there was still actual delay which brings to the =uestion o whether the delay was due to respondent>s un"usti ied act or omission. It is apparent that there was inaction on the part o respondent to reinstate them, but whether such omission was "usti ied depends on the onset o the e#igency o corporate rehabilitation. It is settled that upon appointment by the SEC o a rehabilitation receiver, all actions or claims be ore any court, tribunal or board against the corporation shall ipso "ure be suspended.,) %s stated early on, during the pendency o petitioners> complaint be ore the <abor %rbiter, the SEC placed respondent under an Interim !ehabilitation !eceiver. % ter the <abor %rbiter rendered his decision, the SEC

replaced the Interim !ehabilitation !eceiver with a $ermanent !ehabilitation !eceiver. Case law recogniJes that unless there is a restraining order, the implementation o the order o reinstatement is ministerial and mandatory. ,- &his in"unction or suspension o claims by legislative iat,, partaFes o the nature o a restraining order that constitutes a legal "usti ication or respondent>s non.compliance with the reinstatement order. !espondent>s ailure to e#ercise the alternative options o actual reinstatement and payroll reinstatement was thus "usti ied. Such being the case, respondent>s obligation to pay the salaries pending appeal, as the normal e ect o the non.e#ercise o the options, did not attach. While reinstatement pending appeal aims to avert the continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the li e o the dismissed employee and his amily, it does not contemplate the period when the employer.corporation itsel is similarly in a "udiciall4 monitored state o being resuscitated in order to survive. &he parallelism between a "udicial order o corporation rehabilitation as a "usti ication or the non.e#ercise o its options, on the one hand, and a claim o actual and imminent substantial losses as ground or retrenchment, on the other hand, stops at the red line on the inancial statements. 'eyond the analogous condition o inancial gloom, as discussed by Eustice <eonardo Ouisumbing in his Separate Opinion, are more salient distinctions. @nliFe the ground o substantial losses contemplated in a retrenchment case, the state o corporate rehabilitation was "udicially pre.determined by a competent court and not ormulated or the irst time in this case by respondent. +ore importantly, there are legal e ects arising rom a "udicial order placing a corporation under rehabilitation. !espondent was, during the period material to the case, e ectively deprived o the alternative choices under %rticle --, o the <abor Code, not only by virtue o the statutory in"unction but also in view o the interim relin=uishment o management control to give way to the ull e#ercise o the powers o the rehabilitation receiver. 4ad there been no need to rehabilitate, respondent may have opted or actual physical reinstatement pending appeal to optimiJe the utiliJation o resources. &hen again, though the management may thinF this wise, the rehabilitation receiver may decide otherwise, not to mention the subsistence o the in"unction on claims. In sum, the obligation to pay the employee>s salaries upon the employer>s ailure to e#ercise the alternative options under %rticle --, o the <abor Code is not a hard and ast rule, considering the inherent constraints o corporate rehabilitation. W4E!E5O!E, the petition is $%!&I%<<B DENIED. Inso ar as the Court o %ppeals Decision o December :, -;;, and !esolution o %pril )9, -;;1 annulling

the N<!C !esolutions a irming the validity o the Writ o E#ecution and the Notice o /arnishment are concerned, the Court inds no reversible error. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) Eustices +arina <. 'uJon, Sergio <. $estaNo 6ponente7 and Eose C. +endoJa comprised the G5ormerH 5ourteenth Division o the appellate court. Rollo, pp. 1*.1?. , Euanito %. /arcia and %lberto E. Dumago were employed as aircra t inspector and aircra t urnisher master, respectively. 1 $articularly, Chapter II, Section 9, %rticles 19 60iolation o <awA/overnment !egulations7 and 1? 6$rohibited Drugs7. : !ecords, 0ol. ), p. )9*. &he dispositive portion o the Decision penned by <abor %rbiter !amon 0alentin !eyes reads2 W4E!E5O!E, con ormably with the oregoing, "udgment is hereby rendered inding the respondents guilty o illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and ordering them to reinstate complainants to their ormer position without loss o seniority rights and other privileges. !espondents are hereby urther ordered to pay "ointly and severally unto the complainants the ollowing2 %lberto E. Dumago . $1;(,:;;.;; bacFwages as o )A);A(( ,1,)-:.;; or ),th month pay Euanito %. /arcia . $),-(;,*11.;; bacFwages as o )A);A(( );*,:9-.;; or ),th month pay GtHhe amounts o $);;,;;;.;; and $:;,;;;.;; to each complainant as and by way o moral and e#emplary damagesI and GtHhe sum e=uivalent to ten percent 6);D7 o the total award as and or attorney>s ees. !espondents are directed to immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect o this Decision. 4owever, in the event that reinstatement is no longer easible, respondent is hereby ordered, in lieu thereo , to pay unto the complainants their separation pay computed at one month or GeHvery year o service. SO O!DE!ED. 6Emphasis and underscoring supplied7 9 !ecords, 0ol. ). pp. )*1.)?9. * 0d, at -;(. % second looF at the antecedents o the main case reveals that petitioners went on certiorari to the Court o %ppeals to challenge the inding o the validity o their dismissal. 'y !esolutions o %ugust );, -;;; and November :, -;;,, the appellate court dismissed the petition docFeted as C%./.!. S$ No. :(?-9 and denied reconsideration thereo on technical grounds. 'y Decision o Eune ?, -;;:, the Court reversed the two resolutions and remanded the case to the appellate court or urther proceedings. vide rollo, pp. -)?.-)(I *arcia v. %!ilippine Airlines, 0nc., /.!. No. )9;*(?, Eune ?, -;;:, 1:( SC!% *9?. &he appellate court, by Decision o +arch -?, -;;? and !esolution o Euly )), -;;?, dismissed the petition. ? *arcia v. %!ilippine Airlines, 0nc., /.!. No. )91?:9, %ugust -(, -;;*, :,) SC!% :*1, :?-.:?,. $enned by Eustice <eonardo %. Ouisumbing. ( Rollo, pp. -:;.-:*. ); /.!. No. )1?-1*, %ugust *, -;;9, 1(? SC!% :(. )) /.!. Nos. )1-*,-.,,, December 1, -;;*, :,( SC!% ,1-. )Supra note ); at *-.*,. ), Roquero v. %!ilippine Airlines, 11( $hil. 1,*, 119 6-;;,7. )1 Supra note )) at ,9,.,91. &he Court therein sustained the N<!C>s reversal o the <abor %rbiter>s decision but cancelled the N<!C>s award o salaries accruing rom the <abor %rbiter>s order o reinstatement pending appeal. ): Composite Enterprises, 0nc. v. Caparoso, /.!. No. ):(()(, %ugust ?, -;;*, :-( SC!% 1*;I Mimberl4 ClarC 5%!ils6, 0nc. v. Dacundo, /.!. No. )11??:, Euly -9, -;;9 6@nsigned !esolution7I $anc!e+ v. /9RC, /.!. No. )-1,1?, 5ebruary *, -;;) @nsigned !esolutionI 0nternational Container -erminal $ervices, 0nc. v. /9RC, ,9; $hil. :-* 6)((?7. )9 Roquero v. %!ilippine Airlines, supra at 11: citing Aris 5%!il.6 0nc. v. /9RC, -;; SC!% -19 6)(()7. )* <abor Code, %rticle --,, par. ,.

)?

,1: $hil. );:* 6)((*7 which established the doctrine that an order or award or reinstatement is sel . e#ecutory, meaning that it does not re=uire a writ o e#ecution, much less a motion or its issuance. )( /.!. No. )9),;:, 5ebruary (, -;;*, :): SC!% ,-,. -; Supra note )? at );*:.);*9. -) Supra note )-. -Mimberl4 ClarC 5%!ils6, 0nc. v. Dacundo, supra. -, Supra, where the , months salary was delayed because the employer iled another baseless motion to =uash writ o e#ecution. -1 Supra, where the employer did not release the salaries despite agreeing on payroll reinstatement, awaiting the resolution o its unmeritorious +otion to be %llowed to pay Separation $ay in lieu o !einstatement. -: Supra, where the employer did not at all comply with the standing writ o e#ecution. -9 Supra, where the employer re used to comply with the writ o e#ecution, arguing that it iled a petition or review be ore the Court. -* Supra. -? 0nternational Container -erminal $ervices, 0nc. v. /9RC, supra. -( !evised !ules o $rocedure o the N<!C 6-;;:7, !ule 0, Sec. )1 and !ule 8I, Sec. 9. ,; $etitioners state that respondent ignored their letter o Eune )1, )(((, prompting them to ile a 3+otion or Issuance o Writ o E#ecution Go the <abor %rbiter>s Eanuary )), )(((H and to Cite the !espondents in Contempt3 o November )), )(((, rollo, pp. *?.?:, )9(. ,) *arcia v. %!ilippine Airlines, 0nc., supra note ?. ,Roquero v. %!ilippine Airlines, supra note ),. ,, $res. Decree No. (;-.%, Sec. 9 6c7, as amended.

and its inancial condition have been normaliJed and stabiliJed in con ormity with the %mended and !estated !ehabilitation $lan, e#empli ying a success ul corporate rehabilitation, the $%<>s re=uest to e#it rom rehabilitation is hereby /!%N&ED. &he $!! is liFewise directed to urnish all creditors and parties concerned with copies o this Order at the e#pense o the $etitioner and submit proo o service thereo to the Commission, within i teen 6):7 days rom date o receipt o this Order. SO O!DE!ED.9 In view o the oregoing development, the instant case may now be resolved. 'ut irst, a brie summation o the antecedent proceedings. $etitioners %lberto E. Dumago and Euanito %. /arcia were %ircra t 5urnishers +aster 3C3 and %ircra t Inspector, respectively, assigned in the $%< &echnical Center. On October (, )((:, they were dismissed or violation o Chapter II, Section 9, %rticle 19 60iolation o <awA/overnment !egulations7 and Chapter II, Section 9, %rticle 1? 6$rohibited Drugs7 o the $%< Code o Discipline.* 'oth simultaneously iled a case or illegal dismissal and damages. On Eanuary )), )(((, the <abor %rbiter rendered a Decision? in petitioners> avor2 W4E!E5O!E, con ormably with the oregoing, "udgment is hereby rendered inding the respondents guilty o illegal suspension and illegal dismissal and ordering them to reinstate complainants to their ormer position without loss o seniority rights and other privileges. !espondents are hereby urther ordered to pay "ointly and severally unto the complainants the ollowing2 %lberto E. Dumago U $1;(,:;;.;; bacFwages as o )A);A(( ,1,)-:.;; or ),th month pay Euanito %. /arcia U $),-(;,*11.;; bacFwages as o )A);A(( );*,:9-.;; or ),th month pay &he amounts o $);;,;;;.;; and $:;,;;;.;; to each complainant as and by way o moral and e#emplary damagesI and &he sum e=uivalent to ten percent 6);D7 o the total award as and or attorneys ees. !espondents are directed to immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect o this Decision. 4owever, in the event that reinstatement is no longer easible,

SE$%!%&E O$INION 2*I"*M+ING, J.: 5rom this Court>s Decision) dated %ugust -(, -;;*, which ordered the suspension o the proceedings in this case, respondent $hilippine %irlines, Inc. 6$%<7 iled a +ani estation and Compliance- on November ),, -;;* containing an Order, dated September -?, -;;*, rom the Securities and E#change Commission 6SEC7 granting its re=uest to e#it rom the rehabilitation proceedings. In a letter dated September )1, -;;*, the members o the $ermanent !ehabilitation !eceiver 6$!!7 recommended $%<>s e#it rom rehabilitation 3because the same is easible based on the corporation>s improved inancial condition, capability to service debts or obligations, rosy pro"ected cash lows, sustainable pro itability and adherence to its %mended and !estated !ehabilitation $lan.31 &his assessment was bolstered by the O ice o the /eneral %ccountant o the SEC in its +emorandum dated September -9, -;;*, which concluded that $%<>s pro"ected income and pro"ected cash low or the ne#t three years, cost o debt and e=uity capital, and latest interim 6unaudited7 inancial statements, satis actorily addressed concerns on its inancial condition and sustainability o pro it.: 'ased on these recommendations, the SEC ound the termination o the rehabilitation proceedings, on the ground o success ul rehabilitation, in order, thus2 W4E!E5O!E, in the light o the oregoing, and considering $%<>s irm commitment to settle its outstanding obligations as well as the act that its operations

respondentGsH are hereby ordered, in lieu thereo , to pay unto the complainants their separation pay computed at one month or GeHvery year o service. SO O!DE!ED.( On appeal, the National <abor !elations Commission 6N<!C7 reversed the <abor %rbiter>s decision and dismissed the case or lacF o merit.); !econsideration having been denied, an Entry o Eudgment)) was issued on Euly ),, -;;;. On October :, -;;;, the <abor %rbiter issued a Writ o E#ecution)- commanding the sheri to proceed2 #### ). &o the O ice o respondent $%< 'uilding I, <egaspi St., <egaspi 0illage, +aFati City or to any o its O ices in the $hilippines and cause reinstatement o complainants to their ormer position and to cause the collection o the amount o G$H:1(,,;(.9; rom respondent $%< representing the bacFwages o said complainants on the reinstatement aspectI -. In case you cannot collect rom respondent $%< or any reason, you shall levy on the o ice e=uipment and other movables and garnish its deposits with any banF in the $hilippines, sub"ect to the limitation that e=uivalent amount o such levied movables andAor the amount garnished in your own "udgment, shall be e=uivalent to G$H:1(,,;(.9;. I still insu icient, levy against immovable properties o $%< not otherwise e#empt rom e#ecution. # # # #), %lthough $%< iled an @rgent +otion to Ouash Writ o E#ecution, the <abor %rbiter issued a Notice o /arnishment)1 addressed to the $residentA+anager o the %llied 'anF 4ead O ice in +aFati City or the amount o $:1(,,;(.9;. $%< moved to li t the Notice o /arnishment while petitioners moved or the release o the garnished amount. $%< opposed petitioners> motion. It also iled an @rgent $etition or In"unction which the N<!C resolved as ollows2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the $etition is partially /!%N&ED. %ccordingly, the Writ o E#ecution dated October :, -;;; and related GNHotice o /arnishment Gdated October -:, -;;;H are DEC<%!ED valid. 4owever, the instant action is S@S$ENDED and !E5E!!ED to the !eceiver o $etitioner $%< or appropriate action.

SO O!DE!ED.): $%< appealed to the Court o %ppeals on the grounds that2 6)7 by declaring the writ o e#ecution and the notice o garnishment valid, the N<!C gave petitioners undue advantage and pre erence over $%<>s other creditors and hampered the tasF o the $!!I and 6-7 there was no longer any legal or actual basis to reinstate petitioners as a result o the reversal by the N<!C o the <abor %rbiter>s decision. On December :, -;;,,)9 the appellate court ruled that the <abor %rbiter issued the writ o e#ecution and the notice o garnishment without "urisdiction. 4ence, the N<!C erred in upholding its validity. Since $%< was under receivership, it could not have possibly reinstated petitioners due to retrenchment and cash. low constraints. &he appellate court declared that a stay o e#ecution may be warranted by the act that $%< was under rehabilitation receivership. &he dispositive portion o the decision dated December :, -;;,, reads2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered and in view o the oregoing, the instant petition is hereby GI&EN D*E CO*R"E. &he assailed November -9, -;;) !esolution, as well as the Eanuary -?, -;;- !esolution o public respondent National <abor !elations Commission is hereby ANN*LLED and "ET A"IDE or having been issued with grave abuse o discretion amounting to lacF or e#cess o "urisdiction. Conse=uently, the Writ o E#ecution and the Notice o /arnishment issued by the <abor %rbiter are hereby liFewise ANN*LLED and "ET A"IDE. SO O!DE!ED.)* $etitioners moved or reconsideration which the appellate court denied on %pril )9, -;;1,)? thus2 Considering the +otion or !econsideration iled by private respondents dated GEanuaryH 9, -;;1 o this Court>s Decision promulgated on December :, -;;,, as well as the Comment iled by petitioner dated 5ebruary -;, -;;,, the Court, inding no su icient and compelling reason which will merit a reconsideration o the Decision rendered in this case as the issues raised therein had already been care ully considered and passed upon in the Decision sought to be reconsidered, hereby resolves to DENB the instant motion or reconsideration or lacF o merit. SO O!DE!ED.)( 4ence, the instant petition raising a single issue as ollows2 W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S E!!ED IN NO& 4O<DIN/ &4%& &4E $E&I&IONE!S %!E EN&I&<ED &O &4EI! %CC!@ED W%/ES D@!IN/ &4E $ENDENCB O5 $%<>S %$$E%<. -;

Simply put, the issue is2 %re petitioners entitled to their wages during the pendency o $%<>s appeal to the N<!CT $etitioners argue that pursuant to this Court>s ruling in International Container &erminal Services, Inc. v. N<!C,-)the reinstatement aspect o the <abor %rbiter>s decision, albeit under appeal, is immediately en orceable as a conse=uence o which, the employer is duty.bound to choose orthwith whether to re.admit the employee or to reinstate him in the payroll. 5ailing to e#ercise the options in the alternative, the employer must pay the salary o the employee which automatically accrued rom notice o the <abor %rbiter>s order o reinstatement until its ultimate reversal by the N<!C.-- $etitioners add that $%< should not be e#cused rom complying with the order o reinstatement on the ground that it was under receivership. %t the time $%< received a copy o the <abor %rbiter>s decision, $%< was not yet under receivership. !espondent counters that $%< was already under an Interim !ehabilitation !eceiver at the time it received a copy o the <abor %rbiter>s decision. It also contends that it cannot be compelled to reinstate petitioners pending appeal to the N<!C since retrenchment and cash low constraints rendered it impossible to e#ercise its option under %rticle --, o the <abor Code. %t the cru# o the controversy is the application o %rticle --, o the <abor Code which provides that2 %!&. --,. %ppeal.Z R #### In any event, the decision o the <abor %rbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, inso ar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be e#ecutory, even pending appeal. &he employee shall either be admitted bacF to worF under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation, or at the option o the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. &he posting o a bond by the employer shall not stay the e#ecution or reinstatement provided herein. #### &o be sure, the Court has divergent views on the immediately e#ecutory nature o reinstatement pending appeal particularly where the reinstatement order is reversed on appeal. On one hand, the Court has ruled that even i the <abor %rbiter>s reinstatement order is reversed on appeal, it is the employer>s obligation to reinstate and pay the wages o the dismissed employee during the period o appeal until reversal by the N<!C. 4owever, i the employee has been reinstated during the period o appeal and such reinstatement order is reversed with inality, the employee is not re=uired to reimburse whatever salary he received or he is entitled to such, more so i he actually rendered services during the period.-,

On the other hand, the Court has held that i the decision o the <abor %rbiter is later reversed on appeal upon the inding that the ground or dismissal is valid, then the employer has the right to re=uire the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to re und the salaries sAhe received while the case was pending appeal, or it can be deducted rom the accrued bene its that the dismissed employee was entitled to receive rom hisAher employer under e#isting laws, collective bargaining agreement provisions, and company practices. 4owever, i the employee was reinstated to worF during the pendency o the appeal, then the employee is entitled to the compensation received or actual services rendered without need o re und.-1 In his dissenting opinion, Eustice $resbitero E. 0elasco, Er. adopts the second interpretation and e#plains that since no actual or payroll reinstatement pending appeal transpired, petitioners are no longer entitled to their salaries or the period in =uestion with the reversal o the <abor %rbiter>s reinstatement order. &here is no more legal basis or the payment o their salaries since their right to reinstatement pending appeal has been lost and e#tinguished. &o release their salaries or the period in =uestion would constitute un"ust enrichment. &he rationale or e#ecution pending appeal has been e#plained by this Court in %ris 6$hil.7 Inc. v. N<!C,-: thus2 In authoriJing e#ecution pending appeal o the reinstatement aspect o a decision o the <abor %rbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, the law itsel has laid down a compassionate policy which, once more, vivi ies and enhances the provisions o the )(?* Constitution on labor and the worFing.man.-9 #### I in ordinary civil actions e#ecution o "udgment pending appeal is authoriJed or reasons the determination o which is merely le t to the discretion o the "udge, We ind no plausible reason to withhold it in cases o decisions reinstating dismissed or separated employees. In such cases, the poor employees had been deprived o their only source o livelihood, their only means o support or their amily Z their very li eblood. &o @s, this special circumstance is ar better than any other which a "udge, in his sound discretion, may determine. In short, with respect to decisions reinstating employees, the law itsel has determined a su iciently overwhelming reason or its e#ecution pending appeal.-* Clearly, the principle o un"ust enrichment does not apply. 5irst, the provision on reinstatement pending appeal is in accord with the social "ustice philosophy o our Constitution. It is meant to a ord ull protection to labor as it aims to stop 6albeit temporarily, since the appeal may be decided in avor o the employer7 a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even the li e o the dismissed employee and his amily.-? Second, the provision on reinstatement pending appeal partaFes o a special

law that must govern the instant case. &he provision o the Civil Code on un"ust enrichment, being o general application, must give way. In any case, Eustice 0elasco points out that the writ o e#ecution in the instant case was issued a ter the promulgation o the N<!C resolution. %s petitioners ailed to act on their rights and seeF en orcement o the reinstatement pending appeal, $%< is not liable to pay their accrued salaries or the period in =uestion. In $ioneer &e#turiJing Corp. v. N<!C,-( this Court clari ied that an award or order or reinstatement is sel .e#ecutory, to wit2 % closer e#amination, however, shows that the necessity or a writ o e#ecution under %rticle --1 applies only to inal and e#ecutory decisions which are not within the coverage o %rticle --,. ... #### R It can not relate to an award or order o reinstatement still to be appealed or pending appeal which %rticle --, contemplates. &he provision o %rticle --, is clear that an award or reinstatement shall be immediately e#ecutory even pending appeal and the posting o a bond by the employer shall not stay the e#ecution or reinstatement. &he legislative intent is =uite obvious, i.e., to maFe an award o reinstatement immediately en orceable, even pending appeal. &o re=uire the application or and issuance o a writ o e#ecution as prere=uisites or the e#ecution o a reinstatement award would certainly betray and run counter to the very ob"ect and intent o %rticle --,, i.e., the immediate e#ecution o a reinstatement order. R ,; 6Italics in the original.7 Since the reinstatement order is sel .e#ecutory, it is inaccurate to say that its non. implementation was due to petitioners> ault who ailed to en orce their rights at the proper and opportune time. &o reiterate, the reinstatement order does not re=uire a writ o e#ecution, much less a motion or its issuance. &o re=uire petitioners to move or the en orcement o the reinstatement order and blame them or its belated en orcement, as Eustice 0elasco does, would render nugatory the sel .e#ecutory nature o the award. Eustice 0elasco also posits that %rticle --, o the <abor Code does not automatically maFe the employer liable or accrued salaries during the reinstatement pending appeal where no reinstatement tooF place. 4e stresses that the only relie given under the N<!C !ules o $rocedure is the remedy o compulsion via a citation or contempt, thus2 !@<E 0. SEC. )1. Contents o Decisions. ... R

In case the decision o the <abor %rbiter includes an order o reinstatement, it shall liFewise contain2 a7 a statement that the reinstatement aspect is immediately e#ecutoryI and b7 a directive or the employer to submit a report o compliance within ten 6);7 calendar days rom receipt o the said decision. !@<E I8. SEC. 9. E8EC@&ION O5 !EINS&%&E+EN& $ENDIN/ %$$E%<. ... In case the decision includes an order o reinstatement, and the employer disobeys the directive under the second paragraph o Section )1 o !ule 0 or re uses to reinstate the dismissed employee, the <abor %rbiter shall immediately issue a writ o e#ecution, even pending appeal, directing the employer to immediately reinstate the dismissed employee either physically or in the payroll, and to pay the accrued salaries as a conse=uence o such reinstatement at the rate speci ied in the decision. &he Sheri shall serve the writ o e#ecution upon the employer or any other person re=uired by law to obey the same. I he disobeys the writ, such employer or person may be cited or contempt in accordance with !ule I8. 6Emphasis and underscoring supplied.7 Contrary to the position o Eustice 0elasco, there are actually two relie s given in the oregoing provisions2 6)7 the payment o accrued salaries, and 6-7 a citation or contempt. I the <abor %rbiter>s decision includes a reinstatement order, the decision should state that the reinstatement aspect is immediately e#ecutory and direct the employer to submit a compliance report within ten calendar days rom receipt o the said decision. Should the employer disobey the directive o the <abor %rbiter or re use to reinstate the dismissed employee, the <abor %rbiter shall immediately issue a writ o e#ecution, even pending appeal, directing the employer to immediately reinstate the dismissed employee either physically or in the payroll, and to pay the accrued salaries as a conse=uence o such reinstatement. I the employer still disobeys the writ o e#ecution, then he may be cited or contempt. 5inally, the ma"ority put orth the view that a ter the <abor %rbiter>s reinstatement order is reversed by the N<!C, the employee may be barred rom collecting his accrued salaries i it is shown that the non.implementation o the reinstatement order was not due to the ault o the employer. In the instant case, the corporate rehabilitation o $%< had the e ect o suspending all actions or claims against it. It partaFes o the nature o a restraining order that constitutes a legal "usti ication or $%<>s non.compliance with the reinstatement order. &he writer adds that reinstatement pending appeal does not contemplate the period when the employer is similarly in a state o being resuscitated in order to survive. In !ubberworld 6$hils.7, Inc. v. N<!C,,) we recogniJed that the automatic stay o all pending actions or claims is intended to enable the management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to e ectively e#ercise itsAhis powers ree rom any "udicial or

e#tra "udicial inter erence that might unduly hinder or prevent the Wrescue> o the distressed corporation. &o allow such other actions to continue would only add to the burden o the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, e ort and resources would be wasted in de ending claims against the corporation instead o being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation. Indeed, rehabilitation merely provides or the automatic stay o all pending actions or the suspension o payments o the distressed corporation to prevent the dissipation o its assetsI it does not relieve the corporation o its obligations. @pon its success ul rehabilitation, it must settle in ull all claims previously suspended. %pplying the oregoing rule, we cannot adhere to the posture taFen by the ma"ority. Eust because $%< was under rehabilitation did not necessarily mean that immediately e#ecutory orders such as reinstatement pending appeal will be put to naught. &hat would in e ect nulli y the relie given to the employee when all the law seeFs to do is suspend it. 5urthermore, we do not agree that reinstatement pending appeal is inapplicable in the instant case since, as the ma"ority puts it, $%< is similarly in a state o being resuscitated in order to survive. $%< even argues that retrenchment and cash low constraints rendered it impossible to comply with the reinstatement order. In 5light %ttendants and Stewards %ssociation o the $hilippines 65%S%$7 v. $hilippine %irlines, Inc., et al.,,- we noted that $%< ailed to substantiate its claim o actual and imminent substantial losses which would "usti y the retrenchment o more than ),1;; o its cabin crew personnel. %lthough the $hilippine economy was gravely a ected by the %sian inancial crisis, however, it cannot be assumed that it has liFewise brought $%< to the brinF o banFruptcy. ,,In e ect, we held that the mere act that $%< underwent corporate rehabilitation does not automatically mean that it su ered speci ic and substantial losses that would necessitate retrenchment. In act, $%< was on the road to recovery as early as 5ebruary )((( and was declaring pro its in millions in the succeeding years.,1 /iven the circumstances in this case, delay on the employee>s part was not an issue. 'ut we cannot agree that the petitioners could be barred rom collecting accrued wages, merely on the ground o their delay in en orcing reinstatement pending appeal. 5or it was the statutory duty o the respondent as employer to comply with a sel .e#ecutory order in avor o the employees, herein petitioners. &hus, while its rehabilitation may have prevented $%< rom e#ercising its option either to re.admit petitioners to worF or to reinstate them in the payroll, it did not de eat petitioners> right to reinstatement pending appeal which vested upon rendition o the <abor %rbiter>s decisionI more so when no actual and imminent substantial losses were proven by $%<.

&o reiterate, there is no longer any legal impediment to hold $%< liable or petitioners> salaries which automatically accrued rom notice o the <abor %rbiter>s order o reinstatement until its ultimate reversal by the N<!C. ,: W4E!E5O!E, I would vote to /!%N& the petition. LEONARDO A. 2*I"*M+ING %ssociate Eustice
Foo,(o,%$ ) /arcia v. $hilippine %irlines, Inc., /.!. No. )91?:9, %ugust -(, -;;*, :,) SC!% :*1. !ollo, pp. -:;.-:). , Id. at -:-.-:*. 1 Id. at -:1. : Id. at -:1.-:9. 9 Id. at -:*. * !ecords, 0ol. I, pp. ,-.,,. ? Id. at )9;.)9*. ( Id. at )9*. ); Id. at )*1.)?9. )) Id. at -;(.-);. )C% rollo, pp. :*.9). ), Id. at 9;.9). )1 Id. at *). ): Id. at -). )9 !ollo, pp. ,?.1?. $enned by %ssociate Eustice Sergio <. $estaNo, with %ssociate Eustices +arina <. 'uJon and Eose C. +endoJa concurring. )* Id. at 1*.1?. )? Id. at 1(. )( Id. -; Id. at -)(. -) /.!. No. )):1:-, December -), )((?, ,;; SC!% ,,:. -Id. at ,1,. -, Pimberly ClarF 6$hils.7, Inc. v. Ernesto 5acundo, et al., /.!. No. )11??:, Euly )-, -;;9, p. ? 6@nsigned !esolution7I !o=uero v. $hilippine %irlines, Inc., /.!. No. ):-,-(, %pril --, -;;,, 1;) SC!% 1-1, 1,;. 1,)I See International Container &erminal Services, Inc. v. N<!C, /.!. No. )):1:-, December -), )((?, ,;; SC!% ,,:, ,1,. -1 /enuino v. National <abor !elations Commission, /.!. Nos. )1-*,-.,, L )1-*:,.:1, December 1, -;;*, :,( SC!% ,1-, ,9,.,91. -: /.!. No. (;:;), %ugust :, )((), -;; SC!% -19I See Composite Enterprises, Inc. v. Caparoso, /.!. No. ):(()(, %ugust ?, -;;*, :-( SC!% 1*;, 1?-I %ir $hilippines Corporation v. Mamora, /.!. No. )1?-1*, %ugust *, -;;9, 1(? SC!% :(, *,I !o=uero v. $hilippine %irlines, Inc., supra note -, at 1-(. 1,;. -9 %ris 6$hil.7 Inc. v. N<!C, id. at -:,. -* Id. at -::. -? Id. -( /.!. No. ))?9:), October )9, )((*, -?; SC!% ?;9I See International Container &erminal Services, Inc. v. N<!C, supra note -) at ,1). ,; $ioneer &e#turiJing Corp. v. N<!C, id. at ?-1.?-:. ,) /.!. No. )-?;;,, Euly -9, -;;;, ,,9 SC!% 1,,, 1,*. ,/.!. No. )*?;?,, Euly --, -;;?. ,, Id. at )*. ,1 Id. at -).

,:

Pimberly ClarF 6$hils.7, Inc. v. Ernesto 5acundo, et al., supra note -, at (I International Container &erminal Services, Inc. v. N<!C, supra note -) at ,1,I See Composite Enterprises, Inc. v. Caparoso, supra note -: at 1?,.

THE CO*RT OF A EAL", Ho(. ARMIE E. ELMA, 0%$7)7(; Ju);% o: +0'(6< 1/3, R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0, o: '$7; C7,y, '() JO"E DELA RI&A, respondent.

MARTINE1, J.: &he decision 1 o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. 1,1;*, dismissing the petition or annulment o "udgement iled by petitioner, is impugned in this petition or review on certiorari. &he case taFes its roots rom Civil Case No. ,:,1( o the Court o 5irst Instance o !iJal 6now !egional &rial Court7 which was an action or annulment o the oreclosure sale o a barge. % ter trial, the trial court rendered "udgment on +arch -), )(?:, the dispositive portion which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, "udgment is hereby rendered dismissing plainti Ks complaint and sentencing plainti Emilio Espino to return the barge 3Sta. <ucia &riumph I3, as described in the body o this Decision, to the possession o de endant Eose dela !iva, and to pay the said de endant $19,;;;.;; a month as unrealiJed pro it counted rom 5ebruary ,, )(?;, until actual possession o the barge is surrendered to Dela !iva. 'oth plainti s Espino and <eonardo %rcenas are also sentenced to pay "ointly de endant Dela !iva moral damages in the amount o $-;,;;;.;; and e#emplary damages o $);,;;;.;;. 'oth plainti s are urther ordered to pay "ointly de endants Dela !iva and %ntonio Sy, Sr., attorneyKs ees o $):,;;;.;; each, and the costs o the suit. SO O!DE!ED. &he Court o %ppeals a irmed with modi ication the a oresaid decision reducing the moral damages to $);,;;;.;; and the e#emplary damages to $-,;;;.;;. &he said decision became inal and e#ecutory on November -, )(?* a ter this Court dismissed the petition or review iled by the petitioner. G.R. No. 130-01 D%6%85%0 -, 1998 LEONARDO ARCENA", 0%#0%$%(,%) 5y <7$ ',,o0(%y.7(.:'6, CARMELITA ARCENA" &ILLAN*E&A, petitioner, vs. &herea ter, private respondent iled a motion or issuance o a writ o e#ecution with the trial court 6the case was subse=uently trans erred to the !egional &rial Court, 'ranch )1;7, which motion was granted on Eanuary -:, )(??. 2 4owever, despite the writ o e#ecution, private respondent ailed to en orce the "udgment.

On October ),, )((,, or ive 6:7 years rom the time o the entry o "udgment, private respondent iled a complaint3 or revival o "udgment and sum o money with damages be ore the !egional &rial Court o $asig, praying2 ). !eviving the "udgment in Civil Case No. ,:,1( and therea ter to issue the corresponding writ o e#ecution against de endants or the en orcement thereo I and -. Ordering de endants to "ointly and severally to pay plainti 2 i. &he sum o $)*),;--.;; in their capacities as principals o the surety company under said bondI ii. &he sum o at least $);;,;;;.;; or and as moral, e#emplary, temperate and nominal damages, and iii. &he sum e=uivalent to ,:D, or in case o appeal 1:D o any and all sums awarded to or recovered by plainti plus $:;;.;; or every court appearance as and by way o attorneyKs ees. Such other relie s "ust and e=uitable under the premises are liFewise prayed or. &he complaint alleged that petitioner 6de endant therein7 could be served with summons at '5 4omes, $amplona <as $inas, +etro +anila. On November -(, )((,, Deputy Sheri /eJJer $. 'ote iled a return o service o summons, reading as ollows2 $FER0DDB$ RE-ER/ &his is to certi y that I tried to serve Summons with Complaint upon the ollowing de endants2 ### ### ###

-. <eonardo %rcenas Z on November ?, )((,, I tried to serve Summons with Complaint upon de endant <eonardo %rcenas at No. -;9 E. 0ital St., '5 4omes, $amplona <as $iNas, +.+., but I was in ormed by the neighbor that said de endant is already out o the country, however %tty. !ico, counsel or the plainti , in ormed the undersigned that de endant is still here and conducting his business. On November -9, )((,, I went to the place o the de endant and therein I met his mother Carmen %rcenas, but when I tried to serve the Summons with Complaint, she re used to receive it or the reason that said de endant is already in the States since Eune )((,. !espect ully returned to the 4onorable Court with the in ormation that said Summons were unserved. On December ):, )((,, private respondent iled a motion to order the sheri to e ect service o summons by substituted service upon petitioner. &he motion was granted by the trial court in its order o December )9, )((,. In compliance with the courtKs order, the deputy sheri on 5ebruary 1, )((1, served a copy o the Alias summons /together with the complaint upon petitioner through his mother, +rs. Carmen %rcenas, who re used to receive and acFnowledge the same. 6 $etitioner ailed to ile his answer and, upon motion by private respondent, was declared in de ault. 7 &herea ter, private respondent was allowed to adduce his evidence e7)parte. On +arch -), )((1, the trial court rendered a decisions 8against petitioner, the dispositive portion o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, all the oregoing premises considered, "udgment is hereby rendered2 ).7 !eviving the decision in Civil Case No. ,:,1( and or the corresponding writ o e#ecution to be issued. -.7 Ordering de endant <eonardo %rcenas to pay plainti . ,.7 a.7 $)*),;--.;; in his capacity as one o the principals under the surety bond. b7 $);,;;;.;; as moral and e#emplary damagesI

c7 ):D o the amount recoverable as and by way o attorneyKs ees. SO O!DE!ED. On +arch ?, )((:, a writ o e#ecution was issued and petitionerKs properties were levied. On 5ebruary )*, )((*, petitioner through his attorney.in. act Carmelita %. 0illanueva, iled with the respondent Court o %ppeals a petition 9 to annul the "udgment o the !&C. $etitioner asserts that the trial court never ac=uired "urisdiction over his person because there has been no valid service o summons. 4e posits that the service o summons is improper and invalid since he was already living in the @nited States when the summons was served and that it was served at the wrong address. $etitioner also contended that the decision o the trial court is void because it substantially amended the original decision o the !&C in Civil Case No. ,:,1( absolving him o any liability with regard to the return o the barge. On Eune ,, )((* the respondent Court o %ppeals rendered a decision dismissing the petition and declaring that the petitioner was validly served with summons. &he respondent court noted2 ### ### ### Considering the diametrically opposed asseverations o the petitioner and private respondent, this Court tooF a close looF at the record and noticed the ollowing2 Z Intriguing circumstances. In her a idavit, Carmelita %. 0illanueva, sister and attorney.in. act o petitioner <eonardo %rcenas, averred that her brother le t the $hilippines 3on or about %pril )(, )(()3 and that 3since then, my brother has not returned.3 6%nne# 3N3 o the $etition7. On the other hand, the Sheri s !eturn o November -(, )((, showed that petitionerKs mother, Carmen %rcenas, re used to receive the summons being served because the petitioner was allegedly 3already in the States since Eune )((,.3 Such con licting dates ba led this Court, taFing note urther o the Sheri s !eturn o %pril ):, )((1 portraying a statement o '5 4omes Security /uard !olly $ena lorida that de endant <eonardo %rcenas, petitioner herein, 3occasionally visit the place.3 Worse as already stated, no evidence was presented, as to when the petitioner actually le t the $hilippines Z i he really did leave. Where in the @nited States do the petitioner and wi e stay, assuming they are actually abroadT Was the alleged departure designed to escape liability in the $hilippinesT

Z $resumption o regularity. &he a ore.mentioned Sheri Ks !eturns, as aptly stated by the private respondent, are clothed with the mantle o presumption o regularity under Section ,6m7, !ule ),) o the New !ules on Evidence 6Capulong vs. Court o %ppeals, )?: SC!% -):7 Z and said presumption was not punctured. &hus, as between the unsubstantiated and sel .serving pretensions o the petitioner and the return o the respondent sheri , whose motive was not impeached by evidence, this Court is more inclined to give credence to the latter. . . . . . . . . . 10 $etitioner now impugns the a ore=uoted decision, assigning the ollowing errors2 ). &he original decision o the !egional &rial Court as modi ied by the Court o %ppeals and a irmed by the Supreme Court is already inal and e#ecutory, hence, it could no longer be amended or altered. -. &he decision o the !&C modi ied and altered the original decision. ,. $etitioner has already satis ied the "udgment rendered in Civil Case No. 9,*:). 1. $etitionerKs right to due process o law was violated. &he =uestion that we shall irst address and which is the ocal point in the case is whether or not the trial court ac=uired "urisdiction over the person o the petitioner. Service o summons upon the de endant is essential in order or the court to ac=uire o "urisdiction over his person. &he summons must be served to the de endant in person 3by handing a copy thereo to the de endant in person, or, i he re uses to receive it, by tendering it to him.3 11 I personal service cannot be e ected within a reasonable time, service may be e ected by leaving copies o the summons at the de endantKs dwelling house or residence with some person o suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by leaving the copies at de endantsK o ice or regular place o business with some competent person in charge thereo . 12 I the de endant is temporarily out o the country, summons may, by leave o court, be e ected outside o the $hilippines by substituted service or by publication. 13 4owever, i the de endant does not reside and is not ound in the $hilippines, summons may be e ected, by leave o court, by personal service or by publicationI or other su icient manner as determined by the court, provided that the action a ects the personal status o the plainti residing in the $hilippinesI or when

the action relates to, or the sub"ect o which involves property within the $hilippines, in which the de endant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingentI or when the relie demanded on such action consists, wholly or in part, in e#cluding the de endant rom any interest in property located in the $hilippinesI or when the non. resident de endantKs property has been attached within the $hilippines. 1$etitioner is no longer residing and ound in the $hilippines. 4e le t or the @nited States in Eune o )((, as evidenced by the Sheri Ks !eturn. 4ence, summons may be served on him either personally or by publication. 4owever, since the complaint iled against him is one in personam 6a personal action7 and does not involve the personal status o the private respondent, nor any property in the $hilippines in which petitioner has or claim or an interest, or which the private respondent has attached, summons should be served on him personally. &he deputy sheri can not serve the summons by substituted service. In $anteleon vs. %suncion 1/ we ruled2 . . . , it is a well.settled principle o Constitutional <aw that, in an action strictly in personam, liFe the one at bar, personal service o summons, within the orum, is essential to the ac=uisition o "urisdiction over the person o the de endant, who does not voluntarily submit himsel to the authority o the court. . . . Due process o law re=uires personal service to support a personal "udgment, and, when the proceeding is strictly in personam brought to determine the personal rights and obligations o the parties, personal service within the state or a voluntary appearance in the case is essential to the ac=uisition o "urisdiction so as to constitute compliance with the constitutional re=uirement o due process. QQQ. 4aving ailed to serve the summons on the person o the petitioner, the !egional &rial Court did not validly ac=uire "urisdiction over him. Conse=uently, the proceedings held is null and void. Even assuming that the trial court had ac=uired "urisdiction over the person o the petitioner, still, the "udgment rendered by it is a nullity or the reason that the original "udgment which was the sub"ect o the action or revival was substantially modi ied. In Civil Case No. ,:,1(, the "udgment o the trial court ordered only petitionerKs co. de endant Emilio Espino to return the barge 3+0 Sta. <ucia I3 to private respondent Eose de la !iva and to pay $1?,;;;.;; a month as unrealiJed pro it rom 5ebruary ,, )(?; or until Eune )?, )(?;. &he said "udgment absolved petitioner rom any liability inso ar as the barge is concerned but ound him "ointly liable to private respondent and %ntonio Sy, Sr., or moral and e#emplary damages.

On the other hand, the revived "udgment now sub"ect o this case, substantially modi ied the original "udgment by directing petitioner to pay private respondent the sum o $)*),;--.;; representing double the value o the bargeI $);,;;;.;; as moral and e#emplary damagesI and ):D o the amount recoverable by way o attorneyKs ees. &hese new monetary awards can not be allowed since they were not ad"udged in the original "udgment which had long become inal and e#ecutory. 5or, it is a undamental rule that when a inal "udgment becomes e#ecutory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. &he "udgment may no longer be modi ied in any respect, even i the modi ication is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion o act or law, and regardless o whether the modi ication is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court o the land. &he only recogniJed e#ceptions are the correction o clerical errors or the maFing o so. called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no pre"udice to any party, and, o course, where the "udgment is void. 16 %ny amendment or alteration which substantially a ects a inal and e#ecutory "udgment is null and void or lacF o "urisdiction, including the entire proceedings held or that purpose. 17 &he purpose o the action or revival or a "udgment is not to modi y the original "udgment sub"ect o the action but is merely to give a creditor a new right o en orcement rom the date o revival. 18 &he rule seeFs to protect "udgment creditors rom wily and unscrupulous debtors who, in order to evade attachment or e#ecution, cunningly conceal their assets and wait until the statute o limitation sets in. 19 W4E!E5O!E, the petition is hereby /!%N&ED. &he Decision o the Court o %ppeals dated Eune ,, )((* in C%./.!. S$. No. 1,1;* is hereby !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. SO O!DE!ED. ,elo, %uno and ,endo+a, ##., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ ) $enned by Eustice !amon +abutas, Er. and concurred in by Eustices $ortia.%liNo.4ermachuelos and 'ernardo <<. Salas, pp. -(.,(, Rollo. - %nne# 3D3, p. :-, Rollo. , %nne# 353, pp. :1.9;, 0d. 1 $. );9, Rollo. : $. 9,, 0bid. 9 $. 9,, 0bid. * $. );?, 0bid. ? %nne# 343, pp. 9:.*;, 0bid. ( %nne# 3I3, pp. *).??, Rollo. ); %nne# 3%3, pp. (.);I C% Decision, pp. ,*.,?, Rollo. )) Sec. 9, !ule )1, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure. )- Sec. *, !ule )1, 0bid. ), Sec. )9, !ule )1, 0bid.

)1 &he Dial Corporations vs. Soriano, )9) SC!% *1;I Sec. ):, !ule )1, 0bid. ): );: $hil. *9:, cited in +agdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Nieto, )-: SC!% *9). )9 +anning International Corporations vs. N<!C, )(: SC!%, )::, )9) G)(()H, cited in NuNal vs. Court o %ppeals, --) SC!% -9, ,- G)((,H. )* 5rancisco vs. 'autista, )(- SC!% ,??, ,(- G)((;H, cited in NuNal vs. Court o %ppeals, ibid. )? CompanNia /eneral de &abacos vs. +aritneJ, -( $hil. :):, :)(, cited in $hilippine National 'anF vs. 'ondoc, )1 SC!% **). )( $hilippine National 'anF vs. 'ondoc, supra.

% ter hearing, said court rendered a decision on ;, 5ebruary )(*9 in avor o therein plainti s, and against EsperanJa +artineJ, who thereupon iled a +otion or !econsideration which was denied in an Order dated -? %pril )(*9 or lacF o merit. % notice o appeal was therea ter iled by EsperanJa +artineJ on ;9 +ay )(*9, together with a cash bond in the amount o $)-;. &he iling o the record on appeal ollowed on )) +ay )(*9, which was subse=uently denied in an Order dated ;? Eune )(*9. % +otion or !econsideration with motion or contempt assailing the denial o the record on appeal was iled on -- Eune )(*9, and the same was set or hearing on ,; Eune )(*9. Ho>%=%0, $'7) 8o,7o( >'$ l%:, u(0%$ol=%) '$ ,<% 0%6o0)$ o: ,<% 6'$% >%0% 5u0(%) 7( ' :70% ,<', 0'P%) ,<% 0o=7(67'l C'#7,ol o: C'8'07(%$ "u0 o( 26 Ju(% 1976. On ;) October )(*9, &omas Siy Chung 5u iled a petition or reconstitution: o the records o the case. On )) Eanuary )(*?, while said petition was still pending, &omas Siy Chung 5u died. De endant EsperanJa +artineJ died on ;, Eune )(?-. 4erein respondents, the heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u, iled a motion dated ;, %ugust )(?, asFing that they be allowed to substitute the deceased plainti . Said motion was approved by the trial court in an Order dated ;: November )(?1, re=uiring the heirs o the plainti and the de endant to appear be ore the court in order to submit the Certi icates o Death o both deceased and to mani est their e#press acceptance o the substitution. 5or repeated ailure o the heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u and their representatives to appear be ore the court, !ita Euco, the sole surviving heir o the deceased de endant EsperanJa +artineJ, iled a motion to dismiss the reconstitution case on )1 October )(??, which was granted by the lower court in an Order dated )( Eanuary )(?(. &he court a =uo declared2 W4E!E5O!E, or the repeated ailure o the plainti to appear at the hearings o the case, or their ailure to prosecute their action or an unreasonable length o time and or their ailure andAor re usal to comply with a law ul court orders 6sic7, this case is hereby ordered dismissed, with costs de o icio.9 &he +otion or !econsideration o the Order o dismissal having been denied, the heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u appealed on -) +arch )(?(. 4owever, on ,) +arch )(?(, said appeal was denied due course or having been iled out o time. Despite the inality o the dismissal o the reconstitution case, the heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u iled a complaint* or revival o "udgment on -; December )((; be ore 'ranch -; o the !&C o Naga City. In said petition, they claimed that the decision in Civil Case No. *-?) dated ;, 5ebruary )(*9 was actually reconstituted in the

G.R. No. 1/0233

F%50u'0y 16, 200/

RITA J*CO, petitioner, vs. HEIR" OF TOMA" "I! CH*NG F* 0%#0%$%(,%) 5y ETER "I! '() TOMA" "I!, JR., respondents. DECISION CHICO.NA1ARIO, J.4 'e ore @s is a $etition or !eview on Certiorari o the Decision) o the Court o %ppeals issued on )9 +arch -;;), a irming the decision- o the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7 o Naga City, 'ranch -;, ordering the revival o "udgment in Civil Case No. *-?), dated ;, 5ebruary )(*9. &he 5acts On -- %pril )(*-, the predecessors.in.interest o herein respondents, &omas Siy Chung 5u and <eoncio Siy Cong 'ien, iled an action1 or recovery o property with damages be ore the then Court o 5irst Instance o Camarines Sur, 'ranch ), against EsperanJa $. +artineJ, mother o herein petitioner.

dismissed petition or reconstitution 6Civil Case No. !.:?)7 and that the same had become inal and e#ecutory. In her answer, herein petitioner !ita Euco denied the allegations and maintained that the records and the decision o Civil Case No. *-?) were never reconstituted as, in act, the petition or reconstitution was dismissed. She urther argued that even granting, or the saFe o argument, that the decision was reconstituted, the same did not become inal and e#ecutory since at the time the records were destroyed, the said decision was being appealed and there was a pending motion or reconsideration o the disapproval o the record on appeal. On -: September )((), the court a =uo dismissed the complaint or revival o "udgment, which was therea ter appealed by the heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u, to the Court o %ppeals. I( ' D%67$7o(,? )',%) 09 Au;u$, 199-, ,<% '##%ll',% 6ou0, <%l) ,<', ,<% 0%6o0)$ '() ,<% )%67$7o( 7( C7=7l C'$% No. 7281 >%0% (o, 0%6o($,7,u,%) . %ccording to the Court o %ppeals2 &here is the =uestion o whether the decision in the recovery o property case was reconstituted in the reconstitution case. It was not. $lainti s, in saying that the decision was reconstituted, rely in the Order dated November :, )(?1, which partly states that2 3# # #, the court hereby resolves, in the interest o "ustice and e=uity and in order to ill up the de iciencies in the records o this case, to admit plainti s> %nne#es W%>, W'> 6which is the decision in the recovery o property case7 and WC> attached to the said WOmnibus +otion 6)7> and to orm integral parts o the record in this case, as reconstituted3 6$arenthetical notes and underscoring Ours, !ecords, Civil Case No. !.:?), p.)-*7. &he oregoing Order is nothing more than an order to admit the sub"ect decision as one o the pleadings to be reconstituted. Said Order was not a inal order which terminated the reconstitution case. !ather, at that stage, the reconstitution court was still in the process o admitting pleadings and documents to be reconstituted. I there was any grant at all, it was the grant o plainti s> petition or reconstitution and the admission o their pro erred 6sic7 pleadings and documents such as the sub"ect decision. &he admission o the sub"ect decision in the reconstitution case does not maFe it reconstituted because the reconstitution case itsel was eventually dismissed.( &he appellate court however made a parallel inding that, notwithstanding the ailure o reconstitution, there should be a determination o whether or not the sub"ect

decision had become inal, and that this =uestion is best determined a ter trial, thus remanding the case to the lower court or urther proceedings. On ;- Eune )(((, the court a quo rendered a decision in avor o the heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u, ordering the revival o "udgment in Civil Case No. *-?). Not satis ied with said ruling o the court, petitioner !ita Euco appealed the same to the Court o %ppeals, alleging that the lower court erred in inding that the decision in Civil Case No. *-?) has become inal and e#ecutory and that the same may be revived. In its Decision,); the appellate court a irmed the indings o the !&C that !ita Euco is guilty o lac!es and her ailure to taFe action implies lacF o interest to en orce her right over the case. &he Court o %ppeals stated2 &rue, there was a pending motion or reconsideration at the time the records o Civil Case No. *-?) were burned. 4owever, during the period rom -9 Eune )(*9 when the records were burned up to -; December )((; when the present case was iled, de endant.appellant, as the movant, did not taFe any action to have said motion resolved. %s pointed out by the court a quo, or more than )1 years since -9 Eune )(*9 appellant did nothing to have said motion or reconsideration acted upon by the court be ore which it iled. Indeed, de endant.appellant slept on her right to pursue the motion or reconsideration in =uestion maFing her guilty o lac!es. She cannot now argue that the decision sought to be revived has not yet become inal and e#ecutory simply because she iled a motion or reconsideration which by her negligence remained unresolved. %ccordingly, We ind well taFen the indings and conclusion arrived at by the court a quo, to wit2 &he mere lapse o time where de endant did not taFe action o her case 6Civil Case No. *-?)7 is tantamount to negligence and abandonment and her claim that the "udgment in Civil Case No. *-?) has not become inal and e#ecutory is without merit as laches barred him 6sic7 rom iling any action to reconsider her motion and to prove that the "udgment rendered in Civil Case No. *-?) on 5ebruary ,, )(*9 is not yet inal and e#ecutory. ... 4aving ound earlier that by reason o laches the decision sought to be revived had already become inal and e#ecutory, We ind no necessity to still pass upon the issue on the inality o the decision.)) 4ence, the instant petition. &he issues raised can be summariJed as ollows2 I.

Whether or not the decision sought to be revived became inal and e#ecutory by reason o laches. II. Whether or not the decision in Civil Case No.*-?) can be the proper sub"ect o an action or revival o "udgment. III. Whether or not the action or revival o "udgment is already barred by prescription. !uling o the Court I. 0hether or not the decision sou*ht to .e revived .ecame final and e(ecutor' .' reason of laches. I it were not or the un ortunate event o a ire destroying the records o the original case or recovery o property with damages, this case would not have aggrandiJed into what it is now. &he motion or reconsideration o the losing party in said case, the predecessor.in.interest o !ita Euco, would have been resolved in the ordinary course o events. %las, this is not to be so. &he !&C and the appellate court have drawn the conclusion that petitioner !ita Euco is guilty o lac!es, because she ailed to taFe any action in securing the resolution o her +otion or !econsideration. 'oth courts attribute to petitioner>s negligence the lapse o time that the said motion has remained pending, thus ad"udging that, by reason o abandonment, her claim that the decision has not become inal and e#ecutory is without merit.12vvp!i1.n.t We do not agree. &he Court, in the case o &ele+, $r. v. Demetrio,)- has de ined laches as the ailure o or neglect or an unreasonable and une#plained length o time to do that which by e#ercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right within reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. &hus, the doctrine o lac!es presumes that the party guilty o negligence had the opportunity to do what should have been done, but ailed to do so. Conversely, i the said party did not have the occasion to assert the right, then, he can not be ad"udged guilty o lac!es. 9ac!es is not concerned with the mere lapse o time,), rather, the party must have been a orded an opportunity to pursue his claim in order that the delay may su iciently constitute lac!es.

It is worthy to note that the whole theory o reconstitution is to reproduce or replace records lost or destroyed so that said records may be complete and court proceedings may continue rom the point or stage where said proceedings stopped due to the loss o the records.)1 &hus, reconstitution must irst be had be ore the proceedings be ore the lower court may "udiciously continue. Conse=uently, i there was no proper reconstitution o the case, !ita Euco could not pursue the motion or reconsideration. Contrary to the conclusion drawn by the appellate court rom the testimony o %tty. <uciano +aggay, the lone witness in the remanded case, the records o Civil Case No. *-?) were never reconstituted. %s previously declared by the Court o %ppeals at the irst instance when the issue o reconstitution was raised, the Order dated ;: November )(?1 is nothing more than an order admitting the pleadings being submitted as one o those to be reconstituted. Contradictory to %tty. +aggay>s interpretation o the said Order, the Court o %ppeals determined that the Order was not a inal order which terminated the reconstitution case but rather, an order granting the petition or reconstitution and the admission o the pre.o ered documents. It must be stressed at this point that it was due to the ault o respondent heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u that the records o the original case were never reconstituted, as in act, the petition or reconstitution was dismissed or their ailure to prosecute. !e uting the indings o the court a =uo, as adopted by the Court o %ppeals, !ita Euco did not sleep on her rights to pursue the motion or reconsideration maFing her guilty o lac!es. &he records o the case will reveal that petitioner !ita Euco, and her mother be ore her, had indeed participated in the proceedings or the reconstitution o the records o the case. %nd that it was the heirs o &omas Siy Chung 5u, the petitioners in the reconstitution case, who had ailed to appear during said proceedings thus resulting in the dismissal o the case. &here ore, petitioner cannot be aulted i a ter the lapse o almost -( years her motion or reconsideration is still to be heard, simply because there was no opportunity to proceed with said motion, the reconstitution o the case having ailed. 9ac!es, being an e=uitable doctrine, cannot now be attributed to petitioner !ita Euco, as there was no reconstituted case where she could be a orded an opportunity to proceed with the motion or reconsideration. %ccordingly, the ruling o the Court o %ppeals, sustaining the !&C, that the decision in Civil Case No. *-?) has become inal and e#ecutory by reason o laches is erroneous. II. 0hether or not the decision in Civil Case "o. 1$2# can .e the proper su.3ect of an action for revival of 3ud*ment. %s pointed out by the appellate court, an action or revival o "udgment is a new and independent action, di erent and distinct rom either the recovery o property case or the reconstitution case, wherein the cause o action is the decision itsel and not the merits o the action upon which the "udgment sought to be en orced is

rendered.):4owever, revival o "udgment is premised on the assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by independent action, is already inal and e#ecutory.)9 4ence, the need to maFe a determination o whether or not the decision in Civil Case No. *-?) has indeed become inal and e#ecutory. 5or i the sub"ect decision has already reached inality, then the conclusion o the appellate court is correct that the dismissal o the reconstitution case would not prevent respondents rom reviving and therea ter e#ecuting the said decision. % decision issued by a court is inal and e#ecutory when such decision disposes o the sub"ect matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to en orce by e#ecution what has been determined by the court,)* such as when a ter the lapse o the reglementary period to appeal, no appeal has been per ected. In the case at bar, it is an undisputed act that when the records o the original case were destroyed in the ire there was a pending motion or reconsideration o the disapproval o the record on appeal iled by petitioner. % motion or reconsideration has the e ect o suspending the statutory period a ter which an order, decision, or "udgment, in connection with which said motion was iled, becomes inal. In e ect, such motion or reconsideration has prevented the decision rom attaining inality. &he indings o the Court o %ppeals that notwithstanding the pendency o the motion or reconsideration, the decision in Civil Case No. *-?) has become inal and e#ecutory by reason o lac!es cannot be sustained.l3vvp!i1.net %s discussed above, the doctrine o lac!es cannot operate to lend inality to the decision since petitioner>s ailure to pursue the motion or reconsideration was not due to her negligence or abandonment, but was rather brought upon by the dismissal o the reconstitution case. &here ore, it is clear that the case has not reached inality at the time the records o the case were burnt. Since the sub"ect decision has not attained inality, %ct ,)); entitled, JAn Act to provide an adequate procedure for t!e reconstitution of t!e records of pendin* "udicial proceedings and booCs, documents, and files of t!e office of t!e register of deeds, destro4ed b4 fire or ot!er public calamities, and for ot!er purposes,J is propitious. &hus, we ind applicable Section ,; o said %ct, which provides2 ,ection -4. When it shall not be possible to reconstitute a destroyed "udicial record by means o the procedure established in this %ct or or any reason not herein provided or, the interested parties ma4 file t!eir actions ane , upon payment o the proper ees, and such actions shall be registered as new actions and shall be treated as such. GEmphasis ours.H 4aving declared that the decision in the recovery o property case may not be the proper sub"ect o an action or revival o "udgment, we ind no necessity to pass upon

the issue o whether or not the action or revival o "udgment is already barred by prescription.1aT3Pp!i1.net In conclusion, we are constrained to ind that the Decision in Civil Case No. *-?) has not attained inality, there ore, the !&C decision ordering the revival o "udgment in said case must be set aside. $arties are directed to comply with the applicable provisions o %ct ,)); as applied in the dismissed reconstitution case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby /!%N&ED. &he Decision o the Court o %ppeals is !E0E!SED and SE& %SIDE. No Costs. SO O!DE!ED. $uno, 6Chairman7, %ustria.+artineJ, Calle"o, Sr., and &inga, EE., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ ) C%./.!. C0 No. 9,,1-, penned by %ssociate Eustice 'uenaventura /uerrero with %ssociate Eustices Eriberto !osario, Er., and %licia Santos, concurring. Civil Case No. !&C W(;.--,: dated ;- Eune )(((. , Issued by the Court o 5irst Instance o Camarines Sur, 'ranch ). 1 DocFeted as Civil Case No. *-?). : DocFeted as Civil Case No. !.:?) 6*-?)7. 9 !ecords, Civil Case No. !.:?), p. -:9. * DocFeted as Civil Case No. !&C W(;.--,:. ? C% /.!. C0 No. ,::*1, penned by %ssociate Eustice CeJar D. 5rancisco with %ssociate Eustices Nathanael $. De $ano, Er., and 'uenaventura E. /uerrero, concurring. ( Rollo, pp. *).*-. ); $upra, note ). )) Rollo, pp. ,; and ,-. )/.!. No. )-?:*9, ), %ugust -;;-, ,?* SC!% -,-, -,9.-,*. ), 'ailon.Casilao v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. <.*?)*?, ): %pril )(??, citing &i"am v. Sibonghanoy, /.!. No. <.-)1:;, -: %pril )(9?, -, SC!% -(. )1 Nacua v. %lo de 'eltran, /.!. No. <.1(,,, ;9 %ugust )(:,, (, $hil :(:, 9;;. ): C% U/.!. C0 No. 9,,1-, Rollo, p. ,). )9 Rules of Court, Rul% 39, "%6,7o( 6. E7ecution b4 motion or b4 independent action. U A :7('l '() %?%6u,o0y Bu);8%(, or order may be e#ecuted on motion within ive 6:7 years rom the date o its entry. % ter the lapse o such time, and be ore it is barred by the statute o limitations, a "udgment may be en orced by action. T<% 0%=7=%) Bu);8%(, may also be en orced by motion within ive 6:7 years rom the date o its entry and therea ter by action be ore it is barred by the statute o limitationsI &an Ching Ei v. +apalo, /.!. No. <.-)(,,, -- 5ebruary )(*), ,* SC!% :);I Santana.CruJ v. Court o %ppeals, et al., /.!. No. )-;)*9, -; Euly -;;), ,9) SC!% :-;I &erry v. $eople o the $hilippines, /.!. No. ),9-;,, )9 September )(((, ,)1 SC!% 99(. )* 'aNares II v. 'alising, /.!. No. ),-9-1, ), +arch -;;;, ,-? SC!% ,9.

-9.).). &o deliver to the plainti %!%N '@I<DE!S, INC. the ollowing2 6a7 the complete plans 6lot plan, location map and vicinity map7I 6b7 Irrevocable $ower o %ttorneyI 6c 7 !eal Estate &a# clearanceI 6d7 ta# receiptsI 6e7 proo o up to date payment o Subdivision %ssociation dues re erred to in the 3CON&!%C& &O SE<<3 dated November );, )(?9 6E#h. % or E#h. )7I G.R. NO. 1/6/96 Au;u$, 2-, 2007 -9.).-. &o e#ecute the deed o sale o <ot No. )), 'locF (, $hase ,.%), %yala %labang Subdivision covered by &C& No. ))1;): or $:;;,;;;.;; in avor o the plainti I -9.).,. &o pay the capital gains ta#, documentary stamp ta#es and other ta#es which the 'ureau o Internal !evenue may assess in connection with the sale mentioned in the preceding paragraph and to submit to the plainti proo o such paymentI -9.).1. &o secure the written con ormity o %B%<% CO!$O!%&ION to the said sale and to give such written con ormity to the plainti I -9.).:. &o register the deed o sale with the !egistry o Deeds and deliver to %B%<% CO!$O!%&ION the certi icate o title issued in the name o plainti pursuant to such registrationI -9.- @pon the compliance o the de endant with the preceding directives, the plainti must immediately pay to the de endant the sum o $,-),()?.-:I -9., &he de endant is ordered to pay plainti $);,;;;.;; as attorney>s eesI -9.1 &he Complaint or moral and e#emplary damages is DIS+ISSEDI -9.: &he CO@N&E!C<%I+ is DIS+ISSEDI and -9.9 Cost is ta#ed against the de endant. $etitioner iled a motion to dismiss the action 6 or revival o "udgment7 on the grounds that the +untinlupa !&C has no "urisdiction over the persons o the parties and that venue was improperly laid. $rivate respondent opposed the motion.

ADELAIDA INFANTE, $etitioner, vs. ARAN +*ILDER", INC., !espondent.X DECISION A*"TRIA.MARTINE1, J.: &his resolves the $etition or !eview on Certiorari under !ule 1: o the !ules o Court, seeFing the reversal o the Decision) o the Court o %ppeals 6C%7 promulgated on %ugust )-, -;;-, which upheld the Order dated September 1, -;;), issued by the !egional &rial Court o +untinlupa City 6!&C7. &he undisputed acts and issues raised in the lower courts are accurately summariJed by the C% as ollows2 'e ore the !egional &rial Court o +untinlupa City 6or 3+untinlupa !&C3I 'ranch -*97, presided over by 4on. Norma C. $erello 6or 3respondent "udge37, was an action or revival o "udgment iled on Eune 9, -;;) by %ran 'uilders, Inc. 6or 3private respondent37 against %delaida In ante 6or 3petitioner37, docFeted as Civil Case No. ;).)91. &he "udgment sought to be revived was rendered by the !egional &rial Court o +aFati City 6or 3+aFati !&C3I 'ranch 9;7 in an action or speci ic per ormance and damages, docFeted as Civil Case No. )::9,. &he +aFati !&C "udgment, which became inal and e#ecutory on November )9, )((1, decreed as ollows2 -9. W4E!E5O!E, the Court hereby renders "udgment as ollows2 -9.) &he de endant %DE<%ID% '. IN5%N&E is ordered to do the ollowing within thirty 6,;7 days rom inality hereo 2

On September 1, -;;), the +untinlupa !&C issued an order which reads2 &he +O&ION &O DIS+ISS is denied. %dmittedly, the Decision was rendered by the +aFati !egional &rial Court, but it must be emphasiJed that at that time there was still no !egional &rial Court in +untinlupa City, then under the territorial "urisdiction o the +aFati Courts, so that cases rom this City were tried and heard at +aFati City. With the creation o the !egional &rial Courts o +untinlupa City, matters involving properties located in this City, and cases involving +untinlupa City residents were all ordered to be litigated be ore these Courts. &he case at bar is a revival o a "udgment which declared the plainti as the owner o a parcel o land located in +untinlupa City. It is this "udgment which is sought to be en orced thru this action which necessarily involves the interest, possession, title, and ownership o the parcel o land located in +untinlupa city and ad"udged to $lainti . It goes without saying that the complaint should be iled in the latter City where the property is located, as there are now !egional &rial Courts hereat. De endant may answer the complaint within the remaining period, but no less than ive 6:7 days, otherwise a de ault "udgment might be taFen against her. It is SO O!DE!ED. 4er motion or reconsideration having been denied per order dated September -?, -;;), petitioner came to this Court GC%H via the instant special civil action or certiorari. She ascribes grave abuse o discretion amounting to lacF or e#cess o "urisdiction on the part o respondent "udge or 3erroneously holding that Civil Case No. ;).)91 is a revival o "udgment which declared private respondent as the owner o a parcel o land located in +untinlupa City and 6that7 the "udgment rendered by the 6+aFati !&C7 in Civil Case No. )::9, sought to be en orced necessarily involves the interest, possession, title and ownership o the parcel o land located in +untinlupa City.3 $etitioner asserts that the complaint or speci ic per ormance and damages be ore the +aFati !&C is a personal action and, there ore, the suit to revive the "udgment therein is also personal in natureI and that, conse=uently, the venue o the action or revival o "udgment is either +aFati City or $araNa=ue City where private respondent and petitioner respectively reside, at the election o private respondent. On the other hand, private respondent maintains that the sub"ect action or revival "udgment is 3=uasi in rem because it involves and a ects vested or ad"udged right on a real property3I and that, conse=uently, venue lies in +untinlupa City where the property is situated.-

On %ugust )-, -;;-, the C% promulgated its Decision ruling in avor o herein private respondent. &he C% held that since the "udgment sought to be revived was rendered in an action involving title to or possession o real property, or interest therein, the action or revival o "udgment is then an action in rem which should be iled with the !egional &rial Court o the place where the real property is located. $etitioner moved or reconsideration o the C% Decision but the motion was denied per !esolution dated Eanuary *, -;;,. 4ence, herein petition. $etitioner claims that the C% erred in inding that the complaint or revival o "udgment is an action in rem which was correctly iled with the !&C o the place where the disputed real property is located. &he petition is unmeritorious. $etitioner insists that the action or revival o "udgment is an action in personamI there ore, the complaint should be iled with the !&C o the place where either petitioner or private respondent resides. $etitioner then concludes that the iling o the action or revival o "udgment with the !&C o +untinlupa City, the place where the disputed property is located, should be dismissed on the ground o improper venue. $rivate respondent is o the opinion that the "udgment it is seeFing to revive involves interest over real property. %s such, the present action or revival is a real action, and venue was properly laid with the court o the place where the realty is located. &hus, the =uestion that must be answered is2 where is the proper venue o the present action or revival o "udgmentT Section 9, !ule ,( o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure provides that a ter the lapse o ive 6:7 years rom entry o "udgment and be ore it is barred by the statute o limitations, a inal and e#ecutory "udgment or order may be en orced by action. &he !ule does not speci y in which court the action or revival o "udgment should be iled. In Aldeguer v. *emelo,, the Court held that2 # # # an action upon a "udgment must be brought either in the same court where said "udgment was rendered or in the place where the plainti or de endant resides, or 7( '(y o,<%0 #l'6% )%$7;(',%) 5y ,<% $,',u,%$ ><76< ,0%', o: ,<% =%(u% o: '6,7o($ 7( ;%(%0'l. 6Emphasis supplied71 but emphasiJed that other provisions in the rules o procedure which i# the venue o actions in general must be considered.:

@nder the present !ules o Court, Sections ) and - o !ule 1 provide2 Section ). &enue of real actions. . %ctions a ecting title to or possession o real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has "urisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereo , is situated. #### Section -. &enue of personal actions. . %ll other actions may be commenced and tried where the plainti or any o the principal plainti s resides, or where the de endant or any o the principal de endants resides, or in the case o a non.resident de endant where he may be ound, at the election o the plainti . &hus, the proper venue depends on the determination o whether the present action or revival o "udgment is a real action or a personal action. %pplying the a ore. =uoted rules on venue, i the action or revival o "udgment a ects title to or possession o real property, or interest therein, then it is a real action that must be iled with the court o the place where the real property is located. I such action does not all under the category o real actions, it is then a personal action that may be iled with the court o the place where the plainti or de endant resides. In support o her contention that the action or revival o "udgment is a personal action and should be iled in the court o the place where either the plainti or de endant resides, petitioner cites the statements made by the Court in Aldeguer v. *emelo9 and Donnell4 v. Court of Dirst 0nstance of ,anila* . $etitioner, however, seriously misunderstood the CourtKs rulings in said cases. In Aldeguer, what the Court stated was that 3GtHhe action or the e#ecution o a Bu);8%(, :o0 )'8';%$ is a personal one, and under section ,** Go the Code o Civil $rocedureH, it should be brought in any province where the plainti or the de endant resides, at the election o the plainti 3? 6Emphasis and underscoring supplied7. $etitioner apparently tooF such statement to mean that any action or revival o "udgment should be considered as a personal one. &his thinFing is incorrect. &he Court speci ied that the "udgment sought to be revived in said case was a "udgment or )'8';%$. &he "udgment sub"ect o the action or revival did not involve or a ect any title to or possession o real property or any interest therein. &he complaint iled in the revival case did not all under the category o real actions and, thus, the action necessarily ell under the category o personal actions. In Donnell4, the portion o the Decision being relied upon by petitioner stated thus2 $etitioner raises be ore this Court two 6-7 issues, namely2 6a7 whether an action or revival o "udgment is one =uasi in rem and, there ore, service o summons may be e ected thru publicationI and 6b7 whether the second action or revival o "udgment

6Civil Case No. *9)997 has already prescribed. To ou0 87(), ,<% :70$, 7$ (o, ' #0o#%0 '() Bu$,767'5l% 7$$u% 7( ,<% #0%$%(, #0o6%%)7(;$ # # #. Nevertheless, let it be said that an action to revive a "udgment is a personal one. 6Emphasis supplied7 ( &he Court clearly pointed out that in said case, the issue on whether an action or revival o "udgment is quasi in rem was not yet proper and "usticiable. &here ore, ,<% :o0%;o7(; $,',%8%(, 6'((o, 5% u$%) '$ ' #0%6%)%(,,as it was merely an obiter dictum. +oreover, as in Aldeguer, the "udgment sought to be revived in Donnell4involved "udgment or a certain sum o money. %gain, no title or interest in real property was involved. It is then understandable that the action or revival in said case was categoriJed as a personal one. Clearly, the CourtKs classi ication in Aldeguer and Donnell4 o the actions or revival o "udgment as being personal in character does not apply to the present case. &he allegations in the complaint or revival o "udgment determine whether it is a real action or a personal action. &he complaint or revival o "udgment alleges that a inal and e#ecutory "udgment has ordered herein petitioner to e#ecute a deed o sale over a parcel o land in %yala %labang Subdivision in avor o herein private respondentI pay all pertinent ta#es in connection with said saleI register the deed o sale with the !egistry o Deeds and deliver to %yala Corporation the certi icate o title issued in the name o private respondent. &he same "udgment ordered private respondent to pay petitioner the sum o $,-),()?.-: upon petitionerKs compliance with the a orementioned order. It is urther alleged that petitioner re used to comply with her "udgment obligations despite private respondentKs repeated re=uests and demands, and that the latter was compelled to ile the action or revival o "udgment. $rivate respondent then prayed that the "udgment be revived and a writ o e#ecution be issued to en orce said "udgment. &he previous "udgment has conclusively declared private respondentKs right to have the title over the disputed property conveyed to it. It is, there ore, undeniable that private respondent has an established interest over the lot in =uestionI and to protect such right or interest, private respondent brought suit to revive the previous "udgment. &he sole reason or the present action to revive is the en orcement o private respondentKs ad"udged rights over a piece o realty. 0erily, the action alls under the category o a real action, or it a ects private respondentKs interest over real property.1avvp!i1 &he present case or revival o "udgment being a real action, the complaint should indeed be iled with the !egional &rial Court o the place where the realty is located. Section )? o 8atas %ambansa 8ilang )-( provides2

Sec. )?. Aut!orit4 to define territor4 appurtenant to eac! branc!. . T<% "u#0%8% Cou0, $<'ll )%:7(% ,<% ,%007,o0y o=%0 ><76< ' 50'(6< o: ,<% R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0, $<'ll %?%067$% 7,$ 'u,<o07,y. T<% ,%007,o0y ,<u$ )%:7(%) $<'ll 5% )%%8%) ,o 5% ,<% ,%007,o07'l '0%' o: ,<% 50'(6< 6o(6%0(%) :o0 #u0#o$%$ o: )%,%087(7(; ,<% =%(u% o: 'll $u7,$, #0o6%%)7(;$ o0 '6,7o($, whether civil or criminal, as well as determining the +etropolitan &rial Courts, +unicipal &rial Courts and +unicipal Circuit &rial Courts over which the said branch may e#ercise appellate "urisdiction. &he power herein granted shall be e#ercised with a view to maFing the courts readily accessible to the people o the di erent parts o the region and maFing the attendance o litigants and witnesses as ine#pensive as possible. 6Emphasis supplied71avvp!i1 5rom the oregoing, it is =uite clear that ' 50'(6< o: ,<% R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0, $<'ll %?%067$% 7,$ 'u,<o07,y o(ly o=%0 ' #'0,76ul'0 ,%007,o0y )%:7(%) 5y ,<% "u#0%8% Cou0,. Originally, +untinlupa City was under the territorial "urisdiction o the +aFati Courts. 4owever, Section 1 o !epublic %ct No. *):1, entitled %n %ct to %mend Section 5ourteen o 8atas %ambansa 8ilang )-(, Otherwise Pnown %s &he Eudiciary !eorganiJation %ct o )(?), tooF e ect on September 1, )((). Said law provided or the creation o a branch o the !egional &rial Court in +untinlupa. &hus, it is now the !egional &rial Court in +untinlupa City which has territorial "urisdiction or authority to validly issue orders and processes concerning real property within +untinlupa City. &hus, there was no grave abuse o discretion committed by the !egional &rial Court o +untinlupa City, 'ranch -*9 when it denied petitionerKs motion to dismissI and the C% did not commit any error in a irming the same. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. &he Decision dated %ugust )-, -;;- and !esolution dated Eanuary *, -;;, o the Court o %ppeals are AFFIRMED. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ X &he Court o %ppeals was originally impleaded as respondent. $er Section 1, !ule 1: o the !ules o Court, the Court o %ppeals is deleted rom the title o the case. ) $enned by %ssociate Eustice Edgardo $. CruJ, with %ssociate Eustices 4ilarion <. %=uino and !egalado E. +aambong, concurring, rollo, pp. )(.-9. Rollo, pp. )(.-,. , 9? $hil. 1-) 6)(,(7. 1 Id. at 1-1.1-:. : Id. at 1-,. 9 Supra note ,. * ):;.% $hil. )9* 6)(*-7. ? Supra note ,, at p. 1-,. ( Donnell4 v. Court of Dirst 0nstance of ,anila, supra note *, at )9(.

G.R. No. 16/060

No=%85%0 27, 2008

AL+INO JO"EF, petitioner, vs. OTELIO "ANTO", respondent.

DECI"ION !NARE"."ANTIAGO, J.4 &his petition or review on certiorari under !ule 1: o the !ules o Court assails the November )*, -;;,)!esolution o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. ?;,):, dismissing petitioner>s special civil action o certiorari or ailure to ile a prior motion or reconsideration, and the +ay *, -;;1- !esolution denying the motion or reconsideration. $etitioner %lbino Eose was the de endant in Civil Case No. (:.));.+P, which is a case or collection o sum o money iled by herein respondent Otelio Santos, who claimed that petitioner ailed to pay the shoe materials which he bought on credit rom respondent on various dates in )((1. % ter trial, the !egional &rial Court o +ariFina City, 'ranch -*-, ound petitioner liable to respondent in the amount o $1;1,?,9.:; with interest at )-D per annum recFoned rom Eanuary (, )((: until ull payment., $etitioner appealed1 to the Court o %ppeals, which a irmed the trial court>s decision in toto.: $etitioner iled be ore this Court a petition or review on certiorari, but it was dismissed in a !esolution dated 5ebruary )?, -;;-.9 &he Eudgment became inal and e#ecutory on +ay -), -;;-. On 5ebruary )*, -;;,, respondent moved or issuance o a writ o e#ecution,* which was opposed by petitioner.? In an Order dated Euly )9, -;;,,( the trial court granted the motion, the dispositive portion o which reads, as ollows2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the motion or issuance o writ o e#ecution is hereby granted. <et a writ o e#ecution be issued commanding the Sheri o this Court to e#ecute the decision dated December )?, )((9. SO O!DE!ED.); % writ o e#ecution was issued on %ugust -;, -;;,)) and en orced on %ugust -), -;;,. On %ugust -(, -;;,, certain personal properties sub"ect o the writ o e#ecution were auctioned o . &herea ter, a real property located at +ariFina City and covered by &rans er Certi icate o &itle 6&C&7 No. N.);:-?; was sold on October -?, -;;, by way o public auction to ully satis y the "udgment credit. !espondent emerged as the winning bidder and a Certi icate o Sale)- dated November 9, -;;, was issued in his avor. On November :, -;;,, petitioner iled an original petition or certiorari with the Court o %ppeals, =uestioning the sheri >s levy and sale o the abovementioned

personal and real properties. $etitioner claimed that the personal properties did not belong to him but to his childrenI and that the real property covered by &C& No. N. );:-?; was his amily home thus e#empt rom e#ecution. On November )*, -;;,, the Court o %ppeals issued the assailed !esolution dismissing the petition or ailure o petitioner to ile a motion or reconsideration o the trial court>s Euly )9, -;;, Order granting the motion or e#ecution and ordering the issuance o a writ there or, as well as or his ailure to indicate in his petition the timeliness o its iling as re=uired under the !ules o Court. On +ay *, -;;1, the appellate court denied petitioner>s motion or reconsideration. &hus, the instant petition which raises the ollowing issues2 I. W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E <E0B %ND S%<E O5 &4E $E!SON%< 'E<ON/IN/S O5 &4E $E&I&IONE!>S C4I<D!EN %S WE<< %S &4E %&&%C4+EN& %ND S%<E ON $@'<IC %@C&ION O5 4IS 5%+I<B 4O+E &O S%&IS5B &4E E@D/+EN& %W%!D IN 5%0O! O5 !ES$ONDEN& IS <E/%<. II. W4E&4E! O! NO& &4E DIS+ISS%< O5 &4E $E&I&IONE!>S $E&I&ION 5O! CE!&IO!%!I 'B &4E 4ONO!%'<E CO@!& O5 %$$E%<S IS E@S&I5IED @NDE! &4E CI!C@+S&%NCES. $etitioner argues that the trial court sheri erroneously attached, levied and sold on e#ecution the real property covered by &C& No. N.);:-?; because the same is his amily homeI that the e#ecution sale was irregular because it was conducted without complying with the notice and posting o re=uirementsI and that the personal and real properties were sold or inade=uate prices as to shocF the conscience. &he real property was allegedly worth $? million but was sold or only $?1?,11?.91. $etitioner also argues that the appellate court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition based purely on technical grounds, i.e., his ailure to ile a motion or reconsideration o the trial court>s order granting e#ecution, and his ailure to indicate in his petition or certiorari the timeliness o iling the same with the Court o %ppeals. !espondent, on the other hand, argues that petitioner>s alleged amily home has not been shown to have been "udicially or e#tra"udicially constituted, obviously re erring to the provisions on amily home o the Civil Code U not those o the 5amily Code which should apply in this caseI that petitioner has not shown to the court>s

satis action that the personal properties e#ecuted upon and sold belonged to his children. !espondent argues that he is entitled to satis action o "udgment considering the length o time it tooF or the parties to litigate and the various remedies petitioner availed o which have delayed the case. &he petition is meritorious. $etitioner, in his opposition to respondent>s motion or issuance o a writ o e#ecution, claimed that he was insolventI that he had no property to answer or the "udgment creditI that the house and lot in which he was residing at the time was his amily home thus e#empt rom e#ecutionI that the household urniture and appliances ound therein are liFewise e#empt rom e#ecutionI and that these urniture and appliances belonged to his children Easmin Eose and Eean Eose Isidro. &hus, as early as during proceedings prior to the issuance o the writ o e#ecution, petitioner brought to the ore the issue o e#emption rom e#ecution o his home, which he claimed to be a amily home in contemplation o the civil law. 4owever, instead o in=uiring into the nature o petitioner>s allegations in his opposition, the trial court ignored the same and granted respondent>s motion or e#ecution. &he ull te#t o the Euly )9, -;;, Order provides, as ollows2 &his resolves the 3+otion or the Issuance o Writ o E#ecution3 iled by plainti thru counsel and the 3Opposition3 thereto iled by the de endant on her own behal . &he records show that a decision was rendered by this Court in avor o the plainti on December )?, )((: which decision was a irmed by the Court o %ppeals on Eune -9, -;;) and by the Supreme Court on 5ebruary )?, -;;-. On Eune )?, -;;,, this Court received the entire records o the case rom the Court o %ppeals. Considering the oregoing, it is now the ministerial duty o the Court to issue a writ o e#ecution pursuant to Sec. ), !ule ,( o the !ules o Court. W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the motion or issuance o writ o e#ecution is hereby granted. <et a writ o e#ecution be issued commanding the Sheri o this Court to e#ecute the decision dated December )?, )((9. SO O!DE!ED.), &he above Order did not resolve nor taFe into account petitioner>s allegations in his Opposition, which are material and relevant in the resolution o the motion or issuance o a writ o e#ecution. &his is serious error on the part o the trial court. It should have made an earnest determination o the truth to petitioner>s claim that the

house and lot in which he and his children resided was their duly constituted amily home. Since it did not, its Euly )9, -;;, Order is thus null and void. Where a "udgment or "udicial order is void it may be said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it e#hibits its head.)1 &he amily home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and ree rom attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the land on which it is situated, which con ers upon a particular amily the right to en"oy such properties, which must remain with the person constituting it and his heirs. It cannot be seiJed by creditors e#cept in certain special cases.): @pon being apprised that the property sub"ect o e#ecution allegedly constitutes petitioner>s amily home, the trial court should have observed the ollowing procedure2 ). Determine i petitioner>s obligation to respondent alls under either o the e#ceptions under %rticle )::)9 o the 5amily CodeI -. +aFe an in=uiry into the veracity o petitioner>s claim that the property was his amily homeI)*conduct an ocular inspection o the premisesI an e#amination o the titleI an interview o members o the community where the alleged amily home is located, in order to determine i petitioner actually resided within the premises o the claimed amily homeI order a submission o photographs o the premises, depositions, andAor a idavits o proper individualsApartiesI or a solemn e#amination o the petitioner, his children and other witnesses. %t the same time, the respondent is given the opportunity to cross.e#amine and present evidence to the contraryI ,. I the property is accordingly ound to constitute petitioner>s amily home, the court should determine2 a7 i the obligation sued upon was contracted or incurred prior to, or a ter, the e ectivity o the 5amily CodeI)? b7 i petitioner>s spouse is still alive, as well as i there are other bene iciaries o the amily homeI)( c7 i the petitioner has more than one residence or the purpose o determining which o them, i any, is his amily homeI-; and d7 its actual location and value, or the purpose o applying the provisions o %rticles ):*-)and )9;-- o the 5amily Code.

&he amily home is the dwelling place o a person and his amily, a sacred symbol o amily love and repository o cherished memories that last during one>s li etime. -, It is the sanctuary o that union which the law declares and protects as a sacred institutionI and liFewise a shelter or the ruits o that union. It is where both can seeF re uge and strengthen the tie that binds them together and which ultimately orms the moral abric o our nation. &he protection o the amily home is "ust as necessary in the preservation o the amily as a basic social institution, and since no custom, practice or agreement destructive o the amily shall be recogniJed or given e ect,-1 the trial court>s ailure to observe the proper procedures to determine the veracity o petitioner>s allegations, is un"usti ied. &he same is true with respect to personal properties levied upon and sold at auction. Despite petitioner>s allegations in his Opposition, the trial court did not maFe an e ort to determine the nature o the same, whether the items were e#empt rom e#ecution or not, or whether they belonged to petitioner or to someone else.-: !espondent moved or issuance o a writ o e#ecution on 5ebruary )*, -;;, while petitioner iled his opposition on Eune -,, -;;,. &he trial court granted the motion on Euly )9, -;;,, and the writ o e#ecution was issued on %ugust -;, -;;,. Clearly, the trial court had enough time to conduct the crucial in=uiry that would have spared petitioner the trouble o having to seeF relie all the way to this Court. Indeed, the trial court>s inaction on petitioner>s plea resulted in serious in"ustice to the latter, not to mention that its ailure to conduct an in=uiry based on the latter>s claim bordered on gross ignorance o the law. 'eing void, the Euly )9, -;;, Order could not have con erred any right to respondent. %ny writ o e#ecution based on it is liFewise void. %lthough we have held in several cases-9 that a claim or e#emption rom e#ecution o the amily home should be set up and proved be ore the sale o the property at public auction, and ailure to do so would estop the party rom later claiming the e#emption since the right o e#emption is a personal privilege granted to the "udgment debtor which must be claimed by the "udgment debtor himsel at the time o the levy or within a reasonable period therea ter, the circumstances o the instant case are di erent. $etitioner claimed e#emption rom e#ecution o his amily home soon a ter respondent iled the motion or issuance o a writ o e#ecution, thus giving notice to the trial court and respondent that a property e#empt rom e#ecution may be in danger o being sub"ected to levy and sale. &hereupon, the trial court is called to observe the procedure as herein laid outI on the other hand, the respondent should observe the procedure prescribed in %rticle )9; o the 5amily Code, that is, to obtain an order or the sale on e#ecution o the petitioner>s amily home, i so, and apply the proceeds U less the ma#imum amount allowed by law under %rticle ):* o the Code which should remain with the petitioner or the rebuilding o his amily home U to his "udgment credit. Instead, both the trial court and respondent completely ignored petitioner>s argument that the properties sub"ect o the writ are e#empt rom e#ecution.

Indeed, petitioner>s resort to the special civil action o certiorari in the Court o %ppeals was belated and without bene it o the re=uisite motion or reconsideration, however, considering the gravity o the issue, involving as it does matters that striFe at the very heart o that basic social institution which the State has a constitutional and moral duty to preserve and protect, as well as petitioner>s constitutional right to abode, all procedural in irmities occasioned upon this case must taFe a bacF seat to the substantive =uestions which deserve to be answered in ull. WHEREFORE, the $etition or !eview on Certiorari is GRANTED. &he November )*, -;;, and +ay *, -;;1 !esolutions o the Court o %ppeals in C%. /.!. S$ No. ?;,): are RE&ER"ED '() "ET A"IDE. &he Euly )9, -;;, Order o the !egional &rial Court o +ariFina City, 'ranch -*- in Civil Case No. (:.));. +P, as well as the writ or writs o e#ecution thus issued in said case, are hereby DECLARED &OID, and all acts proceeding there rom and any title obtained by virtue thereo are liFewise DECLARED &OID. &he trial court is hereby DIRECTED 6)7 to conduct a solemn in=uiry into the nature o the real property covered by &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. N.);:-?;, with a view toward determining whether the same is petitioner %lbino Eose >s amily home, and i so, apply the pertinent provisions o the 5amily Code and !ule ,( o the !ules o CourtI and 6-7 to conduct an in=uiry into the ownership o all other properties that were levied upon and sold, with the aim o determining as well whether these properties are e#empt rom e#ecution under e#isting law. !espondent Otelio Santos is hereby DIRECTED to hold the abovementioned real and personal properties, or the proceeds thereo , in trust to await the outcome o the trial court>s in=uiry. 5inally, the trial court is DIRECTED to resolve, with utmost dispatch, Civil Case No. (:.));.+P within si#ty 69;7 days rom receipt o a copy o this Decision. "O ORDERED.
Foo,(o,%$ X In lieu o %ssociate Eustice &eresita E. <eonardo.De Castro, per Special Order No. :,( dated November )1, -;;?. ) !ollo, p. 91I penned by %ssociate Eustice Edgardo $. CruJ and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !uben &. !eyes and Noel /. &i"am. Id. at *-.*,. , Id. at -(.,,I penned by Eudge !euben !. De la CruJ. 1 DocFeted as C%./.!. C0 No. :9(:-. : !ollo, pp. ,1.,?I penned by %ssociate Eustice !odrigo 0. Cosico and concurred in by %ssociate Eustices !amon %. 'arcelona and %licia <. Santos. 9 Id. at ),, :)I docFeted as /.!. No. ):;*-;. * Id. at :;.:-. ? Id. at :,.::. ( Id. at :9. ); Id.

)) )-

Id. at :*.:?. Id. at 9).9-. ), Id. at :9. )1 %bbain v. Chua, No. <.-1-1), 5ebruary -9, )(9?, -- SC!% *1?. ): &aneo, Er. v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. );?:,-, +arch (, )(((, ,;1 SC!% ,;?. )9 5amily Code. A0,. 1//. &he amily home shall be e#empt rom e#ecution, orced sale or attachment e#cept2 6)7 5or non.payment o ta#esI 6-7 5or debts incurred prior to the constitution o the amily homeI 6,7 5or debts secured by mortgages on the premises be ore or a ter such constitutionI and 617 5or debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders, materialmen and others who have rendered service or urnished material or the construction o the building. )* 5amily Code. A0,. 1/2. &he amily home, constituted "ointly by the husband and the wi e or by an unmarried head o a amily, is the dwelling house where they and their amily reside, and the land on which it is situated. A0,. 1/3. &he amily home is deemed constituted on a house and lot rom the time it is occupied as a amily residence. 5rom the time o its constitution and so long as any o its bene iciaries actually resides therein, the amily home continues to be such and is e#empt rom e#ecution, orced sale or attachment e#cept as hereina ter provided and to the e#tent o the value allowed by law. A0,. 162. &he provisions in this Chapter shall also govern e#isting amily residences inso ar as said provisions are applicable. )? +ode=uillo v. 'reva, /.!. No. ?9,::, +ay ,), )((;, )?: SC!% *99I +anacop v. Court o %ppeals, ,1- $hil. *,: 6)((*7I &aneo v. Court o %ppeals, supra note ):. )( 5amily Code. A0,. 1/-. &he bene iciaries o a amily home are2 6)7 &he husband and wi e, or an unmarried person who is the head o a amilyI and 6-7 &heir parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who are living in the amily home and who depend upon the head o the amily or legal support. A0,. 1/9. &he amily home shall continue despite the death o one or both spouses or o the unmarried head o the amily or a period o ten years or or as long as there is a minor bene iciary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court inds compelling reasons there or. &his rule shall apply regardless o whoever owns the property or constituted the amily home. -; 5amily Code. A0,. 161. 5or purposes o availing o the bene its o a amily home as provided or in this Chapter, a person may constitute, or be the bene iciary o , only one amily home. -) 5amily Code. A0,. 1/7. &he actual value o the amily home shall not e#ceed, at the time o its constitution, the amount o &hree hundred thousand pesos in urban areas, and &wo hundred thousand pesos in rural areas, or such amounts as may herea ter be i#ed by law. In any event, i the value o the currency changes a ter the adoption o this Code, the value most avorable or the constitution o a amily home shall be the basis o evaluation. 5or purposes o this %rticle, urban areas are deemed to include chartered cities and municipalities whose annual income at least e=uals that legally re=uired or chartered cities. %ll others are deemed to be rural areas. -5amily Code. A0,. 160. When a creditor whose claim is not among those mentioned in %rticle ):: obtains a "udgment in his avor, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the amily home is actually worth more than the ma#imum amount i#ed in %rticle ):*, he may apply to the court which rendered the "udgment or an order directing the sale o the property under e#ecution. &he court shall so order i it inds that the actual value o the amily home e#ceeds the ma#imum amount allowed by law as o the time o its constitution. I the increased actual value e#ceeds the ma#imum allowed in %rticle ):* and results rom subse=uent voluntary improvements introduced by the person or persons constituting the amily home, by the owner or owners o the property, or by any o the bene iciaries, the same rule and procedure shall apply. %t the e#ecution sale, no bid below the value allowed or a amily home shall be considered. &he proceeds shall be applied irst to the amount mentioned in %rticle ):*, and then to the liabilities under the "udgment and the costs. &he e#cess, i any, shall be delivered to the "udgment debtor.

-,

%. &olentino, Commentaries and Eurisprudence on the Civil Code o the $hilippines, 0ol. I 6)((; ed.7, p. :;?, citing Code Commission o )(1*, pp. )?.)(, -;. -1 5amily Code, %rt. )1(. -: Sec. ),, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court provide2 Sec. ),. $roperty e#empt rom e#ecution. E#cept as otherwise e#pressly provided by law, the ollowing property, and no other, shall be e#empt rom e#ecution2 6a7 &he "udgment obligorKs amily home as provided by law, or the homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in connection therewithI 6b7 Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in his trade, employment, or livelihoodI 6c7 &hree horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other beasts o burden such as the "udgment obligor may select necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupationI 6d7 4is necessary clothing and articles or ordinary personal use, e#cluding "ewelryI 6e7 4ousehold urniture and utensils necessary or houseFeeping, and used or that purpose by the "udgment obligor and his amily, such as the "udgment obligor may select, o a value not e#ceeding one hundred thousand pesosI 6 7 $rovisions or individual or amily use su icient or our monthsI 6g7 &he pro essional libraries and e=uipment o "udges, lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other pro essionals, not e#ceeding three hundred thousand pesos in valueI 6h7 One ishing boat and accessories not e#ceeding the total value o one hundred thousand pesos owned by a isherman and by the law ul use o which he earns his livelihoodI 6i7 So much o the salaries, wages, or earnings o the "udgment obligor o his personal services within the our months preceding the levy as are necessary or the support o his amilyI 6"7 <ettered gravestonesI 6F7 +onies bene its, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner growing out o any li e insuranceI 6l7 &he right to receive legal support, or money or property obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity rom the /overnmentI 6m7 $roperties specially e#empt by law. 'ut no article or species o property mentioned in this section shall be e#empt rom e#ecution issued upon a "udgment recovered or its price or upon a "udgment o oreclosure o a mortgage thereon. -9 4onrado v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. )99,,,, November -:, -;;:, 1*9 SC!% -?;I /omeJ v. /ealone, /.!. No. :?-?), November ),, )((), -;, SC!% 1*1 .

G.R. No. 1/132/

Ju(% 27, 200/

DF ARMO*RED "EC*RIT! AND IN&E"TIGATION AGENC!, INC., petitioner, vs. ARN*LFO OR IA, LOD*&ICO A+*CEJO, ROWEL AG*RO, EFREN ALMOETE, ROMEO AMI"TA, WARLITO +ALAGO"A, ROMEO +ALING+ING, RAMON +ARROA, MONTECLARO +ATAWIL, ARNEL +ON, RICARDO CA ENTE", DANILO DADA, JOEL DELA CR*1, HERNANO DELO" RE!E", FLORENTINO DELO" TRINO, ROGELIO D*ERME, NONITO E"TRELLADO, JO"E H FALCE"O, I"IDRO FLORE", &ICTOR G*NGON, "ONN! J*L+A, ATRICIO LACANA, JR., FELII LA"CONA, J*ANITO L*NA, RA*L L*1ADA", ROMMEL MAG+AN*A, ROGELIO MARI+*NG, NICOLA" MENDO1A, E1&ENER OGANA, RIC3! ORANO, RE!NALDO O1ARAGA, "AM*EL ADILLA, EDWIN ARRENO, IRENEO ARTOLAN, J*AN IGT*AN, G*ILLERMO *"ING, RODEL "I+AL, "IL&E"TRE "OLEDAD, JO&ENAR TE&ER, &IRGILIO TIMAJO, ERMILIO TOMARONG, JR., &IRGILIO &ERDEFLOR '() JOEREI &ICTORINO, respondents. DECISION "ANDO&AL.G*TIERRE1, J.: 5or resolution is a petition or review on certiorari under !ule 1: o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, as amended, assailing the Decision) dated December )?, -;;) rendered by the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. 9)*((, entitled 3DKArmoured $ecurit4 and 0nvestigation Agenc4, 0nc. vs. /ational 9abor Relations Commission,

Arbiter Ariel C. $antos, /9RC $!eriff Ricardo %erona, Arnulfo Orpia, 9udovico Abuce"o, Ro el Aguro, Efren Almoete, Romeo Amista, Garlito 8algosa, Romeo 8alingbing, Ramon 8arroa, ,onteclaro 8ata il, Arnel 8on, Ricardo Capentes, Danilo Dada, #oel dela Cru+, Fernando delos Re4es, Dlorentino delos -rino, Rogelio Duerme, /onito Estrellado, #osep! Dalceso, 0sidro Dlores, &ictor *ungon, $onn4 #ulba, %atricio 9acana, #r., Deli7 9ascona, #uanito 9una, Raul 9o+adas, Rommel ,agbanua, Rogelio ,aribung, /icolas ,endo+a, E+vener Ogana, RicC4 Orano, Re4naldo O+araga, $amuel %adilla, Ed in %arreno, 0reneo %artolan, #uan %igtuan, *uillermo %using, Rodel $ibal, $ilvestre $oledad, #ovener -ever, &irgilio -ima"o, Emilio -omarong, #r., &irgilio &erdeflor and #oere7 &ictorino.3 On 5ebruary (, )((:, the above.named respondents, who were employed as security guards by D>%rmoured Security and Investigation %gency, Inc., petitioner, and assigned to 5ortune &obacco, Inc. 65ortune &obacco7, iled with the <abor %rbiter a complaint or illegal dismissal and various monetary claims against petitioner and 5ortune &obacco, docFeted as N<!C.NC! Case No. ;;.;-.;))1?.(:. On Eune )), )((?, the <abor %rbiter rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion o which reads2 3W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, all the respondents e#cept %ntonio Cabangon Chua are "ointly and severally liable to pay complainants the total sum o ONE +I<<ION SE0EN&B SE0EN &4O@S%ND ONE 4@ND!ED &WEN&B 5O@! %ND &WEN&B NINE CEN&%0OS 6$),;**,)-1.-(7 or underpayment, overtime pay, legal holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, ),th month pay, illegal deduction and re und o irearms bond, as indicated in %nne# W%>. 5inally, ten 6);D7 percent o all sums owing to complainants is hereby awarded as attorney>s ees. SO O!DE!ED.3 5rom the said Decision, 5ortune &obacco interposed an appeal to the National <abor !elations Commission 6N<!C7. $etitioner did not appeal. On +arch -9, )(((, the N<!C rendered its Decision a irming with modi ication the assailed %rbiter>s Decision in the sense that the complaint against 5ortune &obacco was dismissed. &his Decision became inal and e#ecutory. &hus, the award speci ied in the Decision o the %rbiter became the sole liability o petitioner. &he records were then remanded to the %rbiter or e#ecution. @pon respondents> motion, the %rbiter issued a writ o e#ecution. Eventually, the sheri served a writ o garnishment upon the Chie %ccountant o 5oremost 5arms, Inc., a corporation with whom petitioner has an e#isting services agreement. &hus, petitioner>s receivables with 5oremost were garnished.

$etitioner iled with the N<!C a 3+otion to OuashA!ecall Writ o E#ecution and /arnishment3 which was opposed by respondents. On +arch );, -;;;, the %rbiter issued an Order denying the motion and directing the sheri to release the garnished sum o money to respondents pro rata. $etitioner>s motion or reconsideration was denied, hence, it interposed an appeal to the N<!C. In a !esolution dated Euly -*, -;;;, the N<!C dismissed the appeal or petitioner>s ailure to post a bond within the reglementary period. Its motion or reconsideration was denied in a !esolution dated September -:, -;;;. 5orthwith, petitioner iled with the Court o %ppeals a petition or certiorari and prohibition with prayer or issuance o a writ o preliminary in"unction. In a Decision dated December )?, -;;), the Court o %ppeals dismissed the petition. 4ence, this petition or review on certiorari. In this petition, the issue posed is whether the Court o %ppeals erred in holding that petitioner>s monthly receivables rom the 5oremost 5arms, Inc. 6garnishee7 are not e#empt rom e#ecution. &he petition lacFs merit. W% <'=% 0ul%) ,<', '( o0)%0 o: %?%6u,7o( o: ' :7('l '() %?%6u,o0y Bu);8%(,, '$ 7( ,<7$ 6'$%, 7$ (o, '##%'l'5l%, o,<%0>7$%, ,<%0% >oul) 5% (o %() ,o l7,7;',7o(.- On this ground alone, the instant petition is dismissible. %ssuming that an appeal is proper, still we have to deny the instant petition. Section ), !ule I0 o the N<!C +anual on E#ecution o Eudgment provides2 3!ule I0 E8EC@&ION SEC&ION ). 0o#%0,7%$ %?%8#, :0o8 %?%6u,7o(. U Only the properties o the losing party shall be the sub"ect o e#ecution, e#cept2 6a7 &he losing party>s amily home constituted in accordance with the Civil Code or 5amily Code or as may be provided or by law or in the absence thereo , the homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in connection therewith, sub"ect to the limits i#ed by lawI 6b7 4is necessary clothing, and that o his amilyI

6c7 4ousehold urniture and utensils necessary or houseFeeping, and used or that purpose by the losing party such as he may select, o a value not e#ceeding the amount i#ed by lawI 6d7 $rovisions or individual or amily use su icient or three 6,7 monthsI 6e7 &he pro essional libraries o attorneys, "udges, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other pro essionals, not e#ceeding the amount i#ed by lawI 6 7 So much o the earnings o the losing party or his personal services within the month preceding the levy as are necessary or the support o his amilyI 6g7 %ll monies, bene its, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner growing out o any li e insuranceI 6h7 &ools and instruments necessarily used by him in his trade or employment o a value not e#ceeding three thousand 6$,,;;;.;;7 pesosI 6i7 Other properties especially e#empted by law.3 &he above !ule clearly enumerates what properties are e#empt rom e#ecution. It is apparent that the e#emption pertains only to natural persons and not to "uridical entities. On this point, the Court o %ppeals correctly ruled that petitioner, being a corporate entity, does not all within the e#emption, thus2 3We cannot accede to petitioner>s position that the garnished amount is e#empt rom e#ecution. Section ), o !ule ,( o the !ules o Court is plain and clear on what properties are e#empt rom e#ecution. Section ), 6i7 o the !ules pertinently reads2 WSEC&ION ),. %ropert4 e7empt from e7ecution. U E#cept as otherwise e#pressly provided by law, the ollowing property, and no other, shall be e#empt rom e#ecution2 ######### 6i7 So much o the salaries, wages or earnings o the "udgment obligor or his #%0$o('l $%0=76%$ within the our months preceding the levy as are necessary or the $u##o0, o: <7$ :'87ly.9

&he e#emption under this procedural rule should be read in con"unction with the Civil Code, the substantive law which proscribes the e#ecution o employee>s wages, thus2 W%!&. )*;?. &he laborer>s wage shall not be sub"ect to e#ecution or attachment, e#cept or debts incurred or ood, shelter, clothing and medical attendance.> Obviously, the e#emption under !ule ,( o the !ules o Court and %rticle )*;? o the New Civil Code is meant to avor only laboring men or women whose worFs are manual. $ersons belonging to this class usually looF to the reward o a day>s labor or immediate or present support, and such persons are more in need o the e#emption than any other G*aa vs. Court of Appeals, )1; SC!% ,;1 6)(?:7H. In this conte#t, e#emptions under this rule are con ined only to (',u0'l #%0$o($ and (o, ,o Bu07)76'l %(,7,7%$ $u6< '$ #%,7,7o(%0. &hus, the rule speaFs o salaries, wages and earning rom the Wpersonal services> rendered by the "udgment obligor. &he rule urther re=uires that such earnings be intended or the support o the "udgment debtor>s amily. Necessarily, petitioner which is a corporate entity, does not all under the e#emption. I at all, the e#emption re ers to petitioner>s individual employees and not to petitioner as a corporation. # # #. $arenthetically, in a parallel case where a security agency claimed that the guns it gives to its guards are tools and implements e#empt rom e#ecution, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that the e#emption pertains only to natural and not to "uridical persons, thus2 W4owever, it would appear that the e#emption contemplated by the provision involved is personal, available only to a natural person, such as a dentist>s dental chair and electric an 68elen v. de 9eon, /.!. No. <.):9)-, ,; Nov. )(9-7. %s pointed out by the Solicitor /eneral, i properties used in business are e#empt rom e#ecution, there can hardly be an instance when a "udgment claim can be en orced against the business entity> G%entagon $ecurit4 and 0nvestigation Agenc4 vs. #imene+, 1I; $CRA >I; 51II<6H. It stands to reason that only natural persons whose salaries, wages and earnings are indispensable or his own and that o his amily>s support are e#empted under Section ), 6i7 o !ule ,( o the !ules o Court. @ndeniably, a corporate entity such as petitioner security agency is not covered by the e#emption. W4E!E5O!E, the petition is hereby DIS+ISSED. SO O!DE!ED.3

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. &he assailed Decision dated December )?, -;;) o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. 9)*(( is %55I!+ED 0/ -O-O. Costs against petitioner. SO O!DE!ED. $anganiban, 6Chairman7, Corona, Carpio.+orales, and /arcia, EE., concur

A.M. No. .0-.188/ "%#,%85%0 13, 200DFo08%0ly OCA.I I 01.118-. A FLORENTINO A. CAJA, petitioner, vs. ATILANO G. NAN2*IL, "HERIFF I&, REGIONAL TRIAL CO*RT, +RANCH 72, OLONGA O CIT!, respondent. DECISION

Foo,(o,%$ ) $enned by Eustice Oswaldo D. %gcaoili 6retired7 and concurred in by Eustice Eose <. Sabio, Er. and Eustice +ariano C. Del Castillo, %nne# 3I3 o the $etition, !ollo at )1(.):*. See 'aluyot vs. /uiao, /.!. No. ),9-(1, September -?, )(((, ,): SC!% ,(9, cited in Ping Integrated Security Services, Inc. vs. /atan, /.!. No. )1,?),, Euly *, -;;,, 1;: SC!% ,*9, ,*?.

CHICO.NA1ARIO, J.: 'e ore us is a complaint or /rave +isconduct and /ross Ignorance o the !ules on E#ecution under the !ules o Court against %tilano /. Nan=uil, Sheri I0, !egional &rial Court, 'ranch *-, Olongapo City. Complainant 5lorentino %. Ca"a was a de endant in Civil Case No. )?-.;.(9 entitled 3&riangle %ce Corporation, !ep. by its /eneral +anager, +r. David E. Sagun versus Subic !ealty Corporation, 5lorentino Ca"a and EricFson B. Ca"a3) or Sum o +oney be ore 'ranch *- o the !egional &rial Court o Olongapo City. On November )(, )((9, Eudge Eliodoro /. @biadas rendered a decision in Civil Case No. )?-.;.(9, the dispositive portion o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, "udgment is hereby rendered ordering the de endants to pay the plainti "ointly and solidarily the amount o $(:9,-?:.;; with interest at the rate o )?D per annum rom %pril -*, )((:, plus the amount o ten 6);D7 percent o the amount as attorney>s ees plus costs o the suit.On 5ebruary )-, )((*, a Writ o E#ecution,, addressed to Sheri Nan=uil, was issued. On 5ebruary -*, )((*, Sheri Nan=uil sent a Notice o /arnishment to the +anager o $%/.I'I/ 6&aFe.Out O ice7 in orming the latter not to deliver, trans er or dispose de endants> money, credits, shares, interests and deposits therein e#cept upon orders rom the court.1 In the %nswer to Notice o /arnishment dated +arch ,, )((*, Daisy !. !oldan, 4ead, +ortgage &aFe.Out Center, NC!.I, stated that they will hold on to the account o one Edgar 'allesteros 6$):*,:;;.;;7.: On +ay )(, )((*, per Sheri >s !eturn, the Writ o E#ecution was returned unsatis ied.9 4ence, an %lias Writ o E#ecution was subse=uently issued on +ay )(, )((*.*

$er Notice o <evy dated +ay )(, )((*, Sheri Nan=uil levied a parcel o land covered by &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. &.191*?, including its improvements, declared in the name o Subic !ealty Corporation under &a# Declaration No. ;);. ),:9 with a total assessed value o $),*?9,?*;.;;.? On Euly ), )((*, Sheri Nan=uil levied the ollowing personal properties o de endants2 ). One $ayloader, *: ' +ichigan, &C+ Engine No. $D9.;*-;91 -. One Dump &rucF Chassis No. C8M )(E.)((-(** Color U 'lue( On the same date, he issued an %dditional Notice o <evy or seventy.seven 6**7 pieces o /.I. Sheets 6gauge -9 by * eet7. ); On Euly ?, )((*, a Notice o &hird $arty Claim was iled by %ntero &. DomingueJ, %ccount O icer o the +arFeting Department o '%$ Credit /uaranty Corporation 6'C/C7, be ore 'ranch *- o !egional &rial Court o Olongapo City, in orming its sheri , that the payloader and dump trucF he levied were previously mortgaged to 'C/C. 4e re=uested that the levy thereon be immediately li ted andAor discharged in accordance with Section )*, !ule ,( o the !evised !ules o Court.)) &hird $arty Claimant 'C/C iled an @rgent +otion to <i t Writ o %ttachment dated December ):, )((* praying that the writ be li ted and a oresaid levied e=uipment be delivered to it so it can oreclose the same.)- On December )*, )((*, plainti &riangle %ce Corporation iled a +otion to StriFe Out +otion to <i t Writ o %ttachment.), On +ay *, )((?, Eudge @biadas denied the @rgent +otion to <i t Writ o %ttachment)1 to which &hird $arty Claimant 'C/C iled a +otion or !econsideration.): $lainti moved to striFe out said motion which &hird $arty Claimant 'C/C opposed.)9 In an Order dated November -*, )((?, Eudge @biadas granted plainti >s motion to striFe out the +otion or !econsideration.)* On Eanuary )?, -;;;, de endants Subic !ealty Corporation, 5lorentino Ca"a and EricFson B. Ca"a iled a +otion to <i t <evy on E#ecution praying that the levy on their real property made on +ay )(, )((* be li ted on the ground that the levy made on their personal properties is su icient to satis y the "udgment. &hey liFewise asFed the lower court to direct the sheri to conduct the appropriate e#ecution sale. )?

On +arch 9, -;;), Eudge @biadas denied the +otion to <i t <evy arguing that it cannot be determined at that time i the amount levied is way above the amount necessary to satis y the "udgment creditor. 4e urther ordered Sheri Nan=uil to immediately schedule the auction sale o de endants> real and personal properties that were levied in accordance with the writ o e#ecution.)( On %pril -9, -;;), the O ice o %cting Court %dministrator Menaida N. ElepaNo received the complaint at bar dated %pril );, -;;) iled by 5lorentino %. Ca"a against Sheri Nan=uil. &he complaint alleged, among others things, the ollowing2 Sometime on +ay )(, )((*, Sheri %tilano Nan=uil issued a Notice o <evy o the real property owned by Subic !ealty Corporation 6the undersigned as the $resident7 with an assessed value o $h$),*?9,?*;.;;. %gain, on Euly ), )((*, the same Sheri issued a Notice o <evy on the personal properties o the de endant Subic !ealty Corporation with assessed value i#ed at $h$-,(;;,;;;.;;. @nder the !ules o Civil $rocedure particularly in e#ecution, the sheri in maFing the levy must only levy as is su icient to satis y the "udgment but not beyond what is stated therein. In the instant case, there was an 3over levy3 made by Sheri Nan=uil in utter disregard o the rules. ### ### ###

% ter the levy on the properties o the "udgment debtor, the Sheri must deliver the same to the court or e#ecution sale. 4owever, in the instant case, the properties levied by Sheri Nan=uil on e#ecution were delivered directly to the "udgment creditor 6plainti &riangle %ce Corporation7 without conducting the auction sale as provided in !ule ,(, Section )( o the !ules o Civil $rocedure. +oreover, Sheri Nan=uil, in violation o Section (6b7 o !ule ,( o the !ules o Civil $rocedure, which states2 # # # I the "udgment obligor does not e#ercise the option, the o icer shall irst levy on the personal properties, i any, and then on the real properties i the personal properties were insu icient to answer or the "udgment.-; On %pril ,;, -;;), Deputy Court %dministrator Eose $. $ereJ indorsed the complaint to Sheri Nan=uil re=uiring him to submit his comment thereon within ten days rom receipt thereo .-)

On +ay -,, -;;), Sheri Nan=uil issued a Notice o Sheri >s Sale announcing that on Eune )1, -;;), at ); a.m., in ront o the 4all o Eustice, West 'a"ac.'a"ac, Olongapo City, he would be selling at public auction to the highest bidder and or cash, the ollowing levied properties2 ). One $ayloader, *: ' +ichigan, &C+ Engine No. $D9.;*-;91 -. One Dump &rucF Chassis No. C8M )(E.)((-(** ,. ** pieces o /.I. sheets /auge U -9 # * eet-On the same date, Eudge @biadas orwarded to Deputy Court %dministrator $ereJ the Comment o Sheri Nan=uil.-, It reads in part2 -7 &he complaint against the undersigned arose out o Civil Case No. )?-. ;.(9 entitled 3&riangle %ce Corp., represented by its /eneral +anager, +r. David E. Sagun vs. Subic !ealty Corporation, 5lorentino Ca"a and EricFson Ca"a3 which was ra led, heard and decided by this Court 6!&C 'r. *-7I ,7 &hat on +ay -(, )((9, a Writ o %ttachment was issued in said case upon hearing o the application or its issuance and the iling o attachment bond which was approved by this CourtI 17 4ence, on Euly )), )((9, a Notice o <evy was made on the ollowing which were undergoing overhauling, to wit2 a. S&D -: $ayloader D% --;.):1-; Serial No. 9-;-91)I and b. D.?; 'ulldoJer U Pomatsu Serial No. )(?,9 %ttached herewith to orm an integral part o this Comment is a copy o the Notice o <evy and marFed as %nne# 3%3I :7 &herea ter, the Decision was issued on November )(, )((9 and a Writ o E#ecution was received by the undersigned on 5ebruary )*, )((* where a Notice o /arnishment was issued to the +anager, $ag.ibig 6&aFe out

O ice, %trium 'ldg., +aFati %venue, +aFati City7 and the %nswer to the same was received on %pril -, )((* amounting only to $):*,:;;.;; in the account o Edgar 'allesteros being held therein and marFed as %nne#es 3'3 and 3C,3 respectivelyI 97 Diligent e orts have been e#erted to locate other personal properties but in vainI *7 Considering that the li etime then o the Writ o E#ecution was Si#ty 69;7 Days rom his receipt, undersigned made a return or the same on +ay )(, )((*I ?7 On +ay )(, )((*, an %lias Writ o E#ecution was issued upon motion o the plainti I (7 &hat on +ay )(, )((* undersigned has levied the real property o the de endant relative to the %lias Writ o E#ecution issued in Civil Case No. )?-.;.(9, a copy o which is hereto attached together with a copy o the Notice o <evy which was duly registered with the O ice o the !egister o Deeds o Mambales and marFed as %nne#es 3D3 and 3D.),3 respectivelyI );7 &hat undersigned levied the a oresaid real property instead o the personal properties or the reason that undersigned Sheri could not ind any attachable personal properties o the de endants enough to satis y the "udgment debt despite diligent e orts e#ertedI ))7 &herea ter, an in ormation was relayed that the de endants still have other personal property, hence, on Euly ), )((*, undersigned levied the personal properties o the de endants consisting o one $ayloader, one Dump &rucF and ** /.I. sheets gauge -9 # * eet, a copy o the Notices o <evy are hereto attached and marFed as %nne#es 3E3 and 3E.)3I )-7 &he undersigned Fept the said e=uipments 6sic7 in a vacant lot owned by the plainti considering that there is no available place in the 4all o Eustice o Olongapo City neither in any other place in Olongapo City that would not be e#posed to elementsI liFewise, this was with the Fnowledge and consent o the de endants but no complaint was madeI ),7 &hat it was only on +arch 9, -;;) that the Court ordered the immediate sale o the properties levied to determine GwhetherH the proceeds o sale is enough to satis y the "udgmentI a copy o the Order is attached as %nne# 353 hereo I

)17 &hat undersigned has scheduled the auction sale o the above. mentioned e=uipments 6sic7 on Eune )1, -;;), a copy o the Notice o Sheri >s Sale is hereto attached and marFed as %nne# 3/3I ):7 &hat undersigned did not include the real property in the auction sale as the same is mortgaged with a certain banF in 'ulacan according to the !egister o Deeds o Mambales in the amount o $);,;;;,;;;.;;.-1 On Eune )1, -;;), the levied personal properties were sold at public auction with "udgment creditor &riangle %ce Corporation declared as the highest bidder or $*;:,:;;.;; 6$,:;,;;;.;; U payloaderI $,:;,;;;.;; U dumptrucFI /.I. sheets U $:,:;;.;;7. 'y way o a Certi icate o Sale, said personal properties were trans erred, ceded and conveyed to &riangle %ce Corporation. &he amount o $*;:,:;;.;; was not paid to respondent sheri since the same did not e#ceed the total obligation o "udgment debtors.-: On Euly -9, -;;-, Court %dministrator $resbitero E. 0elasco, Er. submitted a report on the investigation o the complaint where he recommended that the Initial $reliminary Investigation be dismissed or lacF o merit.-9 On %ugust -9, -;;-, this Court re=uired complainant Ca"a to ile his reply to respondent sheri >s comment.-* &he !eply was received on October *, -;;-.-? On November )), -;;-, We re erred the administrative matter to the E#ecutive Eudge o Olongapo City or investigation, report and recommendation.-( $er mani estation o complainant Ca"a that respondent Nan=uil is assigned to the Eudge to whom the investigation o the complaint was re erred to, the Court revoFed the designation o said "udge as investigator, and re erred the case to Eudge %velino %. <aJo o 'ranch *:, !egional &rial Court, Olongapo City or investigation, report and recommendation.,; %s re=uired by the Investigating Eudge, complainant and respondent iled their respective position papers.,) Complainant 5lorentino Ca"a and 4ipolito EricFson Ca"a testi ied be ore the Investigating Eudge.,- 5or the de ense, respondent Nan=uil tooF the witness stand, together with Eohn %=uino.,, % ter the parties concluded the presentation o their evidence, they iled their respective memoranda.,1

On October (, -;;,, the Investigating Eudge orwarded to this Court the resolution and entire record o the proceedings. In his resolution, he recommended that the administrative complaint against respondent sheri be dismissed or lacF o merit. ,: We re erred the report o Eudge <aJo to the O ice o the Court %dministrator or evaluation, report and recommendation.,9 In his memorandum to %ssociate Eustice !eynato S. $uno, the Court %dministrator recommended the dismissal o the administrative complaint against respondent sheri .,* Complainant alleged that respondent sheri committed the ollowing irregularities amounting to /ross +isconduct2 ). !espondent sheri levied de endants> real property ahead o their personal propertiesI -. !espondent sheri made an e#cessive levyI ,. !espondent sheri levied de endants> personal properties without serving a Notice o <evy or issuing a receipt there orI 1. !espondent sheri delivered the levied personal properties to the "udgment creditor without conducting an auction saleI and :. !espondent sold the levied personal properties in an auction sale almost our years a ter being levied.,? Complainant contends that respondent sheri levied his real property ahead o his personal properties as shown by the Notice o <evy on his real property dated +ay )(, )((*, and Notice o <evy and %dditional Notice o <evy on his personal properties both dated Euly ), )((*, in violation o the %lias Writ o E#ecution and Section (6b7 o !ule ,(,( o the !evised !ules o Court. In answer thereto, respondent admitted that he irst levied real property under &C& No. &.191*? but since the same was heavily mortgaged or $:,;;;,;;;.;;, the "udgment creditor, &riangle %ce Corporation, desisted rom proceeding with the levy. It was because o this that he levied the personal properties consisting o the payloader, dump trucF and /.I. sheets. 4e maintains that his action was in accordance with Section (6b7 o the New !ules o Civil $rocedure which states that 3the o icer shall levy upon the properties o the "udgment obligor o every Find and nature whatsoever which may be disposed or value and not otherwise e#empt rom e#ecution.3 4e added that although the a oresaid section provides that 3the o icer shall irst levy on the personal properties, i any, then on the real properties i the personal properties are insu icient to answer the "udgment,3 this section has been nulli ied by the succeeding paragraph which says 36w7hen there is more property o

the "udgment obligor that is su icient to satis y the "udgment and law ul ees, he must sell only so much o the personal or real property as is su icient to satis y the "udgment and law ul ees.3 %t the outset, it must be determined whether or not the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure which tooF e ect on Euly ), )((*1; applies to the case at bar. 5rom the record o the case, it is apparent that respondent sheri , a ter Eudge Eliodoro /. @biadas rendered his decision in Civil Case No. )?-.;.(9 on November )(, )((9, issued a Notice o /arnishment dated 5ebruary -*, )((* and a Notice o <evy on real property dated +ay )(, )((*. &herea ter, on Euly ), )((*, he issued a Notice o <evy and an %dditional Notice o <evy on personal properties. &he !ules o Court shall govern all cases brought a ter they taFe e ect, and also all urther proceedings in cases then pending, e#cept to the e#tent that in the opinion o the court their application would not be easible or would worF in"ustice, in which event the ormer procedure shall apply.1) Inasmuch as respondent sheri started levying the properties o complainant be ore the e ectivity o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, and considering urther that the provision he is invoFing was ine#istent then, it is only proper to apply the rules prevailing when he began levying complainant>s properties. &o do otherwise would create un airness and cause ine=uity in the application o the rules. Since the case stemmed rom the inal "udgment o the lower court in a collection case, the pertinent rules are the provisions o the !ules o Court regarding writs o e#ecution and e#ecution o money "udgments.1a p!il.net Section ? o !ule ,( deals with the issuance, orm and contents o a writ o e#ecution. Said section reads2 Sec. ?. Issuance, orm and contents o a writ o e#ecution ... &he writ o e#ecution must issue in the name o the !epublic o the $hilippines rom the court in which the "udgment or order is enteredI must intelligently re er to such "udgment or order, stating the court, province, and municipality where it is o record, and the amount actually due thereon i it be or moneyI and must re=uire the sheri or other proper o icer to whom it is directed substantially as ollows2 6a7 I the e#ecution be against the property o the "udgment debtor, to satis y the "udgment, with interest, out o the personal property o such debtor, and i su icient personal property cannot be ound, then out o his real propertyI # # #. 6underscoring supplied7 Section ): o !ule ,( provides the manner by which the e#ecution o a money "udgment must be en orced2

Sec. ):. E#ecution o money "udgments. ... &he o icer must en orce an e#ecution o a money "udgment by levying on all the property, real and personal o every name and nature whatsoever, and which may be disposed or value, o the "udgment debtor not e#empt rom e#ecution, or on a su icient amount o such property, i there be su icient, and selling the same, and paying to the "udgment creditor, or his attorney, so much o the proceeds as will satis y the "udgment. %ny e#cess in the proceeds over the "udgment and accruing costs must be delivered to the "udgment debtor, unless otherwise directed by the "udgment or order o the court. When there is more property o the "udgment debtor than is su icient to satis y the "udgment and accruing costs, within the view o the o icer, he must levy only on such part o the property as is amply su icient to satis y the "udgment and costs. !eal property, stocFs, shares, debts, credits, and other personal property, or any interest in either real or personal property, may be levied on in liFe manner and with liFe e ect as under a writ o attachment. It is clear in Section ?6a7 o !ule ,( that satis action o the "udgment must be carried out irst through the personal property o the "udgment debtor, and then through his real property. &his directive is evident rom the Writ o E#ecution and %lias Writ o E#ecution issued by the !egional &rial Court which reads2 NOW &4E!E5O!E, you are hereby commanded to order the de endants to pay the plainti "ointly and solidarily the amount o $(:9,-?:.;; with interest at the rate o )?D per annum rom %pril -*, )((:, plus the amount o ten 6);D7 percent o the amount as attorney>s ees plus costs o the suit and in de ault o such payment, you cause to be made said sum out o the goods and chattels o the de endants aside rom your law ul ees. '@&, i su icient personal properties cannot be ound, then you are commanded that o the lands and buildings o the de endants, you cause to be made the said sum in the manner re=uired or by the !ules o Court and maFe return o this writ within si#ty 69;7 days together with your proceedings indorsed thereon.1/oing over the record o the case, it appears that a ter the decision o the lower court became inal and a writ o e#ecution was issued, the irst thing respondent sheri did was to serve a Notice o /arnishment to the +anager o $%/.I'I/ 6&aFe.Out O ice7 advising the latter not to deliver, trans er or dispose o money credits, shares, interests, and deposits in his control and possession belonging to Subic !ealty Corporation, 5lorentino Ca"a and EricFson B. Ca"a.1, Subse=uently, an alias writ o

e#ecution was issued and pursuant thereto, he levied the real property o complainant on +ay )(, )((* and then the latter>s personal properties on Euly ), )((*. Clearly, what respondent sheri levied irst was personal property via garnishment. /arnishment is considered as a specie o attachment or reaching credits belonging to the "udgment debtor and owing to him rom a stranger to the litigation. 11 It involves money, stocFs, credits, and other incorporeal property which belong to the party but is in the possession or under the control o a third person.1: Since the properties involved in garnishment are personal properties, garnishment is thus a levy on personal property. We, however, ind that respondent sheri still violated the rule that satis action o the "udgment must be carried out irst through the personal property o the "udgment debtor, and then through his real property. % ter levying the real property o complainant, respondent sheri then levied complainant>s personal properties which is a direct violation o Section ?, !ule ,( and o the writ and alias writ o e#ecution issued by the court. !espondent sheri >s contention that he levied the personal properties o complainant a ter the "udgment creditor 3desisted rom proceeding with the levy3 on the real property when it was discovered that the real property he previously levied was already mortgaged or $:,;;;,;;;.;;, cannot give him any relie . 5irst, there was negligence on his part when he immediately levied the real property o complainant without checFing i the latter has other personal properties that could satis y the "udgment. 4e could have easily asFed the <and &ransportation O ice i complainant had vehicles registered in his name. I he had done so, respondent sheri could have Fnown that complainant had vehicles which he could levy irst be ore levying any real property. 4e should have e#hausted all means be ore going a ter the real property. &his, he did not do. It was only a ter levying complainant>s real property and a ter discovering that said property was encumbered did he looF or other personal property. Second, the claim that the "udgment creditor desisted rom proceeding with the levy on the real property is no e#cuse. &he levy on complainant>s real property was already e ected and annotated as shown by Entry No. )--*)1 in &C& No. &.191*?. It was the sale o the real property in an e#ecution sale which the "udgment creditor did not insist on because the same was already mortgaged or $);,;;;,;;;.;; in avor o &own Savings and <oan 'anF o 'ulacan per Entry No. )-)-9-.19 Complainant urther accuses respondent o maFing an e#cessive levy. &he decision, he said, calls only or the payment o $(:9,-?:.;; with interest at the rate o )?D per annum rom %pril -*, )((: plus ten 6);D7 percent o the amount as attorney>s ees plus costs o the suit, but respondent levied properties totaling almost ive million pesos which is an amount over and above the "udgment debt to be satis ied.

4e alleged that the personal properties respondent levied have an amount o more than three million pesos,1* and the real property had an assessed value o $),*?9,?*;.;; and is mortgaged or ten million pesos.1? 4e added that respondent sheri was o ered other real properties which are smaller in value and not encumbered but he insisted on levying the real property which has a conservative assessed value o double the amount to be satis ied. !espondent sheri countered that, anyway, the levy on the real property was not continued because the property was 3heavily indebted at ive million pesos.3 %s to the levy on the personal properties, he alleged that same cannot be e#cessive because their ac=uisition cost is not the price in an auction sale, the latter being much lower than the ormer. %s stated in the second paragraph o the a orecited section, the manner by which a levy on e#ecution is to be e ected is the same as that under a writ o attachment. Section * o !ule :* illustrates how a property is attached2 Sec. *. %ttachment o real and personal propertyI recording thereo . ... $roperties shall be attached by the o icer e#ecuting the order in the ollowing manner2 a7 !eal property, or growing crops thereon, standing upon the records o the registrar o deeds o the province in the name o the party against whom attachment is issued, or not appearing at all upon such records, by iling with the registrar o deeds a copy o the order, together with a description o the property attached, and a notice that it is attached, and by leaving a copy o such order, description, and notice with the occupant o the property, i any there be. Where the property has been brought under the operation o the <and !egistration %ct, the notice shall contain a re erence to the number o the certi icate o title and the volume and page in the registration booF where the certi icate is registered. &he registrar must inde# attachments iled under this paragraph in the names both o the applicant and the adverse party. ### ### ###

6c7 $ersonal property capable o manual delivery, by taFing and sa ely Feeping it in his capacity, a ter issuing the corresponding receipt there orI # # #. We ind respondent sheri >s contention that 3the levy on complainant>s real property was not continued3 because it was previously mortgaged to be untenable. &he levy thereon was completed as shown by the annotation 6Entry No. )--*)17 o the Notice o <evy on &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. &.191*?. In act, complainant, together

with the other de endants in Civil Case No. )?-.;.(9, iled a +otion to <i t <evy on E#ecution dated Eanuary )?, -;;; asFing that the levy on the real property be li ted because the levy on the personal properties was su icient to satis y the "udgment debt. @n ortunately, the motion was denied by the lower court. It is clear that the levy on the real property is still subsisting. &here was a valid levy on the real property. &hus, it is improper or respondent sheri to rely, as a de ense, on his claim that the levy on the real property was not continued. It was the sale o the levied real property in an e#ecution sale which did not push through. <evy is di erent rom an e#ecution sale. <evy has been de ined as the act or acts by which an o icer sets apart or appropriates a part or the whole o a "udgment debtor>s property or the purpose o satis ying the command o the writ o e#ecution.1( On the other hand, an e#ecution sale is a sale by a sheri or other ministerial o icer under the authority o a writ o e#ecution which he has levied on property o the debtor.:; In the case be ore us, there was a levy on real property but the levied property was not sold in an e#ecution sale because said property, i sold, will not satis y the "udgment debt because o an e#isting encumbrance thereon. &here being a levy on the complainant>s real property, the amount thereo must be considered in determining i there was an overlevy. %s gathered rom the &a# Declaration o the real property involved, including its improvements, its assessed value amounted to $),*?9,?*;.;;. It must be remembered, however, that said property is mortgaged or $);,;;;,;;;.;; in avor o &own Savings and <oan 'anF o 'ulacan. &he act that the property is mortgaged or ten million pesos only means that its value is more than said amount. &his Court taFes "udicial notice o the act that the value o a property is usually bigger than the amount or which it can be mortgaged. No person, in the ordinary course o business, would give a loan which is bigger than the value o the property that is used to secure such debt. Certainly, the issue o what is bigger .. the amount o the loan or the amount o the security or its payment .. is within public Fnowledge and capable o un=uestionable demonstration.:) &he amount o the real property levied upon is de initely more than ten million pesos since the property was mortgaged or ten million. &his amount alone is more or less ten times greater than the "udgment debt. %s it is, there is already a clear case o overlevy. %lthough the levied realty was not auctioned at an e#ecution sale, its value should still be taFen into account in computing the total amount levied by respondent sheri . !espondent sheri >s act o levying complainant>s real property despite its being mortgaged is tantamount to negligence. %s an o icer o the court, he Fnew ully well that the property cannot be used to satis y the "udgment debt since the mortgagee is the pre erred creditor in relation to said property.

%nent the levy on the complainant>s personal properties, he avers that respondent made an overlevy since the value o the payloader and the dumptrucF amounted to three million pesos which is over and above the "udgment debt. In the determination o the value o the two vehicles, it is the duty o complainant to show their true value as substantiated by competent proo . In the case be ore us, complainant ailed to present the best proo to accurately show their value. 4e should have adduced in evidence the deeds o sale o said vehicles, but instead, he merely presented the invoices and delivery receipts. &hese pieces o evidence are not su icient to prove the value o these properties as claimed by complainant considering that when the same, together with the /.I. sheets, were sold in public auction, the bid amounted only to $*;:,:;;.;; which is way below the "udgment debt. &he rule is well.settled that a sheri is guilty o misconduct where he ailed to limit the goods to be levied to the amount called or in the writ.:- % deputy sheri who made a levy ar and in e#cess o the value o the "udgment commits a misconduct in o ice.:, In the case be ore us, respondent sheri clearly made an e#cessive levy when he levied complainant>s real property which was valued at more than ten million pesos 6$);,;;;,;;;.;;7. Complainant accuses respondent sheri o surreptitiously taFing the personal properties on Euly ), )((* without serving any Notice o <evy or issuing any receipt or the same. !espondent sheri maintains that the Notice o <evy was not given to complainant or to anybody at the place where the personal properties were taFen because nobody would receive it. 4e added that complainant Fnew where they were taFen. +oreover, he said, despite meeting complainant several times, the latter neither complained to him about the levy nor iled any complaint in court. %s regards the notice o levy or the payloader and dump trucF, respondent testi ied as ollows2 %&&B. CES% O <et us go to this Notice o <evy on the payloader and dumptrucF. When you made the levy on the payloader and the dumptrucF, you issued a notice o levy as brought out by the evidenceT % Bes, sir. O Did you, as a matter o procedure or practice leave a copy o the notice o levy be ore taFing possession o the payloader and dumptrucFT

% &his is GtheH usual practice, but at the time I was trying to leave a copy to the son o the complainant here, they were shouting at me and they told me I will have to wait or their brother. O What did you do inso ar as serving to them the notice o levy was concernedT % I proceeded in the taFing o the units. O Did you leave a copy o the notice o levy inspite o the act that they re used to accept itT %&&B. <O'I/%S Ob"ection, <eading. %&&B. CES% %nyway, this is only . . . CO@!& $reliminary. Bou can cross e#amine him. %&&B. CES% 6to witness7 O Did you leave a copy o the notice o levyT % I could not e#actly remember i they have accepted it because I "ust showed him the notice o levyI that they don>t want to get near o me and because I was prevented in the taFing away o . . . CO@!& &he =uestion is very simple. 6to witness7 O Did you leave or did you not, a copy o the notice o levy to the party who was thereT % I could not remember anymore.:1

!espondent sheri >s answer that he cannot remember i he did leave a copy o the Notice o <evy with the "udgment debtor only shows that he was not per orming his duty as sheri . %s sheri , it was his duty to give the notice o levy or receipt to the person to whom the personal properties were taFen. I no one would liFe to receive the same, it was his duty to leave copies o the notice at the place where he levied the personal property. &herea ter, he should have reported the proceedings by iling a report or return to the court. In the case at bar, even assuming that no one was willing to accept the notice o levy, the record is bere t o any evidence showing that respondent sheri reported his ailure to leave a copy o the notice o levy. Sheri s are o icers o the court who serve and e#ecute writs addressed to them by the court, and who prepare and submit returns o their proceedings.:: On this score, respondent was again remiss in his duty as a sheri . Complainant claims that respondent sheri delivered the heavy e=uipment and /.I. sheets to the "udgment creditor without conducting an auction sale which is in contravention o the %lias Writ o E#ecution and a violation o Section (6b7, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court. !espondent sheri argues that he never delivered said personal properties to the "udgment creditor but merely Fept the same in a secured place owned by the latter. 4e brought them there because the Sheri >s O ice and the !egional &rial Court o Olongapo City had no warehouse or place to Feep levied personal properties. In support thereto, he presented Eohn %=uino, ClerF o Court o the !egional &rial Court o Olongapo City, who testi ied that they have no designated warehouse or building where sheri s can Feep levied personal properties. In so ar as large motor vehicles, the practice as to where to Feep them is le t at the discretion o the sheri . :9 !espondent sheri >s argument that he Fept the levied personal properties at the "udgment creditor>s place because the !egional &rial Court o Olongapo City does not have any warehouse or place to Feep the same does not hold water. % levying o icer must Feep the levied properties securely in his custody. &he levied property must be in the substantial presence and possession o the levying o icer who cannot act as special deputy o any party litigant.:* &hey should not have been delivered to any o the parties:? or their representative.:( &he court>s lacF o storage acility to house the attached properties is no "usti ication.9; !espondent sheri could have deposited the same in a bonded warehouse9) or could have sought prior authoriJation rom the court that issued the writ o e#ecution.9In the case at bench, respondent sheri brought the personal properties he levied directly to the vacant lot o &riangle %ce Corporation, plainti in Civil Case No. )?-.;.(9, in violation o the rule re=uiring him to sa ely Feep them in his capacity, a ter issuing the corresponding receipt there or. 9, &here is nothing in the record that shows that prior to his delivery o the levied properties to &riangle %ce Corporation, he sought permission o the court that issued the writ he en orced to Feep the properties.

5urthermore, EricFson Ca"a said he once saw the levied dumptrucF being used in hauling desilted materials rom the PalaFlan !iver in Olongapo City. 91 &his claim was buttressed by 'C/C in its @rgent +otion to <i t Writ o %ttachment when it said2 :. %lso on December );, )((*, an ocular inspection was made on the premises o $lainti , located along +agsaysay %ve., Olongapo City, where the sub"ect dumptrucF and payloader were temporarily stored, however, the trucF and payloader were not there. In=uiries were made but no satis actory e#planation nor answer were elicited rom Sheri %tilano /. Nan=uil, the Sheri .in.charge andAor rom +r. David E. Sagun, the $lainti >s /eneral +anager. 9: 5rom these, it is apparent that respondent sheri was again imprudent in his duty in sa eFeeping the properties he levied. In delivering the levied personal properties to the "udgment creditor, he allowed others to use them be ore they can be sold in a public auction. In allowing the levied properties to be used is evidence that he had not taFen care o , and sa ely Fept, them in his substantial presence, possession and control. !espondent sheri >s contention that complainant has not presented evidence that the levied properties sustained damages in the "udgment creditor>s vacant lot cannot legaliJe an act which is contrary to the !ules and to the writ o e#ecution. &he act that he delivered the levied personal properties in "udgment creditor>s vacant lot is already a contravention o the !ules and o the writ o e#ecution. !espondent sheri aults complainant or not complaining be ore the lower court on the alleged e#cessiveness o the levy, his ailure to serve or leave a notice o levy, and the manner o sa eFeeping the levied properties. &he ailure o complainant to lodge a complaint be ore the lower court will not "usti y respondent>s improper actions. It is incumbent upon the latter to Fnow that his actions were not in accord with the !ules o Court. &he non. iling o a complaint will not validate his ob"ectionable actions. &he last irregularity complainant claims that respondent sheri committed was it tooF the latter almost our years rom the time he levied the personal properties on Euly ), )((* to schedule the auction sale thereo , causing the chattels to deteriorate greatly in value. !espondent sheri retorted that the sale was authoriJed by the court through its order dated +arch ?, -;;). 4e said he de erred his action in consultation with the court and that the court was aware o the situation o the levied properties. We sustain him in this aspect.

&he delay o the scheduling o the auction sale cannot be attributed to respondent sheri . &here were pending incidents that had to be resolved by the court be ore the e#ecution sale can be held. % ter the personal properties were levied on Euly ), )((*, a Notice o &hird $arty Claim was iled by 'C/C on Euly ?, )((*. &herea ter, 'C/C iled an @rgent +otion to <i t Writ o %ttachment dated December ):, )((* which Eudge @biadas denied on +ay *, )((?. % +otion or !econsideration was iled but the same was stricFen o the record per order dated November -*, )((? upon motion o plainti &riangle %ce Corporation. On Eanuary )?, -;;;, de endants Subic !ealty Corporation, 5lorentino Ca"a and EricFson B. Ca"a iled a +otion to <i t <evy on E#ecution which motion Eudge @biadas denied on +arch 9, -;;). In said order, Sheri Nan=uil was ordered to immediately schedule the auction sale o de endants> levied real and personal properties. 5rom the oregoing, respondent sheri cannot be held liable or any delay o the scheduling o the e#ecution sale or he merely waited or the "udge to rule on matters relative to the properties he had levied. % public o ice is a public trust. %ll public o icers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people. &hey ought to per orm their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, and with patriotism and "ustice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest. 99 Every o icer and man o the "udiciary is e#pected to serve with the highest degree o responsibility, integrity, loyalty and e iciency and to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times.9* Sheri s play an important role in the administration o "ustice and they should always hold inviolate and invigorate the tenet that a public o ice is a public trust.9? 'eing in the grassroots o our "udicial machinery, sheri s and deputy sheri s are in close contact with the litigantsI hence, their conduct should all the more maintain the prestige and the integrity o the court.9( 'y the very nature o their unctions, sheri s must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, so as to be above suspicion.*; Sheri s cannot a ord to err in serving court writs and processes and in implementing court orders lest they undermine the integrity o their o ice and the e icient administration o "ustice.*) It is undisputable that the most di icult phase o any proceeding is the e#ecution o "udgment.*- &he o icer charged with this delicate tasF is the sheri . Despite being e#posed to haJards that come with the implementation o the "udgment, the sheri must per orm his duties by the booF. !espondent Nan=uil ailed to per orm what was e#pected o him. %s above discussed, his negligence in the discharge o his duties and his ailure to strictly comply with the provisions o the !ules o Court have le t a stain not only on himsel but more importantly in the o ice he holds which may lead to the erosion o the people>s aith and con idence in the "udicial system. In a number o cases,*, this Court imposed the penalty o dismissal on sheri s ound guilty o grave misconduct. Considering that the respondent had spent the best years

o his li e in the /overnment Service U he has been in the service or more than thirty. ive 6,:7 years, and is about to retire U and considering urther that the o ense he committed appears to be his irst, the Court is inclined to grant him certain leniency without, nonetheless, being unmind ul o the act that he had breached the provisions o the !ules o Court. 5or this reason, the Court is wont to impose the penalty o suspension o si# 697 months, without pay. 4owever, since respondent sheri will be compulsorily retiring this year, *1 the penalty imposed can no longer be ully served. &hus, the Court resolves, in lieu o the suspension, to impose a ine e=uivalent to his si# 697 months salary or Seventy.Nine &housand Si# 4undred 5orty.5our 6$*(,911.;;7 $esos,*: the same to be deducted rom his retirement bene its. WHEREFORE, respondent %tilano /. Nan=uil, Sheri I0, !egional &rial Court, 'ranch *-, Olongapo City, is oundG*ILT! o /ross +isconduct in the discharge o his duties and is hereby FINED the amount o Seventy.Nine &housand Si# 4undred 5orty.5our 6$*(,911.;;7 $esos, same to be deducted rom his retirement bene its. "O ORDERED. Davide, #r., %uno, %anganiban, 'uisumbing, Austria),artine+U, Corona, (nares) $antiago, $andoval)*utierre+, Carpio, Carpio),oralesUU, Calle"o, $r., A+cuna, and -inga, ##., concur.
Foo,(o,%$ X On o icial leave XX On o icial leave ) $resident and 0ice.$resident o Subic !ealty Corporation, respectively !ollo, p. -; , 0d. at )?( 1 0d. at )(; : 0d. at )() 9 0d. at )(, * 0d. at )(1 ? 0d. at )(: ( 0d. at )(9 ); 0d. at )(? )) 0d. at )(* )0d. at )((.-;) ), 0d. at -;-.-;: )1 0d. at -;* ): 0d. at -;?.-); )9 0d. at -),.-)1 )* 0d. at -)9.-)? )? 0d. at -)(.--)( 0d. at --1 -; 0d. at :9.:* -) 0d. at )1 -0d. at --: -, 0d. at ) -1 0d. at -.,

-: -9

0d. at -,: 0d. at 9-.9: -* 0d. at 99 -? 0d. at ?,.)); -( 0d. at ))) ,; 0d. at ),* ,) 0d. at )19.)*(I )?;.--: ,&SN, Eune )*, -;;, ,, &SN, Euly ?, -;;, ,1 !ollo, pp. -1:.-:,I pp. -:?.-99 ,: 0d. at ,11.,1? ,9 0d. at ,1( ,* 0d. at ,:;.,:: ,? 0d. at ):;.):,I -1?.-:, ,( )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure 1; !esolution in 'ar +atter No. ?;, adopted in 'aguio City on %pril ?, )((* 1) !ule )11, !ules o Court 1!ollo, pp. )?( and )(1 1, 0d. at )(; 11 $hil. Commercial L Industrial 'anF v. Court o %ppeals, )(, SC!% 1:-, 19; 6)(()7 1: 0ol. ), 5lorence D. !egalado, !emedial <aw Compendium, p. ,((, :th !evised Ed. 19 !ollo, pp. )9-.)9, 1* Id. at )9? and )*; 1? Id. at )9, and )99 1( <lenares v. 0aldeavella, et al., 19 $hil. ,:?, ,9; 6)(-17 :; 'lacF>s <aw Dictionary, :th Ed., West $ublishing Co. 6)(*(7, p. :); :) Section -, !ule )-(, !evised !ules on Evidence :De /uJman v. /atlabayan, ,:- SC!% -91, -*- 6-;;)7 :, 0.C. $once, Inc. v. Eduarte, ,1, SC!% 11:, 1:( 6-;;;7I citing SalaJar, Er. Construction, Inc. v. Espinelli, )); SC!% ,- 6)(?)7 :1 &SN, Euly ?, -;;,, pp. -).-, :: 5abella, et al. v. <ee, et al., %.+. No. +&E.;1.):)?, Eanuary ):, -;;1 :9 &SN, Euly ?, -;;,, pp. )-.)1 :* 5abella, et al. v. <ee, et al., supra. :? Sarmiento v. 0ictoria, ,1, SC!% 99(, 9*, 6-;;;7 :( $ecson v. Sicat, Er., -(? SC!% )--, ),; 6)((?7 9; Cunanan v. 5lores, ,)( SC!% :, ); 6)(((7I National 'ureau o Investigation v. &uliao, -*; SC!% ,:), ,:* 6)((*7 9) Sebastian v. 0alino, --1 SC!% -:9, -:( 6)((,7I National 'ureau o Investigation v. &uliao, supra. 9$ecson v. Sicat, Er., supra 9, Section *6c7, !ule :* 91 &SN, Eune )*, -;;,, pp. )1, )9.)*I % idavit o 4ipolito EricFson B. Ca"a, !ollo, p. )*( 9: !ollo, p. -;; 99 O ice o the Court %dministrator v. 5uentes, -1* SC!% :;9, :)* 6)((:7I citing Section -, !epublic %ct No. 9*), 9* Sy v. Norberte, ,,* SC!% ), * 6-;;;7 9? 0entura v. Concepcion, ,19 SC!% )1, )? 6-;;;7 9( Cabanatan v. +olina, ,*; SC!% )9, -1 6-;;)7 *; &an v. Dael, ,,: SC!% :),, :-; 6-;;;7 *) &orres v. Cabesuela, ,99 SC!% )*), )*: 6-;;)7 *+oya v. 'assig, ),? SC!% 1(, :- 6)(?:7 *, Cunanan v. 5lores, ,)( SC!% : 6)(((7I $adolina v. 4enson, )*, SC!% -9( 6)(?(7I $olicarpio v. 5a"ardo, *? SC!% -)) 6)(**7 *1 October 9, -;;1 per !ecord o O ice o %dministrative Services, O ice o the Court %dministrator *: +onthly salary o $),,-*1.;; 6per !ecord o O ice o %dministrative Services, O ice o the Court %dministrator7 multiplied by si# is e=ual to $*(,911.;;

On September ?, -;;,, complainant acceded to respondent>s demand and gave him $:,;;;9 a ter respondent assured him that he would proceed with the e#ecution sale.* 4owever, be ore the date o the e#ecution sale, respondent demanded an additional ive percent o the bid price be ore proceeding with the sale. Complainant, however, re used to heed his demand.? 4ence, respondent re used to proceed with the sale on the scheduled dateI and urther re used to accept the bid o complainant>s client.( In a letter); dated October -(, -;;,, complainant reminded the respondent o the irregularity o his acts. 4e urther warned respondent that his continued re usal to proceed with the sale would render him administratively and criminally liable.)) &his letter notwithstanding, respondent ailed to per orm his duty. 4ence, this administrative complaint. In his Comment)- dated %pril *, -;;1, respondent admitted having received the $);,;;; but contended that the amount was used in serving the writ o e#ecution. 4e asserted that he, along with another court personnel, +averic +arasigan, and two police o icers, tried to attach the personal properties o de endant Ernesto $e <im. 4owever, Deputy Sheri Eoseph 0isnar o the !&C, 'ranch -)9, OueJon City was already implementing another writ o e#ecution against the same de endant. In his attempt to attach de endant>s properties, respondent incurred transportation, representation and other e#penses.), &herea ter, he and +arasigan went to Nasugbu, 'atangas to register the notice o levy, where he incurred urther e#penses. )1 <astly, he adds that he tried to serve the notice on the de endant twice and had to post it twice in three conspicuous public places and once in Nasugbu, 'atangas. ): %s regards the =uestioned auction sale, respondent contended that he was ready to proceed with the public auction, with complainant>s client as the only bidder. 4e then re=uested complainant to pay the corresponding O ice Commission to the ClerF o Court pursuant to the !ules o Court. 4owever, complainant re used to pay, claiming that the title should irst be consolidated.)9 !espondent prayed that the administrative complaint be dismissed or lacF o basis. &he parties therea ter iled their respective letters )* to re ute each other>s accusations and de enses. In its !eport)? dated September (, -;;1, the O ice o the Court %dministrator recommended that respondent be ad"udged guilty o grave misconduct and be meted the penalty o suspension or three 6,7 months without pay. )( 5rom the parties> pleadings and letters, the issues or resolution are simpli ied as ollows2 6)7 whether or not respondent observed Sec. (, !ule )1) o the !ules o Court relative to the e#penses o the e#ecution saleI and 6-7 whether or not

A.M. No. .0-.1898 July 28, 2008 DFo08%0ly OCA I I No. 0-.1887. A ATT!. "TANLE! G. 1AMORA, Complainant, vs. RAMON . &ILLAN*E&A, "<%07:: I&, R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0,, +0'(6< 96, 2u%Po( C7,y, !espondent. DECISION PER CURIAM: 5or resolution is a letter.complaint) dated December -, -;;,, iled by %tty. Stanley /. Mamora, charging respondent !amon $. 0illanueva, Deputy Sheri , !egional &rial Court 6!&C7, 'ranch (9, OueJon City, with /ross +isconduct. &he antecedents are as ollows2 %tty. Mamora, herein complainant, is the counsel or plainti in Civil Case No. O. ;).1,*9*, entitled 3Sps. +ario and Carmelita Cruel v. Sps. Ernesto $e <im and <ulu Bu $e <im.3 Complainant narrates that on Eune -?, -;;-, the !&C granted plainti >s motion or the issuance o a writ o e#ecution. Conse=uently, he in ormed respondent sheri that the de endant has real property in Nasugbu, 'atangas and re=uested him to prepare the re=uired Notice o <evy on the property. !espondent in turn demanded rom complainant $);,;;;, allegedly to de ray the e#penses or the e#ecution proceedings. Complainant agreed and initially gave him $:,;;;- as advance paymentI the balance was to be paid upon the trans er o the property in the name o his client., !espondent and one o complainant>s paralegal sta members proceeded to Nasugbu, 'atangas or the purpose o annotating the notice o levy on the property>s title.1 % ter the notice had been annotated on the title, respondent re used to proceed with the e#ecution sale unless and until he was paid the balance o $:,;;;.:

respondent prematurely ad"ourned the e#ecution sale contrary to Sec. --, !ule ,(, !ules o Court. It is undisputed that respondent demanded and received $);,;;; rom complainant. 4e, however, reasoned that the amount was to de ray the e#penses he incurred in implementing the writ o e#ecution and annotating the notice o levy on de endant>s property in Nasugbu, 'atangas. Nevertheless, his "usti ications or demanding and receiving the amount rom complainant are utile attempts to e#culpate himsel rom liability under the law. Sec. (, !ule )1) o the !ules o Court re=uires the sheri to secure the court>s prior approval o the estimated e#penses and ees needed to implement the writ. Speci ically, the !ules provide2 SEC. (. S!eriffs and ot!er persons serving processes. Z # # # 6l7 5or money collected by him by order, e#ecution, attachment, or any other process, "udicial or e#tra"udicial, the ollowing sums, to witI ). On the irst our thousand 6$1,;;;.;;7 pesos, our 61D7 per centum. -. On all sums in e#cess o our thousand 6$1,;;;.;;7 pesos, two 6-D7 per centum. In addition to the ees hereinabove i#ed, the party re=uesting the process o any court, preliminary, incidental, or inal, shall pay the sheri >s e#penses in serving or e#ecuting the process, or sa eguarding the property levied upon, attached or seiJed, including Filometrage or each Filometer o travel, guard>s ees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated by the sheri , sub"ect to the approval o the court. @pon approval o said estimated e#penses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerF o court and e7 officio sheri , who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheri assigned to e ect the process, sub"ect to li=uidation within the same period or rendering a return on the process. %ny unspent amount shall be re unded to the party maFing the deposit. % ull report shall be submitted by the deputy sheri assigned with his return, and the sheri >s e#penses shall be ta#ed as costs against the "udgment debtor. 6emphasis supplied7 &hus, a sheri is guilty o violating the !ules i he ails to observe the ollowing2 6)7 prepare an estimate o e#penses to be incurred in e#ecuting the writ, or which he must seeF the courtKs approvalI 6-7 render an accountingI and 6,7 issue an o icial receipt or the total amount he received rom the "udgment debtor.-; &he rule re=uires the sheri e#ecuting writs or processes to estimate the e#penses to be incurred. @pon the approval o the estimated e#penses, the interested party has to deposit the amount with the ClerF o Court and e#.o icio Sheri . &he e#penses shall then be disbursed to the e#ecuting Sheri sub"ect to his li=uidation within the same period or

rendering a return on the process or writ. %ny unspent amount shall be re unded to the party who made the deposit.-) In the present case, there was no evidence showing that respondent submitted to the court, or its approval, the estimated e#penses or the e#ecution o the writ be ore he demanded $);,;;; rom complainant. Neither was it shown that he rendered an accounting and li=uidated the said amount to the court. %ny act deviating rom these procedures laid down by the !ules is misconduct that warrants disciplinary action. %s regards respondent>s re usal to proceed with the e#ecution sale, allegedly due to the parties> re usal to pay the sales commission, nowhere in the !ules can it be in erred that payment o any such commission is a pre.re=uisite to an e#ecution sale. !espondent>s re usal to conduct the e#ecution sale was baseless and illegal. %s to the validity o the ad"ournment o the e#ecution sale, Sec. --, !ule ,( o the !ules o Court-- clearly shows that a sheri has no blanFet authority to ad"ourn the sale. It is only upon written consent o the "udgment obligor and obligee, or their duly authoriJed representatives, that the sheri may ad"ourn the sale to a date and time agreed upon. &he sheri may ad"ourn it rom day to day when there is no such agreement but only i it becomes necessary to do so or lacF o time to complete the sale on the day i#ed in the notice or the day to which it was ad"ourned. Conse=uently, respondent>s act o unilaterally ad"ourning the e#ecution sale is irregular and contrary to the !ules. %s employees o the court who play an important role in the administration o "ustice, high standards are e#pected o sheri s. &his Court e#pounded in 0da. de %bellera v. Dalisay2-, %t the grassroots o our "udicial machinery, sheri s and deputy sheri s are indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity o the court, or the image o a court o "ustice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, o icial or otherwise, o the men and women who worF thereat, rom the "udge to the least and lowest o its personnelI hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty o each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple o "ustice. 'y the nature o their unctions, sheri s must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, to be above suspicion.-1 Sheri s are court o icers and, liFe everyone else in the "udiciary, are called upon to discharge their sworn duties with great care and diligence.-: &hey cannot a ord to err in serving court writs and processes and in implementing court orders lest they undermine the integrity o their o ice and the e icient administration o "ustice.-9 +isconduct is de ined as a transgression o some established or de inite rule o actionI more particularly, it is an unlaw ul behavior by the public o icer. -* &he

misconduct is grave i it involves any o the additional elements o corruption, will ul intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules.-? In the present case, it has been su iciently proven that respondent will ully violated established rules. !espondent>s improper conduct o demanding $);,;;; rom the complainantI his re usal to proceed with the e#ecution saleI and his act o unilaterally ad"ourning the e#ecution sale were against the clear mandate o the rules and tend to diminish the aith o the people in the "udiciary. 5or this, the Court inds respondent guilty o /rave +isconduct. Section :-6%76,7 o the !evised !ules on %dministrative Cases in the Civil Service classi ies grave misconduct as a grave o ense punishable by dismissal or the irst 6)st7 o ense. +oreover, Section ( o the Omnibus !ules Implementing 'ooF 0 o E#ecutive Order No. -(- provides2 Sec. (. &he penalty o dismissal shall carry with it cancellation o eligibility, or eiture o leave credits and retirement bene its and the dis=uali ication or re. employment in the government service. 5urther, it may be imposed without pre"udice to criminal liability. W4E!E5O!E, Sheri !amon $. 0illanueva is ound /uilty o grave misconduct. 4e is ordered DIS+ISSED rom the service with or eiture o all bene its and privileges, e#cept accrued leave credits, i any, with pre"udice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality o the government, including government.owned or .controlled corporations and inancial institutions. !espondent is urthered ordered to return the amount o $);,;;; to complainant %tty. Stanley /. Mamora. <et copies o this decision be urnished the Civil Service Commission and attached to his personnel ile in the "udiciary. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) !ollo, pp. -.1. Id. at :. , Id. at -. 1 Id. : Id. 9 Id. at 9. * Supra, note ,. ? Id. at ,. ( Id. ); Id. at *. )) Id. )Id. at ),.):. ), Id. at ),. )1 Id. at )1. ): Id. )9 Id. at ):. )* Id. at )(.--I id. at ,9.,*I id. at -?.-(I id. at -,.-1I id. at 1;.1).

)? )(

Id. at 11.:;. Id. at :;. -; 'alanag, Er. v. Osita, %.+. No. $.;).)1:1, September )-, -;;-, ,?? SC!% 9,;, 9,1. -) 'ercasio v. 'enito, %.+. No. $.(:.)):?, Euly )1, )((*, -*: SC!% 1;:, citing Section (, !ule )1) o the !ules o Court. -Sec. --. %d"ournment o sale. Z 'y written consent o the "udgment obligor and obligee, or their duly authoriJed representatives, the o icer may ad"ourn the sale to any date and time agreed upon by them. Without such agreement, he may ad"ourn the sale rom day to day i it becomes necessary to do so or lacF o time to complete the sale on the day i#ed in the notice or the day to which it was ad"ourned. -, %.+. No. $.?*.);;, 5ebruary )-, )((*, -9? SC!% 91, 9*. -1 &an v. Dael, %.+. No. $.;;.),(-, Euly ),, -;;, ,,: SC!% :),, :-). -: Oliveros v. San Eose, %.+. No. $.;-.):?-, Eanuary -?, -;;,, ,(9 SC!% )-), )-,. -9 Ca"a v. Nan=uil, %.+. No. $.;1.)??:, September ),, -;;1, 1,? SC!% )*1, )((. -* +endoJa v. Navarro, %.+. NO. $.;:.-;,1, September )), -;;9, :;) SC!% ,:1, ,9,. -? /eronca v. +agalona, %.+. No. $.;*.-,(?, 5ebruary ),, -;;?.

G.R. No. 133079. Au;u$, 9, 200/L " ". MAIIMO LANDRITO, JR. '() ACITA EDGALANI, $etitioners, vs.

THE HONORA+LE CO*RT OF A EAL"C " ". +ENJAMIN "AN DIEGO '() CARMENCITA "AN DIEGOC T<% EI.OFFICIO "HERIFF '() CLER3 OF CO*RT o: ,<% R%;7o('l T07'l Cou0,, M'H',7 C7,yC '() ,<% REGI"TER OF DEED", M'H',7 C7,y, !espondent. DECISION GARCIA, J.4 4erein petitioners, the spouses +a#imo <andrito, Er. and $acita <andrito, have come to this Court via this petition or review on certiorari under !ule 1: o the !ules o Court to seeF the reversal and setting aside o the decision dated )- December )((*) and resolution dated ); +arch )((?- o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. C0 No. 1??(9, a irming an earlier order o the !egional &rial Court at +aFati City which granted the motion to dismiss iled by the herein private respondents, the spouses 'en"amin San Diego and Carmencita San Diego, in its Civil Case No. (1. -(:;, a complaint or annulment o e#tra"udicial oreclosure and auction sale, thereat commenced by them against the San Diegos, the e7)officio sheri and the !egister o Deeds o +aFati City. &he acts2 In Euly )((;, petitioners obtained a loan o $,:;,;;;.;; rom respondent Carmencita San Diego. &o secure payment thereo , petitioners e#ecuted on ;- %ugust )((; in avor o the same respondent a deed o real estate mortgage over their parcel o land located at 'ayanan, +untinlupa, !iJal and registered in their names under &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. 61,--?)7 S.-);;;. % ter maFing substantial payments, petitioners again obtained and were granted by Carmencita San Diego an additional loan o One +illion $esos 6$),;;;,;;;.;;7. &o secure this additional loan, the parties e#ecuted on ), September )(() an 3Amendment of Real Estate ,ortgage3, whereunder they stipulated that the loan shall be paid within si# 697 months rom )9 September )((), and i not paid within said period, the mortgagee shall have the right to declare the mortgage due and may immediately oreclose the same "udicially or e#tra"udicially, in accordance with law. It appears that petitioners de aulted in paying their loan and continuously re used to comply with their obligation despite repeated demands there or, prompting respondent Carmencita San Diego to send them on -* %pril )((,, a inal notice o demand re=uiring them to settle their inancial obligation which, by then, already amounted to$),(:;,;;;.;;. On ,; Eune )((,, a ter her e orts to collect proved utile, respondent Carmencita San Diego iled with the O ice o the ClerF o Court and E#.O icio Sheri o !&C. +aFati, a petition or the e#tra"udicial oreclosure o the mortgage.

On ;9 Euly )((,, said o ice sent to the parties a Notice o Sheri >s Sale, therein announcing that petitioners> mortgaged property will be sold in a public auction to be conducted on )) %ugust )((, at );2;; o>clocF in the morning, copies o which notice were posted in several conspicuous places within the sheri >s territorial "urisdiction. %s announced, on )) %ugust )((,, at );2;; o>clocF in the morning, the public auction sale was held and the mortgaged property sold to respondent Carmencita San Diego as the highest bidder or $-,;;;,;;;.;;, as evidenced by the Sheri >s Certi icate o Sale issued in her avor on ;* October )((,. On -( October )((,, respondent San Diego caused the registration o the same sheri >s certi icate o sale with the O ice o the !egister o Deeds, +aFati City, and duly inscribed on the same date at the dorsal side o the petitioners> &C& No. 61,--?)7 S.-);;;. With the petitioners having ailed to redeem their property within the ).year redemption period rom the date o inscription o the sheri >s certi icate o sale, as provided or in %ct No. ,),:, as amended, the San Diegos caused the consolidation o title over the oreclosed property in their names. &hen, on ;( November )((1, be ore the !egional &rial Court at +aFati City, petitioners iled their complaint or annulment o the e#tra"udicial oreclosure and auction sale, with damages. In their complaint, thereat docFeted as Civil Case No. (1.-(:;, petitioners alleged that 6)7 said oreclosure and auction sale were null and void or ailure to comply with the re=uirements o notice and publication, as mandated by %ct ,),:, as amendedI 6-7 the mortgaged property was illegally oreclosed in the light o the settled rule that an action to oreclose a mortgage must be limited to the amount mentioned in the mortgage document, in this case, $),;;;,;;;.;;, which amount was allegedly bloated by respondent Carmencita San Diego to $),(:;,;;;.;;I and 6,7 the San Diegos> application or consolidation o title was premature because the husband, 'en"amin San Diego, allegedly granted them an e#tension o the period o redemption up to )) November )((1. &o the complaint, respondents interposed a ,otion to Dismiss, therein alleging that said complaint ailed to state a cause o action as no primary right o the petitioners had been violated since they actually ailed to e#ercise their right o redemption within the one.year redemption period, adding that petitioners never tooF any action which may stall the running o the same period, thereby leaving them no urther right or interest in the property in =uestion. In an order dated ), Eanuary )((:, the trial court granted respondents> motion to dismiss and accordingly dismissed petitioners> complaint, saying that the latter>s cause o action, i any, is already barred by laches on account o their ailure or neglect or an unreasonable length o time to do that which, by e#ercising due

diligence, could or should have been done earlier. 5urther, the trial court ruled that petitioners> inaction constituted a waiver on their part. &here rom, petitioners went on appeal to the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. C0 No. 1??(9. %s stated at the outset hereo , the appellate court, in its decision o )- December )((*, dismissed petitioners> appeal and a irmed in toto the trial court>s order o dismissal. With their motion or reconsideration having been denied by the same court in its resolution o ); +arch )((?,, petitioners are now with us via the present recourse, aulting the Court o %ppeals, as ollows2 ). &he Court o %ppeals gravely erred in avoiding to resolve in the assailed Decision and in the =uestioned !esolution the basic issue as to whether or not the e#tra. "udicial oreclosure and public auction sale o the sub"ect parcel o land are valid and law ul when the amount stated in letter.re=uest or the petition or e#tra."udicial oreclosure and in the notice o sheri sale doubled the amount stipulated in the %mendment o !eal Estate +ortgageI -. &he Court o %ppeals has similarly committed serious error in considering that the complaint o the petitioner is a complaint or redemption when in the captionI in the bodyI and in the prayer o the complaint, petitioner spouses have sought the nullity as void ab initio the e#tra."udicial oreclosure and auction sale o the sub"ect propertyI ,. &he respondent %ppellate Court liFewise incredulously erred to have resolved the admissibility and probative value o the statement o account attached as %nne# 3E3 o the complaint when it was not yet presented in evidenceI because the stage o the case at the time the assailed dismissal order was issued, was yet in the period o pleadingsI 1. &he Court o %ppeals has grievously erred in a irming the assailed dismissal order by declaring petitioner spouses to have been guilty o laches in ailing to redeem during the legal period o redemption the oreclosed parcel o landI when the cause o the ailure to redeem was the illegal increase by );;D o the original obligation, stated in the %mendment o !eal Estate +ortgage and bloating o the redemption price rom &wo +illion $esos 6$-,;;;,;;;.;;7 to &hree +illion 5our 4undred Ninety One &housand &wo 4undred &wenty 5ive L (?A);; $esos 6$,,1(),--:.(?7. We DENB. &he records indubitably show that at the time o the oreclosure sale on )) %ugust )((,, petitioners were already in de ault in their loan obligation to respondent Carmencita San Diego.

+uch earlier, or on -* %pril )((,, a inal notice o demand or payment had been sent to them, despite which they still ailed to pay. 4ence, respondent Carmencita San Diego>s resort to e#tra"udicial oreclosure, provided no less in the parties> 3Amendment of Real Estate ,ortgage3. &he rule has been, and still is, that in real estate mortgage, when the principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right to oreclose on the mortgage and to have the mortgaged property seiJed and sold with the view o applying the proceeds thereo to the payment o the obligation.1 4ere, the validity o the e#tra"udicial oreclosure on )) %ugust )((, was virtually con irmed by the trial court when it dismissed petitioners> complaint, and rightly so, what with the act that petitioners ailed to e#ercise their right o redemption within the ).year period there or counted rom the registration o the sheri >s certi icate o sale. It is petitioners> main submission, however, that the very reason why they did not avail o their redemption right is because +rs. San Diego bloated their original loan o $),;;;,;;;.;; to $),(:;,;;;.;;, an issue supposedly not considered andAor addressed by the appellate court in the decision under review. In this regard, petitioners argue that the Court o %ppeals, in sustaining the e#tra"udicial oreclosure proceedings, thereby go against the established "urisprudence that an action or oreclosure must be limited to the amount mentioned in the mortgage document, $),;;;,;;;.;; in this case. We do not taFe issue with petitioners> submission that a mortgage may be oreclosed only or the amount appearing in the mortgage document, more so where, as here, the mortgage contract entered into by the parties is evidently silent on the payment o interest. 4owever, contrary to petitioners> claim, the appellate court did pass upon the legal issue raised by them, albeitruling that petitioners had been barred by laches rom raising the same. We =uote rom the challenged decision2 G$etitionersH ne#t argued that the mortgaged property was illegally oreclosed since it is a well settled rule that an action to oreclose a mortgage must be limited to the amount mentioned in the mortgage. &he argument is without merit. It appears rom the evidence on record that despite due notice and publication o the same in a newspaper o general circulation 6E#hs. 3:3, 3:.%3 and 3:.'3, pp. :,.::, !ecord7, GpetitionersH did not bother to attend the oreclosure sale nor raise any =uestion regarding the propriety o the sale. It was only on November (, )((1, or more than one year rom the registration o the Sheri >s Certi icate o Sale, that

GpetitionersH iled the instant complaint. Clearly, GpetitionersH had slept on their rights and are there ore guilty o laches, which is de ined as the ailure or neglect or an unreasonable or e#plained length o time to do that which, 5y %?%067$7(; )u% )7l7;%(6%, could or should have been done earlier, ailure o which gives rise to the presumption that the person possessed o the right or privilege has abandoned or has declined to assert the same. 6Words in bracFet added.7 5or sure, in the very petition they iled in this case, petitioners have not o ered any valid e#cuse why, despite notice to them o the petition or e#tra"udicial oreclosure iled by the respondents, they ailed to attend the proceedings and there voiced out what they are now claiming. &ruly, laches has worFed against them. &he law on redemption o mortgaged property is clear. !epublic %ct No. ,),: 6%n %ct to !egulate the Sale o $roperty @nder Special $owers Inserted In Or %nne#ed to !eal Estate +ortgages7, as amended by !epublic %ct No. 1))?, provides in Section 9 thereo , thus2 3Sec. 9. In all cases in which an e#tra"udicial sale is made under the special power hereinbe ore re erred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any "udicial creditor or "udgment creditor o said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subse=uent to the mortgage or deed o trust under which the property is sold, 8'y 0%)%%8 ,<% $'8% ', '(y ,78% >7,<7( ,<% ,%08 o: o(% y%'0 :0o8 '() ':,%0 ,<% )',% o: ,<% $'l%I ###3 6Emphasis supplied7 In a long line o cases:, this Court has consistently ruled that the one.year redemption period should be counted not rom the date o oreclosure sale, but rom the time the certi icate o sale is registered with the !egister o Deeds. 4ere, it is not disputed that the sheri >s certi icate o sale was registered on -( October )((,. %nd under %rticle ), o the New Civil Code9, a year is understood to have three hundred si#ty. ive 6,9:7 days each. &hus, e#cluding the irst day and counting rom ,; October )((, 6under paragraph , o %rticle ), o the New Civil Code7, and bearing in mind that )((1 was a leap year, petitioners had only until -( October )((1, the ,9:th day a ter registration o the sheri >s certi icate o sale on -( October )((,, within which to redeem the oreclosed property in accordance with law. %nd since -( October )((1 ell on a Saturday, petitioners had until the ollowing worFing day, ,) October )((1, within which to e#ercise their right o redemption. 5rom the oregoing, it is clear as day that even the complaint iled by the petitioners with the trial court on ;( November )((1 was instituted beyond the ).year redemption period. In act, petitioners no less acFnowledged that their complaint or annulment o e#tra"udicial oreclosure and auction sale was iled about eleven 6))7 days a ter the redemption period had already e#pired on -( October )((1*. &hey merely harp on the alleged increase in the redemption price o the mortgaged property as the reason or their ailure to redeem the same. 4owever, and as already

pointed out herein, they chose not, despite notice, to appear during the oreclosure proceedings. O course, petitioners presently insist that they re=uested or and were granted an e#tension o time within which to redeem their property, relying on a handwritten note allegedly written by +rs. San Diego>s husband on petitioners> statement o account, indicating therein the date 11 No=%85%0 199- as the last day to pay their outstanding account in ull. Even assuming, in gratia argumenti, that they were indeed granted such an e#tension, the hard reality, however, is that ', (o ,78% ', 'll did petitioners maFe a valid o er to redeem coupled with a tender o the redemption price. Even on this score, petitioners> case must all. 5or, in 9a+o v. Republic $uret4 H 0nsurance Co., 0nc.?, this Court has made it clear that it is only where, by voluntary agreement o the parties, consisting o e#tensions o the redemption period, :ollo>%) 5y 6o887,8%(, 5y ,<% )%5,o0 ,o #'y ,<% 0%)%8#,7o( #076% ', ' :7?%) )',%, will the concept o legal redemption be converted into one o conventional redemption. 4ere, there is no showing whatsoever that petitioners agreed to pay the redemption price on or be ore )) November )((1, as allegedly set by +rs. San Diego>s husband. On the contrary, their act o iling their complaint on ;( November )((1 to declare the nullity o the oreclosure sale is indicative o their re usal to pay the redemption price on the alleged deadline set by the husband. %t the very least, i they so believed that their loan obligation was only or $),;;;,;;;.;;, petitioners should have made an o er to redeem within one 6)7 year rom the registration o the sheri >s certi icate o sale, together with a tender o the same amount. &his, they never did. It must be remembered that the period o redemption is not a prescriptive period but a condition precedent provided by law to restrict the right o the person e#ercising redemption. Correspondingly, i a person e#ercising the right o redemption has o ered to redeem the property within the period i#ed, he is considered to have complied with the condition precedent prescribed by law and may therea ter bring an action to en orce redemption. I , on the other hand, the period is allowed to lapse be ore the right o redemption is e#ercised, then the action to en orce redemption will not prosper, even i the action is brought within the ordinary prescriptive period. +oreover, the period within which to redeem the property sold at a sheri >s sale is not suspended by the institution o an action to annul the oreclosure sale. ( It is clear, then, that petitioners have lost any right or interest over the sub"ect property primarily because o their ailure to redeem the same in the manner and within the period prescribed by law. &heir belated attempts to =uestion the legality and validity o the oreclosure proceedings and public auction must accordingly ail.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision and resolution o the Court o %ppeals %55I!+ED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO O!DE!ED. $anganiban, 6Chairman7, Sandoval./utierreJ, and Carpio.+orales, EE., concur. Corona, E., on o icial leave.
Foo,(o,%$ ) $enned by then, now a member o this Court, %ssociate Eustice Consuelo Bnares.Santiago, with then %ssociate Eustices 'ernardo <l. Salas and Demetrio /. Demetria, concurring. Rollo, p. -?. , 0bid. 1 $tate 0nvestment Fouse, 0nc. v. Court of Appeals, -): SC!% *,1 G)((-H citing Commodit4 Dinancing Co., 0nc. v. #imene+, () SC!% :* G)(*(H and 8icol $avings and 9oan Association v. Court of Appeals, )*) SC!% 9,; G)(?(H. : Agbulos v. Alberto, : SC!% *(;, G)(9-HI $ala+ar v. ,eneses, ? SC!% 1(: G)(9,HI Re4es v. /oble"as, -) SC!% );-* G)(*;HI 'uimson v. %!ilippine /ational 8anC, ,9 SC!% -9 G)(*;HI *regorio 9impin v. 0ntermediate Appellate Court, )99 SC!% ?* G)(??HI Eastman C!emical 0ndustries, 0nc. v. Court of Appeals, )*1 SC!% 9)( G)(?(HI 8ernarde+ v. Re4es, -;) SC!% 91? G)(()HI and Enion 8anC of t!e %!ilippines v. Court of Appeals, ,:* SC!% )- G-;;)H. 9 %rticle ),. When the law speaFs o years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are o three hundred si#ty. ive days eachI months, o thirty daysI days, o twenty. our hoursI and nights rom sunset to sunrise. I months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number o days which they respectively have. In computing a period, the irst day shall be e#cluded, and the last day included. * +emorandum or the $etitioners dated -9 5ebruary )(((. ? ,) SC!% ,-( G)(*;H. ( 5undamentals o !edemption in E#tra.Eudicial 5oreclosures, )1; SC!% ,9? G)(?:H, citing De Conne"ero, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., <.-)?)-I Castillo v. $amonte, <.),)19, ,; Eune )(9;I Daga v. -omacru+, :? $hil 1)1I and $umerari+ v. Development 8anC of t!e %!ilippines, -) SC!% ),*1.

G.R. No. 170/1/

M'y 6, 2010

MARMO"! TRADING, INC. '() &ICTOR MORALE", $etitioners, vs. CO*RT OF A EAL", NATIONAL LA+OR RELATION" COMMI""ION, HON. LA+OR AR+ITER ELIA" H. "ALINA" '() JO"ELITO H*+ILLA, !espondents. DECISION ERE1, J.: &his is a petition or review under !ule 1: o the !ules o Court assailing the Decision) o the Court o %ppeals dated )1 Euly -;;: in C% /.!. S$ No. ?:(?(, a irming the !esolution o the National <abor !elations Commission 6N<!C7 dated ,; Eanuary -;;1 in C% No. ;-),9*.((, ordering the levy on e#ecution on the real property o herein petitioner 0ictor +orales. <iFewise assailed is the resolution o the appellate court dated )9 November -;;:,-which denied the motion or reconsideration iled by petitioners +armosy &rading, Inc. and 0ictor +orales. &he acts o the case are as ollows2

$etitioner +armosy &rading, Inc. is a domestic corporation duly organiJed and e#isting under the laws o the !epublic o the $hilippines. It acts as a distributor o various chemicals rom oreign suppliers. $etitioner 0ictor +orales is the $resident and /eneral +anager o +armosy &rading, Inc. !espondent Eoselito 4ubilla was hired as a &echnical Salesman pursuant to an appointment letter dated )- 5ebruary )((). $etitioner +armosy &rading, Inc. terminated respondent>s services e ective ): Euly )((*., Owing to his termination, respondent iled a case or illegal dismissal, illegal deduction and diminution o bene its against petitioners be ore the <abor %rbiter, docFeted as N<!C NC! Case No. ;;.;*.;:;:1.(*.1 On ,) +ay )(((, <abor %rbiter Daniel C. Cueto rendered a Decision: against petitioners, the dispositive portion o which reads2 W4E!E5O!E, on account o the oregoing considerations, "udgment is hereby rendered declaring the termination o the services o the complainant to be illegal and without "ust and valid cause.1avvp!i1 %ccordingly, respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate the complainant to his ormer position, or in case the same is no longer available, to other e=uivalent position without loss o seniority rights and other bene its and privileges. !espondents are liFewise hereby ordered to pay complainant his ull bacFwages and other bene its which he should have received had his services not been terminated, rom Euly ):, )((*, until actually reinstated, a ter crediting respondents the separation pay paid to the complainant and other accountabilities in the total amount o $9),;:-.*1 and );D thereo as and by way o attorney>s ees. &he total award is tentatively computed as ollows2 ). 'acFwages ;*A):A(*.;:A,)A(( ^ --.:, months $:,(:;.;; # --.:, -. ),th +onth $ay )A)- o $),1,;:,.:; $),1,;:,.:; )),)*).), $)1:,--1.9, ,. %ttorney>s 5ee );D o $)1:,--1.9, )1,:--.19

&otal +onetary %ward <ess2 %ccountabilities2 Separation $ay &a# De iciency )((9 &a# De iciency )((* Car <oan 'alance &O&%< %ll other claims are hereby denied or lacF o merit.

$):(,*1*.;(

$,:,1;-.-; 1,1-;.:( --(.*: -),;;;.;; 9),;:-.*1 $(?,9(1.,:

$etitioners iled an %ppeal9 to the N<!C docFeted as C% No. ;-),9*.((. &he N<!C issued a !esolution* dated ,) +ay -;;; denying the appeal or lacF o merit. &his !esolution o the N<!C became inal and e#ecutory on -9 Eune -;;;.? !espondent then iled a +otion or the issuance o a writ o e#ecution.( $etitioners, or their part, urther iled a petition to the Court o %ppeals docFeted as C% /.!. S$ No. 9;--9. &he Court o %ppeals issued a !esolution dated -- %ugust -;;; dismissing outright the petition in C% /.!. S$ No. 9;--9 iled by the petitioners on the ground o procedural in irmities, such as, ailure to ile a motion or reconsideration o the N<!C !esolution dated ,) +ay -;;;, and ailure to append to the petition relevant and pertinent pleadings.); &his resolution liFewise became inal and e#ecutory and an Entry o Eudgment was issued by the appellate court on -: November -;;;.)) $etitioners elevated the decision o the Court o %ppeals in C% /.!. S$ No. 9;--9 to this Court by a petition or review docFeted as /.!. No. )1:??). &his Court resolved to deny the petition in /.!. No. )1:??) iled by the petitioners, in a !esolution dated * 5ebruary -;;), or the late iling o the petition and ailure to show reversible error on the part o the Court o %ppeals.)- Entry o Eudgment was issued on ), %ugust -;;).), !espondent then resorted to a motion or the issuance o an alias writ o e#ecution.)1 On -? %ugust -;;), <abor %rbiter Elias 4. Salinas issued a writ o e#ecution): addressed to the N<!C Sheri , the dispositive portion o which reads2 NOW &4E!E5O!E, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises o respondent +armosy &rading, Inc. located at I&C 'uilding ,,* /il $uyat %venue

E#tension, +aFati City, or wherever they may be ound, to collect the total sum o &WO 4@ND!ED NINE&B SI8 &4O@S%ND ONE 4@ND!ED SI8&B $ESOS and &EN CEN&%0OS 6$4$-(9,)9;.);7 representing complainant>s total monetary award and to turn over the said amount collected to the N<!C Cashier or disposition to herein complainant. In case you ailed 6sic7 to collect said amount in cash rom the respondents, you are to cause the satis action o the same to be made out o the movables or chattels, or in the absence thereo , rom the immovable properties o the respondents not e#empt rom e#ecution. Bou are to return this %lias Writ o E#ecution with your corresponding report o the proceedings undertaFen thereon within si#ty 6,;7 6sic7 days rom receipt hereo . % +otion or !econsideration,)9 with +otion to !ecall the Writ o E#ecution dated : September -;;) was iled by the petitioners. &hey assailed the computation made by the <abor %rbiter and averred that the company had stopped its operations as o Eune, )((*I that there is no position to which respondent can be reinstated or appointedI and that respondent had already been paid his separation pay. In a supplement to their own computation o the monetary award given to respondent, petitioners showed that in actuality, respondent still owes them the amount o $--,,?,.):, when they ceased operations at the end o )((* and respondent had already received his separation pay. $etitioners> motion or reconsideration was denied by the <abor %rbiter in an Order dated -- October -;;) but the monetary award in avor o respondent was corrected to read as $-*1,?-,.*;, and the Sheri was directed to proceed with the e#ecution.)* @ndeterred, petitioners again iled be ore the N<!C a 3+emorandum o %ppeal with $rayer or In"unction3 assailing the -- October -;;) Order o the <abor %rbiter.)? !espondent countered by iling an opposition on the ground o ailure to ile a supersedeas bond on the part o the petitioners and that no new issues were raised therein.)( In an Order dated -- +ay -;;-,-; the above %ppeal o the petitioners was dismissed by the N<!C or ailure to ile a supersedeas bond. &he N<!C in the same order a irmed in toto the -- October -;;) Order o the <abor %rbiter. $etitioners iled a +otion or !econsideration dated -) Eune -;;-.-) &he motion or reconsideration was denied or lacF o merit in a resolution dated -- %ugust -;;- issued by the N<!C. &he N<!C liFewise emphasiJed that no urther motions or reconsideration shall be entertained.-%cting on respondent>s e#.parte motion or the re.computation o his monetary award and or the issuance o an alias writ o e#ecution dated )( November

-;;-,-, <abor %rbiter Elias Salinas issued on )) +arch -;;, an alias Writ o E#ecution-1 addressed to the N<!C Sheri , the dispositive portion o which reads2 NOW &4E!E5O!E, you are hereby commanded to proceed to the premises o respondents +%!+OSB &!%DIN/ INC. located at I&C 'uilding ,,* /il $uyat, %venue E#tension, +aFati 6sic7 City or wherever they can be ound within the "urisdiction o the !epublic o the $hilippines, to collect the sum o &WO 4@ND!ED 5I5&B ONE &4O@S%ND NINE 4@ND!ED &WEN&B SE0EN $ESOS %ND &WE<0E CEN&%0OS 6$-:),(-*.)-7, representing complainant>s computed monetary award and to deposit the said amount to the Cashier N<!C, or disposition to herein complainant. In case you ailed 6sic7 to collect the amount in cash, you are to cause the satis action o the same out o the movables, chattels and in the absence thereo , to the immovable not e#empt rom e#ecution. Bou are allowed to collect e#ecution ees in accordance with the $rocedures o the N<!C +anuals 6sic7 on E#ecution. Bou are to return this writ within ONE 4@ND!ED EI/4&B 6)?;7 days rom receipt hereo with the corresponding report o the proceedings. $ursuant to the writ o e#ecution issued by <abor %rbiter Elias Salinas, the Sheri garnished petitioners account with E=uitable.$CI 'anF in the amount o $--,?(9.:?,-: which was later released to the N<!C cashier and, therea ter, turned over to the respondent as partial satis action o the "udgment in his avor. $etitioners ob"ected to the garnishment by iling a motion or reconsideration and to recall the order o release and alias writ o e#ecution alleging that the account with E=uitable.$CI 'anF belongs to both petitioner +armosy &rading, Inc. and petitioner 0ictor +oralesI that only petitioner +armosy &rading, Inc. was the employer o respondent whereas petitioner 0ictor +orales, who was president o the +armosy &rading, Inc. when the complaint was iled, is only a nominal party. 1avvp!i1 $etitioners> motion or reconsideration was denied by <abor %rbiter Elias Salinas in an Order dated -, Eune -;;,.-9 $etitioners again appealed to the N<!C. &his appeal was dismissed or lacF o merit in the !esolution o the N<!C dated ,; Eanuary -;;1.-* &he pertinent portion o the N<!C !esolution dated ,; Eanuary -;;1 is =uoted hereunder2 %s borne by the records, individual respondent 0ictor 4. +orales is the $resident and /eneral +anager o GrespondentH +armosy &rading Inc. %s correctly ruled

being the $resident at the same time /eneral +anager o the Corporation, G!espondentH +orales is there ore to be held responsible or the corporation>s obligations to the worFers including complainant especially when as alleged the company had already closed its business operations. &he termination o the e#istence o a corporation re=uires the assumption o the company>s liabilities and there is no responsible o icer but the $resident who must assume ull responsibility o the conse=uences o the closure. $etitioners> motion or reconsideration-? was denied or lacF o merit by the N<!C in a !esolution-( dated -; Euly -;;1. &he !esolution became inal and e#ecutory on ? October -;;1.,; 5rom the above N<!C !esolution, petitioners again elevated the case to the Court o %ppeals via a $etition or Certiorari under !ule 9: docFeted as C% /.!. S$ No. ?:(?(. &he petition was denied in a Decision,) o the Court o %ppeals dated )1 Euly -;;:. &he Court o %ppeals e#plained that2 &he writ o e#ecution commanded the Sheri to proceed to the premises o petitioners located in +aFati City or wherever they can be ound to collect the sum o $h$-:),(-*.)-. Since petitioner +orales was liFewise ordered in the decision sought to be e#ecuted to pay private respondent, the Sheri properly levied on his real property. Section - !ule 1 o the N<!C +anual on E#ecution o Eudgment provides that the Sheri or proper o icer shall en orce the e#ecution o a money "udgment by levying on all the property, real and personal, o the losing party, o whatever name and nature and which may be disposed o or value, not e#empt rom e#ecution.,&he fallo o the decision rendered by the Court o %ppeals states2 Where ore, the $etition is Dismissed or lacF o merit.,, $etitioners> motion or reconsideration met the same ate in the appellate court>s !esolution,1 dated )9 November -;;:. 4ence, this petition on the lone issue o whether or not the decision dated )1 Euly -;;: and the resolution dated )9 November -;;: o the Court o %ppeals in C% /.!. S$ No. ?:(?(, which allowed the notice o levy to be annotated on the title o the real property registered under &rans er Certi icate o &itle No. :(1(9 in the name o petitioner 0ictor +orales, are in accordance with law and e#isting "urisprudence. ,: &he petition is not meritorious. %t the outset, the Court taFes notice o the act that petitioners already e#hausted all the remedies available to them since the time the <abor %rbiter rendered his decision

dated ,) +ay )(((. In act, said decision o the <abor %rbiter was elevated all the way up to this Court by the petitioners via /.!. No. )1:??). We denied this petition in a !esolution dated * 5ebruary -;;).,9 E#ecution in avor o the respondent ought to have taFen place as a matter o right.,* 5rom the inality o /.!. No. )1:??), this case was remanded to the <abor %rbiter or e#ecution. !egrettably, due to the series o pleadings, motions and appeals to the N<!C, including petitions to the Court o %ppeals, iled by the petitioners, they have so ar success ully delayed the e#ecution o the inal and e#ecutory decision in this case. &he decision o the <abor %rbiter, rendered on ,) +ay )(((, has been elevated to, or review by, the N<!C, the Court o %ppeals and inally this Court which entered "udgment on the matter nine years ago, or on ), %ugust -;;). @ntil the present, the decision in )((( has not yet been e#ecuted. &he <abor %rbiter>s decision has long become inal and e#ecutory and it can no longer be reversed or modi ied. &he Court has on occasion ruled that2 Now, nothing is more settled in law than when a inal "udgment becomes e#ecutory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalternable. &he "udgment may no longer be modi ied in any respect, even i the modi ication is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion o law or act, and regardless o whether the modi ication is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court o the land. &he only recogniJed e#ception are the correction o clerical errors or the maFing o so.called nune pro tunc entries which cause no in"ury to any party, and, o course, where the "udgment is void # # #.,? We dis avor delay in the en orcement o the labor arbiter>s decision. Once a "udgment becomes inal and e#ecutory, the prevailing party should not be denied the ruits o his victory by some subter uge devised by the losing party. 5inal and e#ecutory "udgments can neither be amended nor altered e#cept or correction o clerical errors, even i the purpose is to correct erroneous conclusions o act or o law.,( &rial and e#ecution proceedings constitute one whole action or suit such that a case in which e#ecution has been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings in the e#ecution are proceedings in the suit.1; 5urthermore, petitioners did not succeed in overturning the decisions o the N<!C and the Court o %ppeals. %s well, this Court denied petitioners> petition in /.!. No. )1:??). Everything considered, what should be en orced thru an order or writ o e#ecution in this case is the dispositive portion o the <abor %rbiter>s decision as a irmed by the N<!C, the Court o %ppeals and this Court. Since the writ o e#ecution issued by the <abor %rbiter does not vary but is in act completely consistent with the inal

decision in this case, the order o e#ecution issued by the <abor %rbiter is beyond challenge. It is no longer legally easible to modi y the inal ruling in this case through the e#pediency o a petition =uestioning the order o e#ecution. &his late in the day, petitioner 0ictor +orales is barred, by the act o a inal "udgment, rom advancing the argument that his real property cannot be made liable or the monetary award in avor o respondent. 5or a reason greater than protection rom personal liability, petitioner 0ictor +orales, as president o his corporation, cannot rely on our previous ruling that 3to hold a director personally liable or debts o a corporation and thus pierce the veil o corporate iction, the bad aith or wrongdoing o the director must be established clearly and convincingly.3 1) Eudgments o courts should attain inality at some point lest there be no end in litigation. 1- &he inal "udgment in this case may no longer be reviewed, or in any way modi ied directly or indirectly, by a higher court, not even by the Supreme Court.1, &he reason or this is that, a litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an e ective and e icient administration o "ustice that, once a "udgment has become inal, the winning party be not deprived o the ruits o the verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result and must rown upon any attempt to prolong controversies.11 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED or lacF o merit and the Decision o the Court o %ppeals in C% /.!. S$ No. ?:(?( dated )1 Euly -;;:, and the !esolution o the same court dated )9 November -;;: are %55I!+ED. Costs against petitioners. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$ ) $enned by %ssociate Eustice +arina <. 'uJon with %ssociate Eustices +ariano <. /uarina III and Santiago Eavier !anada concurring. !ollo, p. ,1. Id. at ,,. , !ecords, 0ol. I, p.); 1 Id. at ). : Rollo, p. 9,. 9 !ecords, 0ol. I, p. 1:. * Id. at ,?;. ? Id. at ,(:. ( Id. at ,(9. ); $enned by %ssociate Eustice !enato C. Dacudao with Eustices Cancio C. /arcia and 'ennie %de uin.De <a CruJ concurringI !ecords, 0ol. II, p. )*). )) !ecords, 0ol. I, p. ,(*. )!ecords 0ol. II, p. -*. ), Id. at -?. )1 Id. at -(. ): Rollo, p. *:. )9 !ecords, 0ol. I, p. 1)?. )* Id. at 11(. )? Id. at :;?. )( Id. at :*?.

-; -)

!ecords, 0ol. II, p. 1?. Id. at ::. -Id. at *;. -, Id. at *(. -1 Id. at -;1. -: Id. at ),:. -9 Id. at --?. -* !ecords, 0ol. I, p. :(,. -? Rollo, p. )-(. -( Id. at ),9. ,; !ecords, 0ol. I, last page not numbered. ,) Rollo, p. ,1. ,Id. at 1-. ,, Id. at -)). ,1 Id. at ,,. ,: Id. at -,;. ,9 !ecords, 0ol. II, p. -*. ,* !ule ,(. E#ecution, Satis action and E ect o Eudgments2 Section ). E#ecution upon "udgments or inal orders. U E#ecution shall issue as a matter o right, on motion, upon a "udgment or order that disposes o the action or proceeding upon the e#piration o the period to appeal there rom i no appeal has been duly per ected. ,? E.D. <egaspi Construction v. National <abor !elations Commission, /.!. No. )1,)9), - October -;;-, ,(; SC!% -,,, -,( citing +anning International Corp. v. National <abor !elations Commission, /.!. No. ?,;)?, ), +arch )((), )(: SC!% )::,)9). ,( %boitiJ Shipping Employees %ssociation v. &rahano, ,1? $hil. ();, (): 6)((*7. 1; Bsmael v. Court o %ppeals, ,,( $hil. ,9), ,*9 6)((*7. 1) Carag v. National <abor !elations Commission, /.! No. )1*:(;, - %pril -;;*, :-; SC!% -?. 1$er !esolution in /.!. No. )11(1?, entitled 3C.E Construction Corp.A%mbrosio SalaJar v. !aymundo 4ernandeJ.3 1, C.E Construction Corp. v. National <abor !elations Commission, /.!. No. )?;)??, -: +arch -;;(. 11 Sacdalan v. Court o %ppeals, /.!. No. )-?(9*, -; +ay -;;1, 1-? SC!% :?9, :(( cited in Obieta v. CheoF, /.!. No. )*;;*-, , September -;;(.

A.M. No. .01.1-73

M'06< 27, 2001

GLORIA O. +ENITE1, complainant, vs. MEDEL . ACO"TA, "<%07:: I&, respondent. ER C*RIAM4 &his is an administrative complaint against +edel $. %costa, Sheri I0, assigned to !egional &rial Court, 'ranch )(, 'acoor, Cavite, or grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct pre"udicial to the best interests o the service. Complainant /loria Osila 'eniteJ iled this case in representation o her mother, %mparo Osila, the de endant in Civil Case No. /+%.(*.;-, entitled 3<eon 'asas vs. %mparo Osila3, iled with the :th +unicipal Circuit &rial Court o Carmona and /eneral +ariano %lvareJ. It would appear that "udgment was rendered against %mparo Osila or a sum o money. Complainant alleges that in implementing the writ o e#ecution and conducting the e#ecution sale to satis y the "udgment in Civil Case No. /+%.(*.;-, respondent committed the ollowing2 6a7 ignored the bid o /loria Osila 'eniteJ and Edna SamsonI 6b7 sold the "eepney to the highest bidder, +ario &imbol, who was absent and only sent his bid through Eoe Castillo, who was also absent during the biddingI 6c7 sold the "eepney or an unconscionably low price o $):,;;;.;;I 6d7 used +ario &imbol and Eoe Castillo merely as ronts because respondent was interested in the "eepneyI 6e7 ailed to deliver the "eepney even as o %pril -, )((?I 6 7 did not maFe a return o the writ o e#ecution until +arch ,;, )((?I and 6g7 did not comply with the notice re=uirements in !ule ,(, `)1 o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure as there were no notices o posting attached to the certi icate o sale.) On Eune )), )((?, respondent iled a counter.a idavit in which he alleged that2 6a7 during the auction sale there was only one bidder, +ario &imbol, who was represented by one Eoe CastilloI 6b7 &imbol submitted a written bid or $):,;;;.;;I 6c7 there was symbolic delivery o the "eepney to +ario &imbolKs representativeI 6d7 he did not say that the "eepney would go or $);;,;;;.;;I 6e7 though complainant submitted a bid, she was not able to come up with the money to outbid +ario &imbolI 6 7 +ario &imbol was not his 6respondentKs7 dummyI 6g7 %tty. Del in

/ruspe, counsel or complainant, was present throughout the proceedings as per his a idavitI 6h7 %tty. /ruspe would have protested i he 6respondent7 had sold the "eepney or a low priceI and 6i7 Eoe Castillo was present at the public auction sale as shown by his signature on the +inutes o the $ublic %uction Sale.On Euly *, )((?, %mparo Osila iled a +otion to Declare Null and 0oid the $ublic %uction Sale conducted on 5ebruary )9, )((?. %s in her complaint in this case, Osila alleged that2 6a7 the e#ecution sale conducted on 5ebruary )9, )((? was simulatedI 6b7 respondent violated !ule ,(, `)1 o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedureI 6c7 +ario &imbol was a dummy o respondent who had a prohibited interest in the auctioned "eepneyI 6d7 Eoe Castillo, representative o +ario &imbol, was not present at the auction sale, contrary to what appears in the minutesI 6e7 respondent ignored their bidI 6 7 the "eepney was sold or the unconscionably low price o $):,;;;.;;I 6g7 the "eepney had not been delivered to the supposed buyer +ario &imbol but had been Fept in Cavite as o %pril -, )((?I and 6h7 the sale should have been conducted in Carmona, Cavite, and not in 'acoor, also in the province o Cavite. , On the same day, complainant replied to respondentKs counter.a idavit. She alleged that2 6)7 respondentKs late submission o pertinent documents on +arch ,;, )((? throws suspicion on his actionsI 6-7 there are discrepancies in the handwritten entries o the documents attached to respondentKs counter.a idavitI 6,7 Cesar /ruspe was not authoriJed to receive the $):,;;;.;; auction price rom respondentI and 617 respondent was not allowed to turn over the proceeds o the sale to Cesar /ruspe. 1 !espondent iled a position paper denying the allegations. 4e claimed he had complied with !ule ,( o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure and that the "eepney was Fept in /eneral +ariano %lvareJ, Cavite or repairs. : On Euly -,, )((?, the :th +unicipal Circuit &rial Court o Carmona and /eneral +ariano %lvareJ issued an order declaring null and void the public auction sale conducted on 5ebruary )9, )((?, and directing as ollows2 W4E!E5O!E, premises considered, a ter study o evidence submitted, this court hereby inds2 ).7 &hat Sheri +edel $. %costa is administratively liable or grave misconduct and partiality in the conduct o the writ o e#ecution up to the auction sale and serious misconduct or arbitrarily and oppressively disregarding procedural rulesI &hat this Court reprimands him and a repeat o said o ense shall be dealt with more severelyI -.7 &hat due to Sheri +edel $. %costaKs ailure to maFe a proper return o the writ o e#ecution to this 4onorable Court, in violation o `)1 !ule ,( o the !ules o Civil $rocedure, as amended and the evidence presented showing that the public auction sale allegedly held on 5ebruary 9, )((? was

simulated, the S%<E o the IsuJu passenger "eep with plate no. $&B.-(thus levied and sold on e#ecution is hereby declared null and voidI &hat the Certi icate o Sale dated 5ebruary )*, )((? is hereby cancelledI ,.7 &hat Sheri +edel %costa is hereby ordered to return to the de endant. movants the possession o said IsuJu passenger "eepney with plate no. $&B. -(- and motor no. 1D!:.*;;&E%.;1,.O??I 1.7 &hat Sheri +edel $. %costa is hereby ordered to pay de endants. movants the amount o $-,;;;.;; by way o damagesI :.7 &hat a copy o this Order shall be transmitted to the O ice o the Court %dministrator.9 On Euly )*, -;;;, the O ice o the Court %dministrator to which this matter had been re erred or investigation and recommendation ound the ollowing2 6a7 that in maFing his return only on +arch ,;, )((?, respondent violated !ule ,(, `)1 o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedureI 6b7 that respondent submitted di erent versions o the +inutes o $ublic %uction, both o which had di erent handwritten entries in violation o %rticle )*) o the !evised $enal CodeI 6c7 that it was within respondentKs discretion to reconvene the sale to a date when there would be more bidders and the "eepney would etch a higher priceI 6d7 that his ailure to e#ercise sound discretion is proo that he did not live up to the standards o pro essionalism the law demands o himI and 6e7 there was no auction sale as contemplated by the law. 'ased on the oregoing indings, the O ice o the Court %dministrator recommended2 ). that the instant case be !E.DOCPE&ED as a regular administrative matterI and -. that respondent +edel $. %costa be ound guilty o /rave +isconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct $re"udicial to the 'est Interests o the Service and be DIS+ISSED rom the service with or eiture o all bene its and with pre"udice to his reinstatement or re.employment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality o the government, including government owned and controlled corporations.* We agree with the O ice o the Court %dministrator. We ind respondent liable or the simulation o the auction sale conducted on 5ebruary )9, )((? or the ollowing reasons2 Dirst. On December )), )((*, a writ was issued by 'ranch )( o the +unicipal Circuit &rial Court o Carmona and /eneral +ariano %lvareJ or the satis action o the "udgment in Civil Case No. /+%.(*.;- entitled 3<eon 'asas vs. %mparo Osila.3 &he writ o e#ecution directed the respondent2

. . . . to liFewise return this writ into 6sic7 the Court at any time, not less than ten days nor more than si#ty days a ter its receipt with your proceedings endorsed thereon. %s per the pertinent portion o the order issuing the writ o e#ecution, respondent should have made a return on the writ within 9; days rom his receipt o the order, or by 5ebruary (, )((?. &o date, respondent has not submitted or made a return on the writ and has violated a mandate o the court. It is well settled that the sheri Ks duty in the e#ecution o a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial. ? %s such, any ailure to comply with such constitutes non easance in the per ormance o his duties. $econd. !ule ,(, `)1 o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure provides that2 SEC&ION )1. Return of t!e rit of e7ecution. Z &he writ o e#ecution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately a ter the "udgment has been satis ied in part or in ull. 0f t!e "udgment cannot be satisfied in full it!in t!irt4 5=<6 da4s after !is receipt of t!e rit, t!e officer s!all report to t!e court and state t!e reason t!erefore. Such writ shall continue in e ect during the period within which the "udgment may be en orced by motion. &he o icer shall maFe a report to the court every thirty 6,;7 days on the proceedings taFen thereon until the "udgment is satis ied in ull, or its e ectivity e#pires. &he returns or periodic reports shall set orth the whole o the proceedings taFen, and shall be iled with the court and copies thereo promptly urnished the parties. 6Emphasis supplied.7 &hus, under this provision, respondent is re=uired 6)7 to maFe a return and submit it to the court immediately upon satis action in part or in ull o the "udgmentI and 6-7 i the "udgment cannot be satis ied in ull, to maFe a report to the court within ,; days a ter his receipt o the writ and state why ull satis action could not be made. &he Sheri shall continue maFing a report every ,; days on proceedings being taFen thereon until the "udgment is ull satis ied. &he reason or this re=uirement is to update the court as to the status o the e#ecution and give it an idea why the "udgment has not been satis ied. It also provides the court an idea as to how e icient court processes are a ter the "udgment has been promulgated. &he over.all purpose o the re=uirement is to ensure the speedy e#ecution o decisions. In this case, the records show that respondent received the writ o e#ecution on December )), )((*. 5ollowing !ule ,(, `)1 o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure, respondent was supposed to maFe a return to the court ,; days a ter December )), )((*, or by Eanuary );, )((?, and every ,; days therea ter until the "udgment has been satis ied. 4owever, as o Euly )*, -;;;, he ailed to maFe any report to the court as it was his ministerial duty to do so. 4e was thus guilty o non easance. -!ird. !ule ,(, `)1 o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure provides that2

SEC&ION (. E7ecution of "udgments for mone4, !o , enforced. a6 0mmediate pa4ment on demand. Z &he o icer shall en orce an e#ecution o a "udgment or money by demanding rom the "udgment obligor the immediate payment o the ull amount stated in the writ o e#ecution and all law ul ees. &he "udgment obligor shall pay in cash, certi ied banF checF payable to the "udgment obligee or any other orm o payment acceptable to the latter, the amount o the "udgment debt under proper receipt directly to the "udgment obligee, or his authoriJed representative i present at the time o payment. &he law ul ees shall be handed under proper receipt to the e#ecuting sheri who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerF o court that issued the writ. I the "udgment obligee or his authoriJed representative is not present to receive payment, the "udgment obligor shall deliver the a oresaid payment to the e#ecuting sheri . &he latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the clerF o court o the court that issued the writ, or i the same is not practicable, deposit said amounts to a iduciary account in the nearest government depository banF o the !egional &rial Court o the locality. &he clerF o said court shall therea ter arrange or the remittance o the deposit to the account o the court that issued the writ whose clerF o court shall then deliver said payment to the "udgment obligee in satis action o the "udgment. &he e#cess, i any, shall be delivered to the "udgment obligor while the law ul ees shall be retained by the clerF o court or disposition as provided by law. In no case shall the e#ecuting sheri demand that any payment by checF be payable to him. &hus, ees collected by the sheri are re=uired to be paid over to the "udgment obligee or the latterKs authoriJed representative. In the absence o both, respondent is obligated to pay them over to the clerF o the court who issued the writ or, i this is not possible, to deposit the amount in the nearest government depository banF. &he records show that when +ario &imbol paid the bid price to respondent, the latter did not turn over the amount to %tty. Del in /ruspe, as counsel o <eon 'asas, Sr., or the ClerF o Court, but rather to Cesar /ruspe, the brother o plainti Ks counsel.( &he +inutes o the $ublic %uction Sale reveal that during the said sale, the "udgment obligee, <eon 'asas, Sr., was absent and so was Cesar /ruspe. %s such, under !ule ,(, `(, respondent was under the obligation to turn over the $):,;;;.;; to %tty. Del in /ruspe, the authoriJed representative o <eon 'asas Sr. Instead, as evidenced by the +inutes o the $ublic %uction, respondent paid the amount to Cesar /ruspe, who was not even present at the bidding, nor authoriJed by <eon 'asas, Sr. to receive the amount rom respondent.

Dourt!. %s complainant points out in her !eply to !espondent +edel $. %costaKs Counter.% idavit dated Eune -(, )((?, there are discrepancies in the +inutes o $ublic %uction Sale prepared by respondent. &hese discrepancies are the ollowing2 ). &he irst discrepancy concerns the absence o any mention o complainantKs bid. No entries were made on the blanF spaces opposite the words 3other bidders3 despite the act that complainant did submit a bid. -. Ne#t is the manner in which the words 35i teen &housand3 is written in complainantKs copy and in respondentKs copy o the +inutes o the $ublic %uction Sale attached to the Order o the !egional &rial Court dated Euly -,, )((?.); In the copy submitted by respondent, there are no erasures in the particular entry, )) whereas in complainantKs copy, there is an erasure that separates the words rom each other.)- &his discrepancy suggests that respondent e#ecuted two di erent documents and submitted one to the court and one to complainant. &his disparity places in doubt the veracity o each copy, as well as respondentKs motives in maFing two di erent copies concerning the same matter, the one he submitted to the court, and the other he urnished complainant. ,. &he manner in which +ario &imbol signed the copies o the +inutes o $ublic %uction is another anomaly. !espondent claims that +ario &imbol authoriJed Eoe Castillo to bid on his behal . &his allegation is con irmed by +ario &imbolKs a idavit.), Bet, both copies o the +inutes o the $ublic %uction are signed by +ario &imbol as agent, and not as the principal. &his discrepancy is proo that respondent misrepresented some aspect o the acts to the court. It is unusual or the sheri not to Fnow his duties and unctions as laid down by law. &hese include, among other things, the preparation o a written account o all his proceedings pursuant to any process issued by the court, particularly the return o a writ o e#ecution.)1 'ecause o the irregularities above pointed out, the public auction sale conducted by respondent appear to have been simulated. ): Indeed, the +C&C declared the said sale null and void.)9 In e ect, respondent ailed to conduct a public auction sale. It cannot be overemphasiJed that the administration o "ustice is a sacred tasF.)* Every employee o the "udiciary, in the per ormance o his duties, should be embodiment o integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Sheri s especially have an important role to play, being in the ore ront in the administration o "ustice. &hey are o icers o the court and considered agents o the law. &hey orm an integral part o the administration o "ustice because they are called upon to serve court writs, e#ecute all the processes, and carry into e ect the orders o the court. %s such, they should discharge their duties aith ully and with due care and the utmost diligence. )? It ought not be orgotten that a "udgment, i not e#ecuted, would "ust be an empty victory on the part o the prevailing party. )( &he ailure o sheri s to implement or

e#ecute a writ results in a grave omission. We have held that ailure to maFe a return maFes respondent guilty o malicious non easance warranting dismissal.-; In %adilla vs. Arabia-) and ,o4a vs. 8assig,-- a sheri was held liable or dereliction o duty and dismissed or his ailure to sell at a public auction personal properties levied upon under a writ o e#ecution. In Custodio vs. Dulinara,-, a sheri was dismissed or ailure to en orce a writ o e#ecution, to conduct a public auction sale, and to maFe a return on the writ o e#ecution. Con ormably to the indings in this case, we hold respondent guilty o mis easance and non easance or his ailure 6a7 to maFe a return on the writI 6b7 to maFe the periodical reports re=uired by the !ules o CourtI 6c7 to comply with !ule ,(, `( o the )((* !evised !ules o Civil $rocedure regarding the disposition o proceeds o auction salesI 6d7 to conduct a public auction sale as contemplated by law which resulted in the simulation o the auction saleI and 6e7 or turning over the proceeds o the sale to parties not authoriJed by law to receive them. W4E!E5O!E, in accordance with the recommendation o the O ice o the Court %dministrator, respondent Sheri +edel $. %costa is hereby DIS+ISSED rom service or mis easance, non easance, and dereliction o duty, with or eiture o all retirement bene its and with pre"udice to re.employment in any branch o the government, including government.owned or controlled corporations. SO O!DE!ED.
Foo,(o,%$
) -

%nne# 3%3I Sworn Complaint % idavit. Counter.% idavit, dated Eune )), )((?, p. ). , %nne# 3C3I +ani estation and With <eave o Court to Submit !eply to !espondent +edel $. %costaKs Counter.% idavit. 1 +ani estation and With <eave o Court to Submit !eply to !espondent +edel $. %costaKs Counter.% idavit. : 0d. 9 Order o :th +C&C, dated Euly -,, )((?. * !ecommendation o the O ice o the Court %dministrator. ? E.g., Evangelista vs. $ensurga, -1- SC!% *;- 6)((:7I 0alencia vs. 0aleNa, %.+. $.;;.)1;(, %ugust )9, -;;;. ( %nne# 3E3 o Counter.% idavit dated Eune )), )((?. ); Order o the !egional &rial Court, dated Euly -,, )((?. )) %ttached to the Order o the !egional &rial Court dated Euly -,, )((?. )0d. ), %nne# 3E3I Counter % idavit. )1 +%N@%< 5O! C<E!PS O5 CO@!&, pp. ):?.):(. ): See &ay Chun Suy vs. Court o %ppeals, --( SC!% ):) 6)((17. )9 Order o the :th +C&C, dated Euly -,, )((?. )* Sy vs. %cademia, )(? SC!% *;: 6)(()7. )? 'areno vs. Cabauatan, ):) SC!% -(, 6)(?*7. )( E.g., &eresa &. /onJales <ao L Co. Inc. vs. 4atab, %.+. No. $.((.),,*, %pril :, -;;;I Bsmael vs. Court o %ppeals, -*, SC!% )9: 6)((*7I $ortes vs. &epace, -9* SC!% )?: 6)((*7. -; E.g., Sibulo vs. !amireJ, ):1 SC!% );) 6)(?*7I $atangan vs. Concha, ):, SC!% ,; 6)(?*7I 'areno vs. Cabauatan, supraI Smith 'ell L Co. vs. Saur, (9 SC!% 99? 6)(?*7.

-) --

-1- SC!% --* 6)((:7. ),? SC!% 1( 6)(?:7. -, (1 SC!% ?;? 6)(*(7.

St. %viation Services Co., $te., <td., petitioner, is a oreign corporation based in Singapore. It is engaged in the manu acture, repair, and maintenance o airplanes and aircra ts. /rand International %irways, Inc., respondent, is a domestic corporation engaged in airline operations. Sometime in Eanuary )((9, petitioner and respondent e#ecuted an 3%greement or the +aintenance and +odi ication o %irbus % ,;; '1.);, %ircra t !egistration No. !$.C???-3 65irst %greement7. @nder this stipulation, petitioner agreed to undertaFe maintenance and modi ication worFs on respondentKs aircra t. &he parties agreed on the mode and manner o payment by respondent o the contract price, including interest in case o de ault. &hey also agreed that the 3construction, validity and per ormance thereo 3 shall be governed by the laws o Singapore. &hey urther agreed to submit any suit arising rom their agreement to the non.e#clusive "urisdiction o the Singapore courts. %t about the same time, or on Eanuary )-, )((9, the parties verbally agreed that petitioner will repair and undertaFe maintenance worFs on respondentKs other aircra t, %ircra t No. !$.C???)I and that the worFs shall be based on a /eneral &erms o %greement 6/&%7. &he /&% terms are similar to those o their 5irst %greement. $etitioner undertooF the contracted worFs and therea ter promptly delivered the aircra ts to respondent. During the period rom +arch )((9 to October )((*, petitioner billed respondent in the total amount o @SQ,;,,*,).9* or SQ1:-,:9;.)?. 'ut despite petitionerKs repeated demands, respondent ailed to pay, in violation o the terms agreed upon. On December )-, )((*, petitioner iled with the 4igh Court o the !epublic o Singapore an action or the sum o SQ1:-,:9;.)?, including interest and costs, against respondent, docFeted as Suit No. -);). @pon petitionerKs motion, the court issued a Writ o Summons to be served e#traterritorially or outside Singapore upon respondent. &he court sought the assistance o the sheri o $asay City to e ect service o the summons upon respondent. 4owever, despite receipt o summons, respondent ailed to answer the claim. On 5ebruary )*, )((?, on motion o petitioner, the Singapore 4igh Court rendered a "udgment by de ault against respondent. On %ugust 1, )((?, petitioner iled with the !&C, 'ranch ))*, $asay City, a $etition or En orcement o Eudgment, docFeted as Civil Case No. (?.),?(. !espondent iled a +otion to Dismiss the $etition on two grounds2 6)7 the Singapore 4igh Court did not ac=uire "urisdiction over its personI and 6-7 the oreign "udgment sought to be en orced is void or having been rendered in violation o its right to due process.

G.R. No. 1-0288

O6,o5%0 23, 2006

"T. A&IATION "ER&ICE" CO., TE., LTD., petitioner, vs. GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWA!", INC., respondent. DECISION "ANDO&AL.G*TIERRE1, J. Challenged in the instant $etition or !eview on Certiorari are the Decision o the Court o %ppeals dated Euly ,;, )((( and its !esolution dated September -(, )((( in C%./.!. S$ No. :)),1 setting aside the Orders dated October ,;, )((? and December )9, )((? o the !egional &rial Court 6!&C7, 'ranch ))*, $asay City in Civil Case No. (?.),?(.

On October ,;, )((?, the !&C denied respondentKs motion to dismiss, holding that 3neither one o the two grounds 6o /rand7 is among the grounds or a motion to dismiss under !ule )9 o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure.3 !espondent iled a motion or reconsideration but was denied by the !&C in its Order dated December )9, )((?. On 5ebruary ):, )(((, respondent iled with the Court o %ppeals a $etition or Certiorari assailing the !&C Order denying its motion to dismiss. !espondent alleged that the e#traterritorial service o summons on its o ice in the $hilippines is de ective and that the Singapore court did not ac=uire "urisdiction over its person. &hus, its "udgment sought to be en orced is void. $etitioner, in its comment, moved to dismiss the petition or being unmeritorious. On Euly ,;, )(((, the Court o %ppeals issued its Decision granting the petition and setting aside the Orders dated October ,;, )((? and December )9, )((? o the !&C 3without pre"udice to the right o private respondent to initiate another proceeding be ore the proper court to en orce its claim.3 It ound2 In the case at bar, the complaint does not involve the personal status o plainti , nor any property in which the de endant has a claim or interest, or which the private respondent has attached but purely an action or collection o debt. It is a personal action as well as an action in personam, not an action in rem or quasi in rem. %s a personal action, the service o summons should be personal or substituted, not e#traterritorial, in order to con er "urisdiction on the court. $etitioner seasonably iled a motion or reconsideration but it was denied on September -(, )(((. 4ence, the instant $etition or !eview on Certiorari. &he issues to be resolved are2 6)7 whether the Singapore 4igh Court has ac=uired "urisdiction over the person o respondent by the service o summons upon its o ice in the $hilippinesI and 6-7 whether the "udgment by de ault in Suit No. -);) by the Singapore 4igh Court is en orceable in the $hilippines. /enerally, in the absence o a special contract, no sovereign is bound to give e ect within its dominion to a "udgment rendered by a tribunal o another countryI however, under the rules o comity, utility and convenience, nations have established a usage among civiliJed states by which inal "udgments o oreign courts o competent "urisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered e icacious under certain conditions that may vary in di erent countries.) Certainly, the $hilippine legal system has long ago accepted into its "urisprudence and procedural rules the

viability o an action or en orcement o oreign "udgment, as well as the re=uisites or such valid en orcement, as derived rom internationally accepted doctrines.&he conditions or the recognition and en orcement o a oreign "udgment in our legal system are contained in Section 1?, !ule ,( o the )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, as amended, thus2 SEC. 1?. Effect of foreign "udgments. U &he e ect o a "udgment or inal order o a tribunal o a oreign country, having "urisdiction to render the "udgment or inal order is as ollows2 6a7 In case o a "udgment or inal order upon a speci ic thing, the "udgment or inal order is conclusive upon the title to the thingI and 6b7 In case o a "udgment or inal order against a person, the "udgment or inal order is presumptive evidence o a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subse=uent titleI In either case, the "udgment or inal order may be repelled by evidence o a want o "urisdiction, want o notice to the party, collusion, raud, or clear mistaFe o law or act. @nder the above !ule, a oreign "udgment or order against a person is merely presumptive evidence o a right as between the parties. It may be repelled, among others, by want o "urisdiction o the issuing authority or by want o notice to the party against whom it is en orced. &he party attacFing a oreign "udgment has the burden o overcoming the presumption o its validity. , !espondent, in assailing the validity o the "udgment sought to be en orced, contends that the service o summons is void and that the Singapore court did not ac=uire "urisdiction over it. /enerally, matters o remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service o process upon a de endant are governed by the le7 fori or the internal law o the orum,1 which in this case is the law o Singapore. 4ere, petitioner moved or leave o court to serve a copy o the Writ o Summons outside Singapore. In an Order dated December -1, )((*, the Singapore 4igh Court granted 3leave to serve a copy o the Writ o Summons on the De endant b4 a met!od of service aut!ori+ed b4 t!e la of t!e %!ilippines for service of an4 originating process issued b4 t!e %!ilippines at ground loor, %$+C 'uilding, ),9 %morsolo corner /amboa Street, )--( +aFati City,or else !ere in t!e %!ilippines.3: &his service o summons outside Singapore is in accordance with Order )), r. 16-7 o the !ules o Court )((99 o Singapore, which provides.

6-7 Where in accordance with these !ules, an originating process is to be served on a de endant in any country with respect to which there does not subsist a Civil $rocedure Convention providing or service in that country o process o the 4igh Court, the originating process may be served U a7 through the government o that country, where that government is willing to e ect serviceI b7 through a Singapore Consular authority in that country, e#cept where service through such an authority is contrary to the law o the countryI or 6A 5y ' 8%,<o) o: $%0=76% 'u,<o07P%) 5y ,<% l'> o: ,<', 6ou(,0y :o0 $%0=76% o: '(y o07;7(',7(; #0o6%$$ 7$$u%) 5y ,<', 6ou(,0y. In the $hilippines, "urisdiction over a party is ac=uired by service o summons by the sheri ,* his deputy or other proper court o icer either personally by handing a copy thereo to the de endant? or by substituted service.( In this case, the Writ o Summons issued by the Singapore 4igh Court was served upon respondent at its o ice located at +ercure 4otel 6 ormerly 0illage 4otel7, +I% !oad, $asay City. &he Sheri Ks !eturn shows that it was received on +ay -, )((? by Eoyce &. %ustria, Secretary o the /eneral +anager o respondent company. ); 'ut respondent completely ignored the summons, hence, it was declared in de ault. Considering that the Writ o Summons was served upon respondent in accordance with our !ules, "urisdiction was ac=uired by the Singapore 4igh Court over its person. Clearly, the "udgment o de ault rendered by that court against respondent is valid. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. &he challenged Decision and !esolution o the Court o %ppeals in C%./.!. S$ No. :)),1 are set aside. &he !&C, 'ranch ))*, $asay City is hereby DIRECTED to hear Civil Case No. (?. ),?( with dispatch. "O ORDERED. %uno, #., C!airperson, Corona, A+cuna, and *arcia, ##., concur.

/ort! est Orient Airlines, 0nc. v. Court of Appeals, ibid.I Asiavest ,erc!ant 8anCers 5,6 8er!ad v. Court of AppealsI supra, ootnote ). : Rollo, p. )1*. 9 &he Singapore Supreme Court o Eudicature %ct, Chapter ,--. * Section ,, !ule )1, )((* !ules o Civil $rocedure, as amended2 Sec. ,. 84 !om served. Z &he summons may be served by the sheri , his deputy, or other proper court o icer, or or "usti iable reasons by any suitable person authoriJed by the court issuing the summons. ? Section 9, ibid. Sec. 9. $ervice in person on defendant. Z Whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by handing a copy thereo to the de endant in person, or, i he re uses to receive and sign or it, by tendering it to him. ( Section *, ibid. Sec. *. $ubstituted service. Z I , or "usti iable causes, the de endant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service may be e ected 6a7 by leaving copies o the summons at the de endantKs residence with some person o suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or 6b7 by leaving the copies at de endantKs o ice or regular place o business with some competent person in charge thereo . ); Rollo, p. ?.

Foo,(o,%$ ) Asiavest ,erc!ant 8anCers 5,6 8er!ad v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. ));-9,, Euly -;, -;;), ,9) SC!% 1?(. ,i"ares v. Ranada, /.!. No. ),(,-:, %pril )-, -;;:, 1:: SC!% ,(*. , 0bid.I /ort! est Orient Airlines, 0nc. v. Court of Appeals, /.!. No. ))-:*,, 5ebruary (, )((:, -1) SC!% )(-.