You are on page 1of 63

REPUBLIC OF' THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OE" APPEAI,S


MANiLA
,-l "l

,i

Y t4il

"l

' l')

DryTSTON

fii$x"trY*sr*'#ff
- uersus -

ruffi@p&w
C.&

G,R. SP No

For:Petition fo, Certiorctri

FSO3ff.

under Rule 65

pAISIEI"

\,.

1/trLLANtIEV.A, , Fresiding
"Eudge , REGIOIIAL TR[^S,[.

COTIRT OT

ffiRANCEI 49,

MA}STLA,
.A,TTY.

D$OSDAI)O G. nfrADzuD and


PR. S/$A. R.AMCII{TA L. DEI,OS
$ANT0So

x_

Court of Appeats

lu

tlttlililitiltiiilimlriiiirfriliii1ilil

L4-9a2455-OBBl
2014-04-04
q::z,oo

til

pm

Pon ent:

!:Y':!::': .
PET'XTION F.OR CERTIORART

DE LCIS SANTOS, through the


undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
P&T'ITICINER. ER.NESTO

respectfully states that:


NATURE Or THE PryTITTON

1.

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the


\997 Rulles of Civil Procedure;

2. The instant Petition seeks the nuilification and


setting aside of the Order of the Regional Trial. Court, Branch 49
of the City of Manila dated September 25,2073, denying the
Nlotice of Appeal filed by herein petitioner Ernesto L" De Los
santos, as well as the onder dated January 24,2a14, denying
petitioner's N{otion tbr Reconsideration (of the Order dated

September 25, 2013), .for being issued with grave abuse of


diJcretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and are
contrary to law;

3.

There being no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in

the ordinary course of Iaw, petitioner now files before this


Honorable Court, this instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;

4. As required by sec 1 of Rule 65, certified

true
copiesof the Crder of the Regional Trial Court of the City of
Minila, Branch 49 dated September 25, 2013, denying the
Notice of Appeal filed by herein petitioner, as well as the Order
dated January 24, 2OL4, denying petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration (of the Order dated Septembet 25, 2013), are
hereto attached and form integral parts hereof as Annexes "A",
and66B", respectivetry;

TIMELTT{ESS OS- TI{E PETITIOST

5. On Cctober 18, 2013, petitioner received a copy of

the Crder of the Regional Triai Court of Manila, Branch 49,


which crder was alsc declaned in open court on September 25,
2013, denying the petitioner's Notice of Appeal, the dispositive
portion of the written Order dated September 25, 2013 reads as
foilows:

"In view of all the foregoing


considerations, finding that the
undated Notice of APPeal to be
defective in form and substance, the
same is hereby DENIED.

Let the records show' th{it this

Crder was promulgated in open Court.


As prayed for, AttY. Andres is
given ten (10) days f,rom today to fiie
her intended rejoinder to the reply
dated September 23, 2Ol3 which was
filed only today.

To keep track of the

Pend-ing

incidents and for further proceedings


of the case, set a hearing on October
23, 2013 at 8:30 am.
SO CRDERED."

petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration to the


above Ord.er on October 10, 2013 together with an Amended

6.

Record on ApPeal;

7. In an order dated January 24, 2014, the Regional

Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, denied the petitioner's Motion


for Reconsideration, the d.ispositive portion of the order read's
as follows:
*WI-ItrREF"CRE, considering

further that many

issues raised in this incident were adequately passed

upon in the original ruling, in the exercise of its


sound discretion, the court hereby DENiES for lack
of rnerit the said Motion for Reconsideration dated
October 10, 2013.
SO ORDERED."

8.

The above Order was received by petitioner's counsel


on February 3, 2AL4. Petitioner therefore has sixty (60) days
from the date of receipt of public respondent's order denying
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration or until April 4, 2O\4
within which to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65;

g.

Accordingly, this Petition for Certiorari is being filed


within the reglementary period, in iine with the first paragraph
of sec. 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. Nc. O7*-7-12-SC
which took effect on December 27, 2OO7, to wit:

The petition shall be filed not later than sixty

(60) days from notice of the judgment, order or


resolution. In cr.se s motion for reconsideration or neLU
triat is timely fited, whether such motion is required or
not, the pefirton s

dou" *unt.d

frP

mo,tion. (Itatics and {Jnderscoing Supplied)

ATTAC}TMENTS

As required by sec 1. paragraph 2 of Rule 65, this


petition is accompanied by certified true copies of the judgment,
order or resolution subject thereof, legible copies of all
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto and all
are hereto attached as follows:

10.

Certified True CoPY of the Order of


the Public ResPondent dated
Septernber 25, 2013
Certified True CoPY of the Order of

ANNEX'3A"

dated

ANIIEX *8"

Urgent Motion for Assistance filed


by the Petitioner on SePtember 06,

ILNNEX O'C"

the Pub1ic resPondent

January 24,24L4

201_ 1

Opposition to the Motion for


reconsideration fiied bY the
Petitioner dated SePtember 06,
20lL

ANT{EX

66D'7

Manifestation with

Omnibus
Motion to Resolve Urgent Motion for

Assistance and to Cite Adverse


Parties and Counsels in ContemPt
of Court filed before the respondent

ANNEX

*8"

nnlrrf nn N/lareh 7. 2Ol2

Manifestation filed by the Petitioner


on June 28,2012 informing the
Court that the estate of the testator
is in state of neglect an4l prlveslq

ANNEX 6'F''

Reply fiied by the Petitioner dated


Mav 17, 2OL2

ANNEX 6'G"

Order of the Public ResPondent

dated October 25,2012, denYing


Petitioner's Motion to call AttY.

ANNEX

66H,,

Madrid as Hostile witness

Urgent Omnibus Motion for


Reconsideration, Inhibition and
Deferment of the Resolution of
Motion for Reconsideration and all
other proceedirrgs dated November
5.2A72

ANNEX

*["

ANNEX

*J"

Order of the Public ResPondent

dated November 22, 2012 declaring


that the petitioner is considered to
have rested their case

Petitioner's

Motion

for

Reconsideration of the Order dated


Novernb er 22, 2otr 2

ANNEX ffK''

Certified True Copy of the Order of

the Pubtic ResPondent dated


December 27, 2An aPProving the

A$NEX'6L"

allowance of the Will

Petitioner's

Motion

for

Reconsideration of the Order dated


December 27 . 2Ol2

ANNEX

'6ryX''

Order of the Public ResPondent

dated March LL, 2013, denYing the


for
Petitioner's Motion
Reconsideration of the Order dated
Decemb er 27 . 2012

Notice of Appeal filed bY the


Petitioner and the Official Receipt
showins payment of Dockql

F99-

Order of the Public ResPondent

dated September 25, 2013, denYing


the Petitioner's Notice of APPeaI

Petitioner's

Motion

ANNEX "N"

ANNEX ('O,,

ATiTTIEX

*P'

for
Reconsideration of the Order dated
Sentember 25.2013

ANNEX

Copy of the Amended Record on

ANNEN'OET"

Appeai

Order of the Public

ReSPq4Qgg!

ANNEX

66Q?',

*S'
5

dated January 24, 2014, denYing


the Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order dated
Ser:tember 25.2013
TSN, October 2,20L2
Record on A

Motion f,or extension of Time to file


Record on Appeai

TI{E PARTIES

11. PCtitiONCr AT"rY. ERNESTO L. DE LOS SANTOS

iS

one of the compulsory heirs of the late Virgilio De Los Santos


with postal address at 108 Cenacle Drive Sanville, Tandang
Sora, Quezon City. He may be served with notices, orders and
other processes of this Honorable Court through the
undersigned counsel;

Public respondent Judge Daniel C. Villanueva is the


Presiding Judge of Bran ch 49, Regional Trial Court of Manila
and hoids office at the Manila City HaIi;

12.

MADRID is of
tegal dge, and with address 5-305 Delta Bldg., corner West and
Quezon Avenues, Diliman, Quezon City.

13. Private respondent Atty. DIOSDADC

t4.

Private respondent

Dr. Ma. Ramona L.

Delos

Santos is of legal &B, a resident of No. 696 Gastambide St',


Sarnpaloc, Manila.

STATEMENT OLTHE CASE

On February 6, 2008, private respondent filed a


PETITICN to Approve the Will of Dr. Virgilio D. delos Santos.
The case was rafned to public respondent Branch 49, Regional
Triat Court of Manila and docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 0B-

15.

11871,9.

On February l-2, 2008, finding the petition sufficient in


form and substance, public respondent issued its ORDER
setting the petition for hearing on June 20 , 2OO8.

16.

. Cn June 20, 2008, petitioner with his sister

Dr.
Cynthia L. Delos Santos-Chan filed their Manifestation and
Mction manifesting their opposition to the petition on grounds
provided for under Article 839 of the Civil Code of the
irtritippines and prayed that they be given a period of sixty (60)
days within t rhich to file their written Opposition to the
Nlowance of the wiil.

LT

18. On August 19, 2008, peti.tioner filed


to the Fetition .

the cpposition

19. Cn September I, 2008, private respondent filed his


Reply (Re: Opposition dated 15 August 2008) .

20. Cn October 2, 2A08, petitioner filed a Rejoinder (to


the Reply of Petitioner to the opposition for Allowance of wiil).

. in the ord"er dated June 3, 2AO9 issued by the


Honorable Acting Presiding Judge William Simon Peralta
Atty" Aquino manifested , after presenting two (2) witnesses,
nns. Rosalinda Villegas (on direct examination only) and
2l

Electa Dacuan Arevalo (while on direct examination), that


the Fre-trial Conference has not yet been conducted. The
trial was suspended and Pre-trial was set on June L7 , 2OO9 '
22. Cn,June 15, 2009, private respondent filed his PreTrial Brief dated .Iune L2, 2049.
23. On Juiy 29,
dated Jutry 27 , 2A49.

2OO9

, petitioner filed the Pre-Trial Brief

24. During the hearing on october 19, 2oo9, Pairing


Judge William Simon Peraita issued the PRE-TRIAL
CRDER.

25. Cn March 4, 2010, private respondent filed his


Formal Offer of Evidence after having presented Electa

Dacuan Arevalo on direct and cross-examination and Atty'


Diosdado G. Madrid (private respondent) , on direct
examination on February 15, 2010, in Compliance with the
directive of the Court during the hearing on March 1, 2OlO
where Atty. Falabrica's motion to have it postponed was
denied and the petitioner directed to "ptlt in writing the
evidence of the petitioner".

26. On July 5, 2010, Acting Presiding Judge william


Simon Peralta issued" the Order relative to the additional
exhibits for the private respondent marked while he was on
cross-examination by counsel of the former.

. On September 20, 2OlO, Acting Presiding Judge


William Simon Peralta issued the Order where the cross27

examination of the private respondent was terminated and his


counsel manifested his intention to file a Supplemental Offer of
Exhibits .

filed a Motion for


Appointment of Atty. Ernesto delos Santos as Special
28. Cn February 24, 2011, petitioner

Administrator

29. on March 7 , ZALL, private respondent fiied his

Opposition ( to the Motion for Appointment of Atty.. Ernesto


nelos Santos as Special Administrator ) dated February
201

L.

4,

1.

30. cn June 1, 2011, Acting Presiding Judge virgilio

IViacaraig issued the ORDER relative to the termination of the


direct teitimony of witness for the petitioner, Dean Joe Santos
Bisquera .

1, Acting Presiding Judge virgilio


Macaraig issued the ORDER appointing as special j91nt
adrninistrators Atty. Ernesto L. delos Santos and Dr. Ma.
31. On July 8,

201

Ramona L. clelos Santos [hereafter Dr. Ma. Ramona] ( youngest


chitrd of the deceased Dr. Virgilio Delos Santos)

g2. on August 5, 2011, in her Manifestation , Dr. Ma.


Ramona accepied her appointment as Special Administrator

that her brother'


In the same manifestation she declared
appointed as special
herein petitioner who was likewise
administrator is not qualified'

(of the
33. Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration

Cr:der dated JulY 8, 201 1)'

34. Dr. Ma. Ramona filed her comment to petitioner's


of the
Motion for Reconsideration and sought the withdrawal
appointment of her co-administrator, herein petitioner
.

35. On september 6, 20 1 1 , petitioner filed an Urgent


the
Motion for Assistance and manifeJted his posting of
Special Administrator's Bond'

filed an opposition
36. On Septemb
-for et 7, 2011, petitioner
Reconsideration to private _respondent's
to the Motion
Motion for Reconsideration of the order dated July B, 2OLl
appointing the joint special administrators'
37 . Petitioner filed a Manifestation dated Septemb

201

et

14,

i.

33.onSeptember20,2oLLActingPresidingJudge
Virgilio V. Macaiaig issued the Order taking note the
Manifestation filed by petitioner

'

Sg.onoctober|7,2011,Df.Ma.Ramonafiledher
Atty'
Opposition with Motion to Expunge (R-E: Oppositor-Heir 06
Ernesto delos Santos ' Urgent- Moiion for Assistance dated
September 2011).
4A

. On october 1 8, 20 I I , private

respondent filed a

Comment (Re: Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration


6,
and urgent Motion for Assistance both dated september
2011).

on october 24, 201 1, Dr. Ma. Ramona filed a Motion


Santos as
To Remove and Disqualify Atty. Ernesto LL. Delos
41.

Special

or Regular Joint Administrator

Ramona filed her


Addendum (Re: Motion to Remove and Disqualify Atty' Ernesto
delos Santos as Special or Regular Joint Administrator'

42. On December 8,

201

1, Dr'

4S.DuringthehearingonDecemberB,20llwhichwas
of the cross-examination of Dean
set for the
"orrtirr.ration
date,
Bisquera, all pending incidents were discussed. On said

Atty. Elizabeth A. Andres manifested her recent engagement as


counsel for petitioner and DR. CHAN. Over the objection of
counsel for private respondent and Dr. Ramona, petitioner's
counsel was granted time to comment on the pending incidents.

44. Private respondent filed his Counter-Manifestation


relative to the Secretary's
d ated December 19 , 2 0 I 1
Certificate petitioner attached to his Comment.

45. On January L7, 2AL2, petiflioner filed

his
Consolidated Opposition (To the Motion to Expunge and Motion
to Remove and Disqualify) dated January 13, 2012.

!4, 2012, Dr. Ma. Ramona filed her


Reply (re: Oppositor-Heir Atty. Ernesto delos Santos
Consolidated Opposition dated January 13 , 2Ol2 ) dated
46. On February

February 8, 24L2.

47. Petitioner filed his Manifestation (Re: Motion to


trxpunge and Motion to Rernove and Disqualify) with Cmnibus

Motion

L. To resolve the Urgent Motion for Assistance dated


Septennber 6,2}ll and.2. To cite adverse parties and counsel
in Contempt of Court dated February 2, 2OL2 .

48. Petitioner filed his Rejoinder (to the RepLy dated

February 8,20L2) dated February 23,2012"

49. Dr. Ma. Ramona filed her Counter-Manifestation with


Opposition (Re: Cppositor-Heir Atty. Ernesto delos Santos'
Manifestation with Motion ) dated April 73,2OL2 '

50. Private Respondent's Comment (RE: Oppositor-Heirs


Motion to Cite Adverse Parties in Contempt of Court ) with
Manifestation dated May 16, 2012 was filed.
S1. Petitioner filed his Reply (to' Coirnter-Manifestation
with opposition dated April t3, 2OL2\ dated April 1,3, 2012.
52. Cn May 29, 20L2, public respondent issued the
ORDtrR dated May 29, zAn where the testimony of witness
Dean tsisquera was terminated and Atty. Aquino was given
period to file his Amended Formal Offer of Evidence.
53. Petitioner filed his Manifestation (RE: Urgent Motion
for Assistance dated Septemb er 6, 201 1) dated June L4, 2OL2.

10

of Documentary Exhibits dated


May 6, 2A12, together with the exhibits of the private
54. The Formal Offer

respondent was filed.

55. gn Jrrly 11, 2OL2, petitioner and Dr. Ramona were


each given a period of ten ( 10) days within which to file their
Comments and/ or Opposition" to the Formal OfIer of
Documentary Exhibits of private respondent.

56. Dr, Ma. Corazon Ramona delos Santos filed her


CCMMENT (Re: Fetitioner's Formal Offer of documentary

Exhibits dated 06 May 2OI2) on private respondent's Formal


Offer of Documentary Exhibits
.

57. The Counter-Manifestation (Re: Oppositor Heir Atty.


Ernesto Delos Santos' Manifestation dated June 14, 2OI2)
dated August 14,2CI12 of Dr. Ramona was filed.
58. Petitioner filed his MOTICN TO ADMIT (Comrnent on
Petitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence ) dated August 28,2412
.

59. On August 28, 2012, petitioner filed a Comment on


the Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits dated August 28,
2012.

petitioner's clirect examination was


conclucled. Cn October 1.0, 2012, he was cross-examined by Atty.
60. On September 1.3, 7A12,

Carullo, counsel

for Dr. Ramona

61; On October 1,0,2012, tl'r- cross-examination of

petitioner by

Atty. Aquino, counsel for private respondent, was concluded.


52. On Cctober 25,2A12, the intended witness of petitioner 1n

the person of Delilah Daguinsin was not presented. His motion to


present petitioner as their hostile witness was denied.

63. On November 8, 2012, petitioner fiIed an URGENT


OMNIBUS MOTION L. For Reconsideration 2. For Inhibition 3. To
Defer Resolution of the instant Motion for Reconsideration Pending
Resolution of the Instant Motion for Inhibition and All Other
Proceedings in This Case dated November 5, 2A12.

A lrlotice of Withdrawal of the law firm

Atienza Madrid
and Formento as counsel for Petitioner dated November 19,2012was
filed.
64.

11

55. Dr. Ma. Corazon Rarnona filed her oFFER OF EVIDENCE


dated November 27, 2012 .

66. Private respondent filecl his COMMENT

(Rtr:

Oppositor-Heirs Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 05 November


2CI12 ) dated November 20,2Ol2-

likewise filed her


Ramona
COMMEI\T/ OPPOSITION (Re: Oppositor-Heirs' Urgent Omnibus
Motion) datecl November 21,2012"
Dr.

57.

68. During the hearing on November 22, 2AL2, public

respondent asked Atty. Luis, counsel for petitioner "to rest her
cr,si since she has no more witness to present". For failure to
pnesent their witness, they "were deemed to have waived their
iigt t to present further evidence and are considered to have
rested their case. Counsel was given fifteen (15) days to file her
Reply to the comments filed by both the private respondent and
Dr. Ramona In the same order, public respondent declared
that the "matter of the probate of the will as well as al1 other
pending incidents" are alL deemed submitted for resolution. Cn
b*c"*bet 5, 2012, petitioner received copy of the ORDER
dated November 22, 2AI2.
69. Petitioner filed their Motion
Orcler dated November 22, 2AI2).

for

Reconsideration

(Re:

70. on December 2L, 20L2, petitioner

received
Supplernental Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence dated
IVovernber 29, 2072 filed by private respondent.

L. Cn December 13, 2OL2 , petitioner received

the
ORDtrR of the Court dated Decemb er 4, 2Ol2 giving them ten
(10) days to file their Comment on Dr. Ramona's Cffer of
Evidence
7

72

On January g , 2012, petitioner received the

ORDER of the Count dated Decemb er 27 , 20L3

73. On January 22,2013, petitioner filed a- MoTIcN


FOR RECCNSIDERATION (Re: Order dated December 27,
2A12).
'74, On F'ebruary 3, 2013, petitioner received the order of
January 24, 2A13 issued by public respondent giving private

respondent and Dr. Ramona ten (10) days from notice to file

12

their cornment and/ or responsive pleading on petitioner's


Motion for Reconsideration

75. Dr. Rarnona's Opposition and/or Comment


February 7 , 2Ol3 was fiLed.

dated

76. On February 27, 2013, public respondent issued its


ORDtrR setting a hearing on April 24, 20L3.

On March 25, 2013, petitioner received the ORDER


dated March 1tr, 20L3 den5ring the Motion for
77.

Reconsideration.

B. On April 3,

13, petitioner filed the NOTICE OF


APPEAL, rnanifesting therein palrment of the Appeal Bond.
7

20

Cn same date, a MOTION was filed seeking additional period


within which to file the Record on Appeal, setting the sarne for
iaearing on April 8, 2013 at 8:30 o'cLock in the morning .

79. Cn April L2, 2A13, the RECORD ON APPEAL dated


Aprin 10, 2013 , was filed, setting the same for consideration
arrd approval on April 24,2A13 at B;30 o'clock in the morning.
80. Cn Apritr B, 2013, petitioner's counsel went to Court
to attend the hearing on the Motion (for Additional time to file
the Record on Appeal) filed earlier, the case was not
calendared for hearing. She found attached to the record
Letters Testamentary & Administration issued in favor of
private respondent and his OATH as administrator of the
estate of the deceased Dr. Virgilio D. Delos Santos both dated
March 19, 2013
"

81. On April 24, 2013, petitioner received Dr. Ramona's


URGENT trX-FARTtr MOTICN FOR trXTENSIOI{ OF TIME TO
FILtr COMMENT/OBJECTIOI\S ( Re: Oppositor-Heir's Record
on Appeal dated 10 April 2013)
82" Cn May 6, 2013, petitioner's counsel was personally
served by a Court personnei a copy of the unsigned CRDtrR
of the Court dated May 3, 2013 setting a hearing on May 29,
2013 at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. This to take up the
Notice of Appeai and Record on Appeal both filed on April 3,
2013 and for further proceedings, if necessary.

83. Petitioner in his Motion prayed to have the hearing


set on May 29, 2013 reset to another date, preferably June
26,20L3.
13

84. Dr. Ramona's Opposittonf Ohjection (Re: Oppositor-

Heirs' Record on Appeal) was received by petitioner.

85. On July 6,
respondent Comment
Record on Appeal)

2OL3

, petitioner received private

and/or Opposition (Re: Oppositor-Heirs'

86. On September 25, 20 13, in open court, public


respondent issued the ORDER denying the Notice of Appeal
lor being defective in form and substance.

87. On October 10, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion for


Reconsideration of the said Order.

88. On November L4, 2O!3, petitioner received the


Order dated October 25, 2013 issued by public respondent

giving private respondent and Dr. Ramona a period of ten (10)


days from notice to file their Comment, if any there be, to
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

89. On November 25,2013, Dr. Ramona filed an Bx-Parte


Motion for Extension of Time To File Comment and/ or
Cpposition on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. On
December 9, 2013, a Second Ex-Parte Motion for Extension
was received.

90. cn December

27

, 2013, petitioner received public

respondent's Order dated November 13, 2013 where as prayed


for Atty. Aquino and Atty. Carullo were given ten (10) days to
file their Comment on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
However, petitioner has as yet to receive copy of the said
Comment.

91. On February 3, 2At4 , petitioner received the Crder


dated January 24, 2Ol4 of the public re-spondent denying
petitioner's Motion lot Reconsideration dated October 1 0,
20 13.

STATEMENT CIF TTTE rACTS

parents, Dr. virgilio de Los santos and


Cordella L1amas were married on Febru&rY, 1948. They were
blessed wj.th three (3) chiidren, the eldest and the only son,
herein petitioner Atty. Ernesto De Los Santos, followed by

92, Petitioner's

14

Cynthia De Los Santos-Chan and the youngest, Dra. Ramona


Corazon de Los Santos;

93. To give a brief backgrouud of what transpired within


the family, the opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration
dated September 06 , 20 17 filed by the petitioner before the
respondent court, hereto attached as Annex ttD",
quoted for easy reference, thus:

is hereby

"7. As attested by Atty. Ernesto De


Ios Santos in his AJfidauit attached as
Annex o47" in the Rejoinder'filed before
the Honorable Court, spouses Virgilio
De .Los Santos arud Cordelia De Los

Sanlos had a. harmonious maital

relationship free from strife prior to their


association with Emily de Leon.
Hctures showing a happy family were
euen attached. In other utords, before
tLrcA met Emily De Leort, the spouses De
Ios Santos tmd a btissful relationship
and had a family enuironment of an

unrufJled. ca.lmness

that uerges

om

peace;

B.

ControuersA and. squabbles


arose thereafier, as attested by AttA.
Ernesto De Los Santos in his complaint
for Graue Orq.l Defamation and Sertous
Slander by Deed, hereto attached as
Arlnex "1tt, tlrus;
u22.

Emily De Leon met mg family

when she was hired bg the Uniuersity

of Manita as records clerk at the


Department of School Records. She
stayed as Records Clerk for quite
sometime until she became the
t-Iniuersitg Teacher handling Math and
Statistics Subjects. She utas thereafier

promoted as the Administratiue Afficer


under the Office of the Chairman where
my fathe5 Virgilio De Los Santos was
then the tJniuersity President and wz.s
15

sirrutltoneously Lwlding the position of


the Chairmsn of the Board of Trustees.
Xru mo time, Emilg De Leon became the

[Jniuersity's Vice President for

Academic Affairs;

23. During such ttme, Emity De


Leon freEtently uisils the conjugal
dtuelling of mA parents at No. 27 Scout
Santiago Sf., Quezon City where she
interferes in the care of mA father qn d
in the management of the affairs of the

household. She also

father in
and business tips abroad;
accompanies mg

freqwently

his personal

24. Disputes arud bickerings ocanpied


mA famity at the titne, hence, mA
mother found no other choice but to

leaue the unertdurable sifitation qt their


conjugal duellinE and was compelled to
stay in Baguio where she euenhtallg
died of an illness orl Julg 22, 2006.
CrpA af lrcr death Certificate is hereto
attached as Annex "C"

25.

Immediatelg after the death


of mg mother and much to our surprise,
mg father surprisingly relinquished his
post Gs President and cantsed the
election of Emily De Leon as the rlaw
UrtiuersitE President. CopA of the
{Jniuersity Of Manila's Minutes of the
Board of Trustees Meeting attestirtE to
-as
Annex
this fact i.s hereto attached
."Dtt;

26. Emitg De Leon extremely


enjoyed the positton of being the
{Jniuersitg President. In fact, sometime
October, 2006, during the lifetime of my
father, the Uniuersity of Manita fitEd an
Amended Bg-Laws before tLw Secuities
and Exchange Commission (SEC fw

breuity) seeking to ertend the term af


the Uniuersity President frorru one {1)
16

Aear term to a fiue (5) Aear term but

was fortunatelg denied bY the SEC.


CrpA of the Amended Bg-Laws fiIed
before the SEC is hereto attached as

Anrtex "8";

27.

As announced bY

Atta.
Madrid, tlw corporate secretary of the
Board of Trustees, during the Board of
Trustees' Regalar Meeting, the denial
was due the fact that the Fiue (5) gear
term applies only to non-stock
corporations and not to stock

corporations like the Uniuersitg of


Manila. A copy of the Board of Trustees
Minutes of the Meeting dated MaA 78,

L declaing the reason for

such
denial is hereto attached as Annex "F";

201

28. During the last few gears of


my father's enduring liuing and until
his last few months of him clinging to

lik,

endless controuersy,

feud,

squabble amongst our familg members


erose;

29. Sometime, January, 2008,


afier arriuing from Hongkong with mY
fathe4 Emilg De Leon brougttt, mA
father to the Asian Hospital due to
breathing dffict"tltg without euerl
informirug me. Fortunatdl.g, it was mA

father's birthday on January 15, 2O0B


so I tried to locate his whereabouts.
{-Ipon inquiries, I learned that my father
was then confined in a hospitdl;

30.

I called up EmilA De Leon to

inquire about my father's whereabouts


but she refused to disclose saying that
my father tuished not to see me nor anA
of our fam.ilg members. Angway,
according to her, mg father is uery fine

and uery well taken cared of. So I

instructed Delilah Daguinsin

to

immediately inquire from different


hospitals in Metro Manila where LUe
t7

finatly discouered tLlat mg father was

then confined in the Intensiue Care Unit


of the Asian f{osPital;

.I

immediatelY called uP mA
slsfer Cyruthia De Los Sonfos Chan irt
the United States who rushed her utay
31"

from tlS to Manila, Whem I and rnY


sister CgntF,;ia fre bs Soretos Ch,o,n
went to see sur qiling father in his
d.esth bed iwside the Intensiue Csre
tlnit, we were prevented, casted o;nd
driaerz out bg E;milg De Leon amd bg
vwry sfsfen Rccrmona De .[,os Scuntos.
Sougls after suefu uisit, ffig fatfrwr
died. A copy of the Affidauit executed
by mA sis/er attesting to this fact is
lwreto ettached

a.s

Annex "G";

As above stated, petitionei''s father died at the Asian


F{ospital and Medical center. TWo weeks after such death or on
February 6,2OO8, private respondent, Atty. DiosdadoG' Madrid,
the person named as executor in the alleged holographic will of
deceased Dr. Virgilio De Los Santos filed a Petition for probate;

94.

Surprised with the contents of the holographic wiltr,


herein petitioner and his sister cynthia De Los santos chan
file,C an opposition to the petition and hearing on the allowance
of the wiltr before the respondent court ensued;

95.

Ttre former presiding Judge of the respondent court


appointeci the cornpulsory heirs, petitioner Atty. Ernesto De Los
Slntos and Dra. Ramona De Los Santos as joint speciai
administrator of their father's estate in'an Order dated July 08,

96"

241,1;

97. By reason of such appointment as joint

ad.ministrator, petitioner Atty. Ernesto De Los Santos took his


oath and posted a special administrator's bond required by the
court;

98. In the performance of petitioner's function as coadrninistrator of his father's estate and as a university
stocklaolder, petitioner repeatedly requested not only from the
University president, Emily De Leon but also from the
18

university's external accounting firm, Banaria and Banaria the


pertinent estate documents and university financial documents
but his repeated requests fe1l on deaf ears;

99.

Hence, on September 06, 20 1 1 , petitioner filed an


[trrgemt Wlotion for Assistance before the respondent court
explicitly showing among others,the orchestrated dissipation of
tlre estate assets, multi million pesos of unauthorized universitl,
expenses, measly sums rernaining in the university bank
accourrts, the fraud committed by Atty. Madrid, and the
difticunty of the petitioner in the exercise of his function as the
estate's co-administrator. Copy of the Urgent Motion for
Assistance is hereto attached as Amnex ntC";
100. After the filing of such Urgent Motion for Assistance,
Dr. Ramona De Los Santos, Emily De Leon and their cohorts,
immediately conceived schemes to put herein petitioner behind
bars and they succeeded. Details are discussed in the Reply
dated May L7, 201,2, hereto attached as Annex "G", filed before
the respondent celurt, thus:
"7

.I.It is worth noting

that

immediately right after the filing of


Oppositor-heir's Urgent Motion for
Assistance on September 6, 2AII ,
the 'other parties were agitated, went
into panic and steamrolled their
obnoxious railroading efforts to put
herein Oppositor-heir behind bars.

Thus, the Resolution on Review


dated September 23, 20 1 1 I was
hastily rendered in no time . by
Assistant City Prosecutor Rolando

Vergara reversing the Resolution of


Prosecutor
Investigating
I\enitaOpiana finding' n<i probable
cause against Atty. Ernesto De Los
Santos in the Qualified Theft case
filed by the adverse parties herein;

7.ZIn fact, the Oppositor-heir (atty.

Ernesto De Los Santos)

was

orchestratecl to be arrested pursuant


to the said Resolution on Review and
Information issued in connection
therewith even before said contested
i

See Arr:lex "F", ConsoUdated

Opposition f,led Januarjr 78,2012.

l9

Review
September 23, 2OlL

Resolution on

dated
was
prornulgated by the Office_of the City
Prosecutor of Baguio CitY;2

.I.

True to form and

in

furtherance of their sinister plot to


oust Oppositor-heir as CourtJoint
Special
appointed
Administrator, the herein subject
motions were filed after such arrest
0n the common ground that
Oppositor-heir being criminally
charged and incarcerated, his
appointment as SPecial Joint

Administrator has been rendered

impossible where OPPositor-heir


allegedly lacks integrity, incapable

and/ or has becorne unfit and


incompetent to discharge the duties
of his appointment as Special Joint
Administrator;

Of late in fact, the adverse


parties and their cohorts also filed a
disbarment case against Atty. De Los
Santos', a coPY of CBD Case IVo. 11-7

.2.

3107, entitled *Julieuhgn

R.

Quindoza us. AttA. Ernesto De los


Santos" is hereto attached as Annex

4 A)r.

-t1

.3.

In

fact, De

Leon's
continuous and never failing desire
to harass not onlY AttY. De Los
7

Santos but also all' th-e PeoPle


around. him is shown bY De Leon's

complaint against Fe

Delilah
Daguinsin for Grave Oral
Defamation, docketed as /.S. /[o, X7OS -INV- 1 1-L0734 1 before the Office
of the City Frosecutor, Quezon City.
A copy of the comPlaint is hereto
attached as Annex "8";

2.A::rtexes

"J' artd "I", respectively, ibid.

20

.4. One of De Leon's cohorts in


the name of JuliewhynQuindoza,
7

similarly filed a baseLess complaint


against Atty. Judith Z. Luis for
Falsification of Public Document,

docketed as IIPS DOCKET No. INV12-0272, with the Office of the City
Prosecutor, Baguio City. A copy of
the complaint is hereto attached as
Annex "C";
7

.5.

The same Juliewh5.n R.

Quindoza likewise filed a disbarment


case against Atty. De Los Santos and
his former counsel before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline Pasig
City docketed therein as CBD Case
IVo. 11-3166, entitled "Juliewhyn R.
Quindoza r;s. Atty. Ernesto De Los

Santos and AttA. Manlita

S.

Palabica" A copy of the complaint is


hereto attached as Annex "D";

.6. Another employee of Emily


De Leon in the name of
Policarpiolacsa, also filed a
7

disbarment case against Atty. De Los


Santos and his former counsel
before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Commission on Bar
Discipline Pasig City docketed
therein as CBD Ca"se /[o. I 1-S 7 67,
erutitled "Policorpio Lacsa us. AttU.
Ernesto De .Los Sanfos and Atty.
Marujita S. Palabrica"" A c<ipy of the

complaint

is hereto attached as

Annex "E";

7.7.

In the

same vein, De Leon


also filed a complaint for Acts of
Lasciviousness/Unjust Vexation on
March 5, 2An against Atty.
Rhoderick Paz Caraig, the Associate
lawyer of Atty. Judith Zarraga Luis,
docketed with the Office of the City

Prosecutcr, Baguio City as/[PS

21

DOCKET No. INV-12-O526. Copy of

the complaint is hereto attached as


Anngx

*E'ltt 'tt

101. As above stated, the adverse parties utilized those


cases to file a Motion before the respondent court to remove
herein petitioner as a special joint administrator. By way of
opposition to such motion, petitioner filed his Opposition hereto
attached as Annex ttD", where the petitioner even recounted
before the respondent court all other harassnnent cases
excluded by the adverse party, thus:
"

18. Fetitioner alleged cases

against Ernesto De Los Santos for


Falsification of Public Document with
docket No. IS 08-J-8894 filed with the

Department of Justice, Qualified

Theft filed before the City of


Prosecutor's Office in Baguio and a
Disbarment case;

19. The enumeration of the


petitioner of the cases filed against
Ernesto De Los Santos is not only
ineomplete and selective but is
likewise deeeiving. Worthy of note,

however, is the fact that all these


cases were filed against Atty. Ernesto
De Los Santos after he registered his
opposition to the probate of the will. of
his father, Virgilio De Los Santos;

20. To complete petitioner's list,

it is worthwhile to note thaf sometime


October, 2008, Emily de Leon, filed a
case before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manila for trstafa
docketed under case no. 08J- 17 402
against Ernesto De Los Santos. Copy
of the complaint is hereto attached as
Annex " 15";
2 1.

Said complaint alleged that

several payroll checks have been


issued in favor of Mr. Gunnawa, the
22

previous empioyee of the University of


Manila but was deposited to the
personal account of herein
complainant. Emily De Leon further
added that Mr. Gunnawa is a ghost
employee;

22.In a resolution

dated
September 11, 2009, hereto attached
asAnnex " L6" , the Investigating

that after a
judicious review of the evidence
submitted there was no probable
cause to indict herein complainant
Prosecutor declared

with the offense charged;

The investigating prosecutor


ratiocinated that the cornplaint failed
23.

to

establish that

respondent
misappropriated the amounts covered
by the Metrobank checks and further
declared that in a Certification issued
by the Metrobank, it was certified

that the subject checks were


deposited not to the account of
Ennesto De Los Santos but to the
Account of the University of Manila;

As declared by
investigating Prosecutor,

the
the
certification issued by lVletrobank was
corroborated by Mr. Gunnawa himself
who declared that he does not have
any bank account and by reason of
such fact, he usually requests herein
complainant to encash his checks
which are eventually deposited to the
bank account of the University of
Maniia;
24.

25.In her persistent effort to


harass, on the following year
sometime March, 2A09, Emily De
Leon again filed a case for Estafa
before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manitra docketed as case
ltlo.
xv-07-rNV-09-c -02363
Z)

reiterating her aLlegations involving


the checks representing the saIary of
Mr. Gunnawa but this time banking
on diff,erent set of eheck nurmbers.

Copy of the complaint is hereto

attached as Annex " L7";

Emily De Leon again aileged


that checks issued to Mr. Gunnawa,
26.

the previous employee of

the

Universi.ty of Manila, by way of sa1ary

to

Twelve Thousand Pesos


(php 1 2,000.00)
were actually

totaling

deposited under

the account

of

Ernesto De Leon;

27.In a resolution dated October


L4, 2AO9, hereto attached as Annex
" 18" , the Assistant City Prosecutor
concluded that the elements of Estafa
are wanting ratiocinatirtg, thus:

"Mr. Gunnawa himself has

attested that plkhe actually received


all amounts indicated in the six (6)
checks subject of this case, which

represent his monthly salaries as


utility personnel. By practice, his pay
checks are encashed by his superiors
or at the Office where he is assigned.
Then the checks are deposited back
to the accounts of either UM cr
whomever had encashed it. This
practice is confirmed by Mrs. Belano,
one of the complainant's supposed
witness, when she states uirder oath
that: (Mr. Gunnawa's) payroll is being

the Accounting
Department of the University of

processed by

lManila through checks encashed


through the Benguet Pines Tourist

Inn Collection/Cashier department


which. is owned by the University".

This explains why the subject checks


do not actually bear the endorsement
of respondent quite contrary to the
allegations in the complaint"
Z+

It is worth noting that as


declared under paragraph 3 and
28.

paragraph 8 of the first and second


complaints for Estafa, Mr. Gunnawa

was no longer employed in

the
University of Manila at the time of the
filing of the above mentioned
cornplaints. Emily De Leon therefore
was quite certain that Ernesto De Los
Santos would experience extreme
difficulty defending himself because
there would be a rrery slim probability
that he could locate Mr. Gunnawa to
attest to the untruthfutrness of Emily
De l,eon's allegations;
29.Tn fact, the entire members of

the Board of Trustees u,'ith Atty.


Madrid as the proponent had the

temerity to authorize the fitring of


these cases and even utilize the
finances of the Universit5,- despite

Ernesto De

Santos'
explanation/ objection and despite
their fuIl knowledge that said measly
sums representing the salary of Mr.
Gunawa were being deposited to the
University's bank account, Copy . of
the Minutes of the Board of Trustees
Los

Regular Meeting on June

17

2OA9

attesting to this fact is hereto


attached as Annex "19";

30. On or about the same time

of the filing of the above mentioned

complaints for Estafa, trmil;' De Leon


also filed a case for Falsification of
Pubtric Document before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Manila but was
however dismissed for iack of
jurisdiction. Copy of the resolution
dated October , 29, 2008 is hereto
attached as Annex "20";
25

Thus, she again filed the


same case for Falsification of Public
Document irt Makati docketed under
IS NO.08-J-8894. Being obviouslY
bereft of any rnerit, the case was
dismissed not for insufficiency of
31.

evidence but for LACK

OF
PROBABLE C.A,USE. Copy of the
resolution dated July 23,2OO9 is
hereto attached as Annex"2l";

Unsatisfied with

such
dismissal of the complaint, she filed a
Petition for Review before the
Department of Justice questioning
such dismissal. As expected. the
Department of Justice in a Resolution
dated March 25, 2OlO again
dismissed the Petition declaring that
the element of the offense charged is
wanting in the case. Copy of the
resolution of Dismissal is hereto
attachecl as Annex "22" ;
32.

Again undaunted witkr the


dismissal by the Department of
Justice, petitioner filed a Motion for
33.

such
Department's Order of dismissal.
Surprisingly and for no apParent
Reconsideration

from

cogent reason, that


Departrnentreversed its

saure

own
inscantly
and
resolution
recornmended the filing of the

for Falsification before


the Court. This resolution was
mentioned in the Petitioner's
Information

Manifestation filed before this Court


last August 5, 2olli
34. Most recently, EmilY De Leon
also filed a case for Qualified Theft
against Atty. Ernesto De Los Santos
attributing acts of theft of water and
electricity of Benguet Pines Tourist
Inn which is owned by his iamily
against him for a huge amount of
26

Pesos
Million
(php3,000,000.00) making it a nonbailable offense. tseing bereft of any
legal nor factual basis, the Honorable
Fiscal NenitaOrpiana of Baguio City
stood on the ground of truth, served
justice on the basis of clear and
convincing evidence on records and
rendered a Resolution dismissing the
complaint. A copy of the Resolution

Three

d.ated

July 29, 2Afi is

hereto

attached as Annex"23";

Not yet satisfied, a case for


Disbarment pregnant with lies and
35.

fabricated facts was also recently filed


by Juliewhyne R. Quindoza, a person
unCer the power of herein
complainant by reason of monetary
allowance being received monthly by
Ms. Quindoza from the University of
Manila;

36.Emi1y De Leon utilizing her

authority and influence over the

Board of Trustees of the University of


Manil"a and again as Atty. Madrid as
the project proponent, caused the

posting of

tarpaulin

Posters

measuring about four (4) meters bY


six (6) rneters showing the pictures of

Atty. Ernesto De Leon's three

.(3)

children, Fe Detilah Daguinsin and


Atty. Marujita Palabrica at different
outside
conspicuous places in and
the University premises depicting
them as trouble makers. Pictures of
the posted tarpaulins and their

respective locations are hereto


attached as Annexes "24' to "24-F"

37. Emily De Leon had mastered

the art of controlling, manipulating,


subduing the will of the people under
her power. In fact, even mY Youngest

sister Ramona De Los Santos who is

previously timid, overly modest,

27

solicitous daughter and sister is now


amazingly stouthearted

the petitioner before


the nespondent court, the public respondent remained silent
and cleiiberateiy refused to rule on any motion filed h,y herein
petitioner. trn fact, despite several follow ups by the petitioner,
the respondent court did not resolve any of the petitioner's
LOZ. Despite several motions filed by

on March 7, 2AL2, petitioner filed a


Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to resolve the Urgent

rnotions. Hence,

Motion for Assistance and to cite adverse parties in contempt


of court indicating, thus;

8. With clue respect to

the
Honorable Court, the Urgent Motion
for Assistance was filed by herein
Oppositor-heirs early as September 6,
201 1 in view of the orchestrated
obvious dissipation of assets under
his administration as welL as the
extraord inary difficulty experienced
by him not only in gaining access to

the estate under his administration


but also in taking custody of the

pertinent documents of the estate and


not to mention his ordeal in the mere
service of his letter requests to any of
the University officials, including his
Special C o-Administrator;

9. Due to such difficulty,


Oppositor-heir De Los Santos as
Ccurt-appointed Special CoAdministrator was constrained to

seek the assistance of the Honorable


Court thrcugh the instant Urgent
Motion for Assistance to enable him
to perform his functions as mandated
kry law;

10. Reliance

by the opposing

parties on herein Cppositor-heir's


incarceration to remove him as

Special Co-Administrator by reason of

Criminal Case No. 32306-R, RTC


Branch 'f , Baguio City for Qualilied

ao
Lb

Theft

is not on1y pre-meditated but

schemingly designed to Prevent the


Oppositor-heir's administration of the
estate which would resultantly expose
the anomalous transactions involving
the estate leading to its inevitabie
dissipation;

1. This evident Prennedf,tated


sahecrle to put herein Oppositor-heir
1

behind bars to prevent the exercise of


his function as Court-aPPointed
Special Co-administrator is shown in
the ' Admini"strative ComP1aint-

Affidavit filed by Oppositor-heir

Los Santos against the

De
CitY

Prosecutors of Baguio City before the


Departrnent of Justice. Copy of the

said complaint is hereto attached as

Annex uD";

12. The aforesaid criminal case


is just one of the manifold of cases

craftily filed by Ramona De

Los

Santos and Emily De Leon against


herein Oppositor-heir precisely to
pressure hirn into withdrawing his
opposition in the instant case. These
were exhaustively discussed in the

Cpposition to the Motion for


Reconsideration dated September 6,
201 1 filed by herein Oppositor-heir
before the Honorable Court on even
date;

13.

it is worth' noting

that

imrnediately ri.ght after the filing of


Cppositor-heir's Urgent Motion for
Assistance on Septembet 6, 2017, the
other parties were agitated, went into
panic and steamrolled their
obnoxious railroading ef"forts to put
herein Opposi.tor-heir behind bars.
Thus, as can be gleaned from the

aforesaid administrative compl"aint,


the ResoLution on Review dated

29

September

23,

201

13 was hastilY

rurrdet"d in no tirne by Assistant City


Prosecutor Rolando Vergara reversing
the Resolution of Investigating
Prosecutor NenitaOpiana tlnding no
probable cause against Atty. Ernesto
De [,os Santos for qualified theft;

L4. In fact, the CPPositor-heir


was orchestrated to be arrested
pursuant to the said Resolution on
Review and Information issued in
connection therewith even before said
contested Resolution on Review dated

September 23,

20

was

promulgatedby the Office. of the City


Pro*""rtor of Baguio CitY;a

15. True to form and in


furtherance of their sinister plot to

oust Oppositor-heir as CourtJoint


appointed SPecial
Ahministrator, the herein subject
motions were filed after such arrest
on the common ground that
Cppositor-heir being criminallY
charged and incarcerated, his
appointment as SPeciaI Joint
Administrator has been rendered
i.mpossible where Oppositor-heir
allegedly lacks integrity, incapaille
andl or has become unfit and

incompetent to discharge the duties


of his appointment as Special Joint
Administrator;

It i.s here apparent

that
based on the original Resolution of

16.

Investigating Prosecutor

Nenita
Opiana, petitioner's allegation of Atty'
De Los Santos' incomPetence or
unfitness due to the cornmission of a
crime involving moral turpitude has
no siightest factual nor legai basis
but is a m.ere desPerate scheme to

Annex "F", Consoliclatecl Opposition filed Jarruar5r


+Arurexes "J" an.d "1", respectively, ibid.
3 See

18,2)\2'
30

prevent him from Performing his


iunctions as Court-appointed Special

Co-Administrator. CoPY of

the
Resolution of Investigating Prosecutor
NenitaOpianais hereto attached and

made an integral Parthereof

as

Annex"E";

C"py of the said Manifestation with Omnibus Motion is


hereto attached as dnnex ttEt';
103. tsut again, the respondent court remained silent on
the above Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to Resolve the
urgent Motion for Assistance. So petitioner on June 28, 2012,
*glin filed a Manifestation before the respondent Court
sf,owing pictures to the respondent court that various
prop"tii.,*s of the estate is already in a state of neglect and/or
filed on June 28, 2Ol2 is
*r."t". copy cf the Manifestation
hereto attached as Annex ttF";
104. Af,ter one

(u year and two l2l months front the

ftlimg of the said Urgent Motion for Assistance, the urgency


of the resolution of the said Urgent Motion for Assistance was
again reiterated by the petitioner himseif in open court when he
declared that he was receiving informations that documents are
already being burned in Tagaytayu and substantial assets of the
Univeisity left bl, his father were being indiscriminately spent
without any transparency or receipts6. copies ol th9 pertinent
transcript of Stenographic notes are hereto attached as Annex
6(rt1t?.

$,

to such manifestations of

petitioner
himself, the und.ersigne,C counsel also consistently beg the
presiding judge in open court for the release of the resolution on
it oppo*itoi*' Moiion for Urgent Assistancb explaining that
" to the documents is ,r*i"*"*ry to avoid concealment of
access
the evidence by the adverse parties who are in control of the
University of Manila;?
l-05.

In

add,ition

106. on the face of such petitioner's consistent plea for

the presiding judge to rule on their motion which was filed for
the presid,ing judge endlessly justified his
r:nore than
^"y"i,
tt rule on the putitiot er's motion sounding and
delay or refusr.l
'6 TSN,

October

2,z)ll.page

48-50, hereto atcached as Alnex

"T"

lbicl.. page 5o

' Ibid.. pages

41-"12.

31

resounding hirnself like

laryyer for the petitioner

in

open

Court, thus:
..COURT:

But when it comes to corPorate


papers, do You think ttre Probate
iourt has jurisdiction when it

comes

to corPorate PaPers?
ATTY. LUIS:

Your Honor, the oPPositors here are


not asking for the papers by virtue of
his position as a stockholder, Your
Honor but bY virtue of his Position
as a court appointed administrator
in which under the law he must
have an access to those d ocuments
and other assets under his
administration. So the fact that the

asking for !h"


documents, he is exercising his
functions as a court aPPointed

oppositor is

adrninistrator.s"

The court conlinued" his refusal to rule on the


petitioner's motion for Urgent Assistance banking on the
107.

petitioners old age claim, in this wise, thus:


COURT:

Because according to them, the Court stil1


remembers, according to them, I don't know
if its according to Atty. Aquino or. either

Atty. Carullo either one of them, it seerns


that they claimed, there was one hearing,
the Court can no longer remember, but
there was one hearing in which theY
claimed that. Anyway, what is i:rrportant is
the share, the Personal share of the
deceased, of the testator and the personal
shares are alreadY identified.

ATTY. CARULLO:

In fact, Your Honor, they have the copy of


the Stock and Transfer Book, Your Honor'
COURT:

tSN. October' 2.2012,

Page 42.

)L

So, here, wB are concerned with the division

and eventual partition and assignment of


the shares but outside of that as to the
question of how the University will run2 I
don't know if the Probate court has
competence over that. That's the issue that
concerns us.
ATTY. LUIS:

Actually, Your Honor, in our Urgent Motion


for Assistance, we explicitly stated the
pertinent law that the oppositor is claiming
his right a.s a court appointed special
administrator not as a stockholder, your
Honor, not as a board member or not as an
executive vice president of the University
but as a court appointed administrator
which is within the province of this
Flonorable Court, Your honor.e

108. Tired of hearing the petitioner's basis of claim as a


duly appointed court appointed special administrator to
strengthen their plea, the court bank on another issue of
atteged generality of the rlocuments stated in the said Urgent
Motion for Assistance, thus:
..COURT:

Anyway, if you can be more specific in


the interim, you must have some idea
but this is just a general request.
ATTY. LUIS:

No, Your Honor, we

alreadY
enumerated one by one the documents

we submitted to Banaria and Banaria,


Your Honor, the external auditor of
UM, we specified alreadY the
documents one by one and specifically
with dates, Your Honor. It is just that
the Banaria and Banaria refused, so I
attached our letter to Banaria and
Banaria to our Urgent motion for
assistance, your Honor, to determine

October 2^2012, pages 46-17


-lJ

or identify those specific documents

that we will be needirg'o;

109. The presiding judge also justified his refusal to rule


by reason of the fact that there is another co- administrator and
the exercise of power if any, of a joint administrator has to be a
joint decision of the t.vo co-administratorsrl."
110. The undersigned counsel respectfully argued on such
point raised by the presiding judge, in this wise, thus:
"ATTY. LUIS:
We agree, Your Honor to the Court but
can we raise t*,vo points raised by the

good counsel, Your Honor. First, his


talking of a joint administration. If it is
really joint, Your Honor, the other coadministrator has fuII access and in fact
full eontrol over UM but the joint
administrator here has even no access,

Your Honor.l2"

by the

presiding
judge that a formality like an oath has to be taken by the
administrator prior to the exercise of power, the undersigned
counsel gracefully informed him that oppositor Ernesto De los
Santos already took his oathI3;
11

1. On another formal issue raised

I12. Finally, when the court run out of justifications


and the undersigned counsel attempted to reiterate her need

for the resolution of her Urgent Motion for Assistance praying


for an access to secure documents from UM, the presiding
judge merely brushed it aside and instead declared, thus:
..COURT:

No, You just file your request for

Subpoena. We will try to act on it.14"

113. Hence, pursuant to such hope given by the


respondent and for purposes of presenting another witness for
the petitioner, petitioner's counsel requested the respondent
"t rbid., page 43.
"12 Ibid.. page 44
Ibid.. page 44.
r3
Ibid., page 45.
'o

lbid., page52

34

court to issue a Subpoena Decus Tecum to Atty. Diosdado


Madrid. However, in arL ord,er dated October 25, 2012, the
request of herein petitioner to present Atty. Madrid as his

trostite witness was denied and the continuation of trial was set
on Novernber 22,2072. Copy of the Order of denial is hereto
attached as Annex ttII";

Prior to the scheduled hearing on November 22, 2Ol2


or on November 8, 2012, petitioner filed an Urgent Omnibus
Motion for Reconsideration; Inhibition and for the Deferment of
all other proceedings pending the resolution of the instant
Moti6n for Inhibition. Copy of the motion is hereto attached as
Annex tn[";

Il4.

Cn the scheduled hearing of November 22, 2012,,


which is also the date set for the presentation of herein
petitioner's evid"ence, petitioner's counsel at the outset of the
proceedings manifested that a pending Motion for Inhibition
1

15.

and to Deier Proceedings was filed before the Court and in fact,
she already received thi comments on the said motion filed by
for the ad,verse parties, Atty. Aquino and Atty.
the
"o.rnu"I"
Carullo;
116. Much to the petitioner counsel's surprise and on the

face of her vigorous objection, the Presiding Judge without


ruling on the Motion for Inhibition and Deferment of ali other
pro""ldings a.sked her to rest her case and rendered in open'
tourt an order dated Novemb et 22, gALZ which reads, thus;
appearing that the oppositors
have already been given sufficient time
and still failed to present their intended
second and last witness as announced by
the counsel themselves, the oppositors
are deemed to have waived their- right to

"It

present further evidence and

are

considered to have rested their case'"

Copy of the Order dated November 22, 2012


attached as Annex otJ";

is

hereto

117. On December 7, 2OL2, petitioner vigorously


questioned the above order requiring him to rest his case and
fit"a a Motion for Reconsideration indicating, thus:

35

"The above order is not only bereft of

any factual basis, contrary to

the-

court records but is also a display of

pure bia.s and PartialitY

against
herein oppositors, bY reason of the
following grounds:

1. First, the witness for the


oppositor in the Person of AttY'
Ernesto de Los Santos was first

presented for direct examination on


September 13, 2012. On the same

d.y, his direct examination was


concluded and the court set his cross
examination on the subsequent
hearing date;

2, On October 2, 2012, AttY.

Carullo, counsel for the heir Ramona


De Los Santos concluded his cross

examination while Atty. Robertson


Aquino, counsel for the Petitioner
concluded his cross-examination on
October LO, 2AL2;

3. Upon conclusion of the


cross examination on October 10,
2OL2, the Court issued an order,
thus:

"Set continuation of hearing for

presentation of intended second

witness for the oppositor Atty. De Los


Santos to October 25, 2Ol2 at 8:30
am."

4. On October 25,20L2,

the
undersigned counsel upon inquiry of
the court as to the oppositors'second
witness replied, thus:

"Atty. LUIS:
Your honor Please, during the last
hearing, I mentioned the name of Ms'
Delilah Daguinsi.n as our second
witness, your honor but...
COURT:
36

Could you mention that name again?

Atty. LUIS:
Delilah Daguinsin, Your Honor.
COURT:
Who is she?
Atty. LUIS:

Your Honor, she is the mother of the


three (3) children of oppositor Atty'
Ernesto De Los Santos.
COURT:
I think she was here the last time'
Atty. LUIS:
Yes, your Honor.
COURT:
What happened?
Atty. LUIS:

After I mentioned her name, Your

Honor, and after the commotions, and


after hearing that, the body guard of
the adverse party approached her at
the back, I think the court personnel
saw it, and bY virtue of such, Your
honor, she changed her mind after
some time and uP to now, Your
Honor, I am stiIl convincing her but
hopefully, we could convince her bY
the next hearing; she failed to appear

the judicial
in the office to sign
15
affidavit we prepared.

"

5. On that same occasion, thg

undersigned counsels manifested16


that so as not to waste the time of
the florrorable Court, the counsels
for the oPPositors requested to
present a liostile witnesS in the
p"t*o, of petitioner Atty' Diosdado
il4adrid, t* ih* second witness for the
oppositors, who was then Present in
iolrt, invoking Rule 21, section 7 ,
on the SubPoena Provision of the
Rules of Court;

3-4'
's TSN. October 25,2012, Pages
page
6.
'u TSN.Ibid.,

37

6. Much to the

undersigned
counsel's dismay, the Court deniedlT
the oppositors' request to Present
Atty. Diosdado Madrid as oppositors'

hostile witness though explicitly


mandated under the rules;

7.

On that same hearing date, when


the Court inquired whether Delilah
Daguinsirr would still be included in
the list of oppositors' witnesses, the
und ersigned counsel did not rule her
out as possible oppositors' witness
and replied thus:

"Atty. LUIS:

We are still in the Process of


convincing her, Your Honor"l8

8. Despite the foregoing exPlicit


d eclarations, the Court scornfully
inquired, thus:

"Do you think do You stilI need a


hearing to present Your witness?le"

9. The foregoing open court


declarations of the presiding judge
display his lost of slightest
forbearance to hear the oppositors'
evidence. It must be stated that those
open court statements of the

presiding judge were made only after


sixty nine (69) days from the time the
oppositor commenced the
presentation of their case ln chief.
bespite this, the presiding judge had
the temerity to declare, thus:

"It is the sense of the Court


that the issue is not about delaY in

the presentation of the evidence. It is


the issue of whether the oppositors
have further evidence to present. The

u TSN, october 25,2012, pages


r8

''

16-17.

TSN. October 25,2012,page 17.


TSN. October 25.20L2, page 18.

38

Court and the other Parties cannot


be made to wait indefinitelY."
10. WorthY of note, however is
the fact that, oppositors request to
present a hostile witness was refused
only on October 25, 2012. Hence, it
was less than a month or onIY twentY
eight (28) days to be exact, when the
court lost its patience waiting for the
oppositors to present their second
*iit e** promPting him to order the

termination

of

oPPositor's

presentation of evidence;

1. IronicallY, the court who


lost its patience for barely less than a
1

month from the time the court


refused

the

oPPositors request to

present a hostile witness was also the


same court who generously afforded
and" patiently waited for the petitioner

to present their case for a

Period
December 15, 2008

co**"t.cing on
up to July 1 1, 2Ol2 or a Period of
almost four (4) Years;

L2. Considering the foregoing


events tlrat transpired from the time
of the presentation of the oppositors'
first witness in the person of Atty'
Ernesto De Los Santos on SePtember
13, 20 12 uP to Novembet 22, 2012, tt
is evident that no ample time had yet
been afforded to herein oppositors to
present their witnesses' thdt would
ivarrant the order of termination of
the oppositors presentation of their
case in chief;

13. Second, &s can be gleaned


from the records, it was never the
intention of the oppositors to waive
their right to present their second
witness. In fact, they consistently
d.isplayed before the honorable Court,

39

their persistent desire to present their


witness. Hence, the declaration that
the oppositors have deemed to have
waive their right to Present their
second witness is not only contrary to
the records, unfitting but indecorous;
14. In fact, as earlY as October
2, 2012, or even during the first cross
examination of Atty. Ernesto De Los

Santos, herein oPPositor counsel


already declared her intention to
present several witnesses, thus:

"Atty. LUIS:
Yes, Your Honor, Please. I would
certainly sound rePetitious, Your
Honor, but I beg the kind indulgence
of the Honorable Court. I tried to

interview witnesses but

nobodY
wanted as of this moment but I trY to
interview more by next week )o(x"'2o"

15. In fact, after the denial of


the oppositor's motion to Present a
hostile witness, the oppositors even
attempted to request the Court for the
issuance of a SubPoena DucesTecum
for the oppositors to present a second
witness itt tfre person of Atty. Madrid
but was fikewise denied, bY the Court
declaring, thus:

..COURT:

There is already a ruling,' perhaps it's


up to You wha-t remedY to take, bY'

there is alreadY a ruling and it's

alreadY been dictated. If You want,


you can...I don't know if you want to
move orally, now for reconsideration
or not todaY.
Atty. LUIS:
We \MiIl just Put in writing Your
FIonor."21
?o

TSN. October 2.2012, Page 39

t'TSN. October 25.2012,

Page 18'

40

L6.

It is worth noting that the

suggestion for the parties to resort to


the processes of the honorable Court
like the issuance of a subpoena or the
presentation of a hostile witness even

cr.*e from the Court when it


declared, thus:
COURT:

Yes. Okay. Anyr,vaY, don't worry. To

all the parties, this will be rnade

available to all the parties that if you


feet that there are certain things you
need to use the compulsory processes

of the Court which is through a


subpoena, the court will oblige

readily. So now, the witnesses, You


can also request for subPoena for
witnesses and then if You want,
quaffi them as hostile witnesses if
you feel. I think you know.
Atty. LUIS:
Yes, Your Honor."22
SurprisinglY, it may well be
surmised that something happened in
the interregnum that the honorable
Judge himself who ProPosed said
remedies of resort to court processes
L7

outrightly denied the oPPositors'


request without hesitation in open
court;

18. Third, the declhratfon of the


juclge in the contested order of
November 22, 2Ol2 that the counsel

themselves announced that the


oppositors second witness will be

their last witness is again

not

supported by the court records. On


October 10, 2AL2, the undersigned
counsel even declared her explicit
intention to present a maximum of
three (3) witnesses, thus:

=t

TSN. October 2,2012. pages 40-41'

41

"Atty. LUIS.
Actually, we are contemPlating to
present Ms. Delilah Daguinsin, Your

Honor, we might be Presenting,


maximum. of, in addition to Delilah,

we might be presenting two more. So


maximum of three, Your Honor."23

The concerted

intentions
not only of the adverse Parties but
including the presiding judge for the
oppositors to present no other
witnesses but Delilah Daguinsin can
also be gleaned in their statements in
open court, thus:

19.

.,COURT:

There is an express desire for an


opportunity to present witness, what
say counsel?
ATTY. AQUINO;
Yo

ur Honor, at this Point, theY can

even state the tenor as to the purpose

of the testimony of the witness. I


doubt they may be able to Present
this witness.
COURT:

What say you?


ATTY. CARULLO:

Yes your Honor, we also object the


presentation of another witness
precisely because they did not even
mention the name of the other
witness and the PurPose bf such
testimony, your Honor, and in fact, it
is our considered view that they are
only delayrng the case your Honor.
ATTY. ANDRES:

No your Honor please, the PurPose of


which we are going to present witness
is of course in'support of the grounds
we alleged in our opposition.
COURT:

2' TSN, October 10,2012, Page 56

42

should be material and it shouid


relate specificatly just to the due

It

execution and genuineness of the wiil.


ATTY. ANDRtrS:
Yes.
CCURT:

This is what we are concerned with,


not yet with the disposition.
ATTY. ANDRES:

We understand your Honor. And the

names

of the witnesses that

we

intend to present, as of now, we could


not give because of the sensitivity.
COURT:

If you will be given another chance by


the Court, wilI you commit that You
will submit a Judicial affidavit at least
three days before the hearing date'
Are you willing to commit yourself.?
That's the question now?
ATTY. ANDRtrS:
Yes your honor.
COURT:

The arguments of AttY. Carullo and

Atty. Aqu.ino aPPeared to be


compelIing, but in the interest of

justice, and over and above their

o'bjection, the Court resol,ves tc)


gramt osle last opportunity for the
oppositor to present his intended
wiiness IMs" Delil.ah Daguinsin.za"

20. F"ourth, the holidaY season


is fast approaching. The contested
order dated Novembef 12, 2012,

mandating the oppositors to rest their


case is actually prompted not by the
oppositors alleged delay to present
their second witness but bY the
obvious intention of the presiding
judge to rush the termination of the
case prior to Christmas season, thus:
.,COURT:

to

TSN, October 25"ll\L}"pages 19-20.

43

The arguments of AttY. Carullo and

Atty. Aquino aPPeared to be


compelling, but in the interest of

justice, and over and above their

objection, the court resolves to grant


one last opportunity for the oppositor
to present his intended witness Ms.
Delilah Daguinsin. First, w will allow
the parties to agree on the date, if not
we will arbitrarily set a date. Middle of
November, if possible.
ATTY. LUIS:

Okay, November 28,

Your Honor.
COURT:

You know, because the Court will go


on leave because of the extended long
holiday. So, third week which is 13,

t4,

15."2s

21. In fact, this intention of the

ing judge to rush the


lermination of this case before the

presid

onset of the Christmas season can be


gleaned as earlY as Octobet 2, 2Ol2
or during the first cross examination
of Atty. Ernesto De Los Santos when
it addressed to the undersigned
counsel, thus:
..COURT:

Now, we wiil be forced to have a


continuance not onIY for the cross

examination because the

cross

examination may not be too long but


please prepare your next'witri.ess also
thal we1l not waste too much
"o
time." 26

22.

After such hearing on

October 2, 2A12, another hearing was


held on October 10, 2Ol2 and during
such October 10, 2012 hearing, the
inLention of the judge to rush the
termination of the case prior to the
"tu TSN, october 25.2012, pages41.2o-21.
TSN, October 2,2a12, Page

44

Christmas season was again evidently


declared when he requested in oPen

court for another hearing in the


same monttr of, October, thus:
..COURT:

'You know, actuallY, w have alreadY


delayed because the Court at least
*.rl* to finish at least the reception
of evid"ence for the first stage'
UnforttrnatelY, we lost in a sense a

hearing date because of Your


indisposition which is something
beyond our control;. Let's have a

date this October please. Let's have


an October date. If You don't want to
disclose the identity; could you give
the court the sense of the number of

your witnesses so that we

can

adjust?"27

the foregoing
fifth,
narrations showed the audacity of the
judge to disPense
presid ing
proceedit S" in the quickest and
23.

shortest time possible if desirecl;

24.

If not desired,

deliberate

actions of the presiding judge to Celay


the proceedings are apparent and his
efforts to delay even in open court are

grossly lacking in subtletY' As


a
[reviouslY stated, for more than
year ago or on SePtember 6, 2otl,
bppositor-heir Atty. Ernesto De Los
Slntos filed an Urgent Motion for
Assistance before the Court due to
the imminent dissipation of estate
under his administration;

copy of txre Motion for Reconsideration questioning the


22, 2OL2 is
crr.der of the respond"ent court dated November
otK";
hereto attached as Anmex

t'TSN. october io.20I2.

Page 56

45

18. nn no time from the filing of the said Motion for


Reconsideratl-on, gf, on December 27, 2012, the respondent
coltrt issued an Crder approving the allowance of the will' Copy
l-

ttrre Crder dated Decimber 27,2Ol2 is hereto attached as


Affiseex d6Le,. The dispositive portion of which is hereunder
quotecl, thus:

of

"WHEREFORE IN VIEW OF ALL THE


F"OREGOII\G, in the interest of justice, the
Court hereby rules on the following:

1. The Urgent Motion for Assistance


dated 6 September, 201 1 is DENIED for
iack of rnerit;
2. The Motion to Cite Atty. Carullo in
contempt and to cite Adverse Party and

Counsel

in

Contempt

of Court dated 2

February 201,2 is DENIED for lack of merit;


3. The Urgent Omnibus Motion dated
5 November 2OL2 1. For reconsideration 2 '
For lnhibition 3, To Defer Resolution of the
lnstant Motion for Reconsideration
Fending resolution of the Instant Motion
for Inhibition and all other Proceedings in
case is DENIED for iack of merit;
4. The undated Motion for

eration (Re: Order dated 22


November), which appears similar in
objective to the above Urgent Omnibus

Reconsid

Motion of 5 November 2012, is DENIBD for


nack of merit.
5. The oPPosition dated 19 August
2008 is DENIED for lack of merit;
FURTHtrRMORtr, premises considered,
relative to the MA]N AGENDA of the
proceeding at this stage, the probate of the
iviLl is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the

three(3)

Page

hotrographic will dated 3 February 2005 is


hereby APPROVED and ALLOWED.

Let

letters testamentary

and

1\Cn-rinistration be issued to petitioner Atty'


Diosdado G. Madrid, without requirennent
16

of any new bond as wished for bY the


testator.

Upon due AssumPtion of

Office,

petitionershallactasanddischargehis

duties as the sole and general


administrator of the Estate of the
Deceased Dr. Virgilio D' De Los Santos'
SO ORDERED.
Manila, 27 December, 2012"

1i9. On January 22,2013, peti.tioner filed a Motion for


R.econsideration q.ru*iiorling the above quoted Order but in an

Crder dated nAarcir 1. 1, 2013, said Motion for Reconsideration


of the Motion for Reconsideration and the
was Cenied.. Colry
-such
Motion for Reconsideration are hereto
Order Cenying
n'M" amd 66N"'
attached as .Amnexes

120. By virtue of the denial of the petitioner's Motion for


Reconsideration, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and
deposited with the-Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila the appeal bond of Php 4,030.00 as evidenced by an
Cni.iut neceiii no. 2072627. Cbpy of the Notice of Appeal and
of the
tire cfficial Receipt indicated theiein as proof of payment
660"'
corre*sponding docket fee is hereto attached as Annex
\2L . In an crd er d ated septemb er 25, 2 0 13, copy of which
eetrlrr, the respondent court denied
is hereto attached as Alr.nex
the said
tlre Notice of epp"ai filed by the petitioner declaring in

order, thus:

"It is the view of the Court that


Section 6 of Rule 41, which mandates, that
the record on appeal 'shall inciude

"COPIES" of only such pleadings, petitions,


motions and all interl'ocutory orders as
related to the appealed judgment or finai
ord"er," does not ailow the mere re-typing of
the same.

Moreover, in the order dated Jurre 25,


2013, the oppositor Atty. De Los Santos,

through counsel, was given fifteen (15)


days ftom receipt of the orCer to file its
47

consolidated reply but he never did, up to


toCay.

the foregoing
all
considerations, finding that the undated
Notiee of Appeal to be defective in fornt
amd suhstance, the same is &rereby
In

view of

N&NIED.

Let the records show that this Order was


prorrrulgated in open Court.

As prayect f,or, Atty. ,{ndres is given ten


(10) days from today to file her intended
rejoinder to the reply dated September 23,
2013 which was filecl only today.

To keep track of the pending incidents


and for further proceedings of the case, set
a hearing on October 23, 20 13 at 8:30 am.
i

SC

ORDERED."

L22. Fron:. the above quoted order demyimg the


petflti*rrner's [ffotiee of Appeal, petitioner filed his Motion for
Reconsideration. Copy cf the Motion for Reconsideration dated
Cctober 10, 2013 is hereto attached as Annex "Q";
123,

In a. subsequent Order issued by the respondent

court dated January 24, 2OL4, the public respondent iikewise


DEIIIIED the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Copy of the
Order d"ated January 24, 2014 is hereto attached as Anmex"S";
. Cn Aprii 3, 20 13, herein petitioner fitred a Motion
before the responrCent corrrt, seeking an etdditional period within
which to file their record on appeal setting the same for hearing
on Apnil 8, 2013 at 8:30 o'cLock in the morning. Copy of the
h4otiorr is hereto attached as Annex 66Vt''
L24"

X25. Cn ApriL S, 2013, when the petitioner's counsel went


to the court to attend the hearing on her motion, she learned
from the court records that as early as March 19, 2OI3, Letters
Testarnentary and Administration was already issued in favor of

Atty. Diosdado

hzladriC

and the latter already took his oath of

office as adrninistrator;
4B

126. Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari.

GROUNEIS FOR THE ALL01[I^A.I{CE

OFJHE PETrTION

, Tiirie public respondent, Branch 49 of the Regional


Trial Cor-rrt of Manila erred and gravely abused its discretion,
amounting to iack or excess of jurisdiction, when it denied
L27

petitioneris Notice of Appeal contrary to the evidence on record


and mandates of the 1aw or jurisprudence;
^ESSTGNMENT OE'ERRORS
T

PUtsT,IC RESPONDESIT

GRAVEI,Y

AtsTISEP TTS DISCRETION IN DENYTNG


THE Iq'OTTCE CIF APPEAL ON GROUND
TETAT' THE R,UN,E ON THE RECORD ON

APPE"SL DOES NOT ALLOW

MER'E

RffiTYPTIIG OF THE PT,EADINGS.


ffi

PUELIC RESPO$DEI{T GRAVELY


AtsUSEE TTS DISCRETION TN

I}ECT"ARING THAT T'HE NOTTCE OF


.A,PPEAt IS DEFEC'TIVE IN }.ORM .A.ND.
SUESTAIqCE.

DISCUS$TONS

Traclitionaily, by grave abuse of discretion is meant


such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivatrerrt to lack of jurisd.iction, and it must be shown that the
discretion was .**r"i**d arbitrarily or despotically.2s The abuse
of discretion rnust be patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by 1a*, as not to act at all in contemplation of law or
."h.ru power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
X"28.

,,pMl

Cotteges vs. /VLRC and Aleiandro Galvan, G.R. /Vo. 121466, August 15, 1997.

49

by reason of passion or hostility.ze Its expanded meaning,


however, already includes acts done contrary to the
constitution, the law, or jurisprudence;so

Lzg. The pivotal issue for resolution is whether or not the


public respond.ent courts committed grave abuse of discretion
lmountinf to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the
petitioner's Notice of APPeal;
130. Section

3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, provides,

tkrus:

Appea} Frorut The R'egional ?rial Courts


Seetiour S.Period of ordinary appeal. - Tlne

appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15)


days from notice of the judgment or final
order appealed from. Where a record on
appeaX is required, the appellant shall file
a notiee of, appeal and a record on appeal
urithin thirty tSOl days from notice of the
judgrnent or final orderThe period. of appeal sha1l be interrupted by

a iimely motion for new trial or


reconsideration. No motion for extension of
time to file a motion for new trial or
reconsideration shal1 be allowed. (n)

13i. Considering that the instant case is one for allowance


of a will or a probate case, requiring the filing of a'record on
appean, herein petitioner filed a timely Notice of Appeal and
nelord on Appe*t

.* can be gleaned under the following:


, 2012 -

Order was rendered by the


respondent court approving the allowance of the will'
Copy of the Crd"er is hereto previously attached as Annex
agrr- This Order was received by the petitioner on January
7, 2AL3. Hence, petitioner has until January 22, 2013 to
question this order;

a.

Decemb er 27

Petitioner filed a Moticn for


January 22,2073 Reconsideration of the Dec. 27, 2012. CoPY of the Motion

b.

2ePanaligan vs. Adolfo,67 SCRA 176.

*'tiiriiZiion iecinotogy
SCRA 141.

Foundation of the Philipptnes vs. Commission on Elections, 419


50

for Reconsideration showing at the signature portion that


it was filed thru Registered Mail on January 22,2013 is
hereto attached as Axlnex "&I";

c. March11,2013- Order was rendered by

the
respond.ent court denying the January 22, 20 13 Motion for
ReConsideration filed by the Petitioner. This order was
receivecl by the petitioner on March 25, 20 13. Hence,
petitioner has until April 10, 2013, within which to submit
his I'{otice of Appeal and Record on Appeal;

April 3, 20tr3 - Petitioner filed a l\otice of Appeal and


paiC the corresponding appeal bond. Copy of the l\otice of
Appeai and the corresponding official receipt showing such
60"
Aocket fee payment are hereto attached as Annexes
arnd or@- 1rr, alomg with a Motion f,or Extem.siorr to file
the Record, on Appeal, seekimg five {5} days f,romr Apritr
10, ?O13 or umtitr April 3.S, 2013 to file the saffilei

c.

Petitioner filed his Record on


Appeal. Copy of the the Record on Appeal, showing that
such was filed on APrii 12, 2013 is hereto attached as

e. April 12, 2OL3 -

Amgrex

6d2:!e'

The foregoing ind.ubitably shows the timely fiiing by


dr.e petitioner of his Notice of Appeal, timely payment of the
.o""i"ponding appeai fee and the timely filing of his Record on
Appeai. If the petitioner perforrned his right to appeal in a
timely fashion, what prompted the respondent to deny the
petitioner's I'{otice of APPeal?
1,32 "

i33. A reading of the Order dated September 25, 2013,


denying the petitioner's Notice of Appeal would disclose the
fbllowing:

a Comment and/ or Opposition


d.ated June 26 , 2 0 13, the oPPositor
thrcugh Att1.. Robertson Aquino alleged
si-tbstantially that a Record on Appeal
"Itrtr

cannot be a rflere retyping and that so far


there has been no formal entry of
appearance fiLed by Atty. Andres.

It is the view of th.e Court that Section


6 of Rutre 4L, which illandates that the
51

recordonAppealshailinclude..CoPIES,,of
-plead'ings,
petitions' motions
only sucl:
and interlocutory orders as related to the
appealed judgment or final order"' does
**t allow ttle mere re-typing of, the
sasffie.

26

Moreover, in the Order dated June


20 13, the oppositor Atty' de- Los
-

Santos, through counsel, was given lftegn


(15) days fro receipt of the Order to file its

"consol-idatedreply"butheneverdidupto
todaY.

In view of all the

considerations, find'ing that

foregoing
the undated

NoticeofAppealtobedefectiveinformand
substano",-ih* same is hereby DENiED'"

also
134. The above order denying the Notice of Appeal
the Record
adopted the position of the private respondent that
as oppositoron Appeal is patently incomplete *rr9 deficient and
orders' 3r
heirs (herein p*titiorretl omitted several pleadings

by
135. As can be glearred' from the foregoing, the denialwas
Appeal
the respondent couri of the petitioner's Notice of photocopies
due to the fact that herein p"iitiot er did not attach
motions and
but inst**O ,*-typed the pieadings, petitions andsubject
of the
order
atrI orders of the court as ,.r. ,.ir.Ied to the
appeatr;

i36.Byvirtueoftheabovefind.ingsprompting.thed.enial
to
,rf ttre Notice c,f Appeal, pe[itioner filed a Motion seeking on
Record
reconsider the *t oie denill and fiiecl an Amended
court' Copy
Appeal to meet the requirement of the respondent
as '&nmex
of the Amend.ed record on Appeal is hereto dttached
noR.";

.I.3T.TheAmerrdedrecordonAppealwasfiledbyherein
Rules of

petitioner pr.trsuant to Section 7, Rule 4f of the Revised


bourt which Provides, thus:

on appe*l'
"Approuat af record
Upon the filing of the record on appeal for
ufrpro'rui and If tt' objection is filed by the

Seetflom

.t Orde,

attached as
dated Septernber 25. 2013. page 2" paragraph 3' hereto

Afilex

"P"'
52

appellee within five (5) days from receipt of


a copy thereof, the trial court may approve
it as presented or upon its own motion or at
the instance of the appellee, may direct its
amend.ment by the inclusion of any omitted
matters which are deemed essential to the
determination of the issue of law or fact

in the appeal. If the trial court


ord,ers the amendment of the record', the
appellant, within the time lirnited in the
involved

oid"., or such extension thereof as may be


granted, or if no time is fixed by the order
days from receipt thereof,
-itt it ten (10)the
record by incltl"ding
shalI redraft

therein, in their proper chronological


sequence, such add'itional matters as the
court may have directed him to incorporate,
and shall thereupon subrnit the redrafted
record" for approval, r.rpon notice to the
appetrlee, in tit e manner as the original

draft.

(7a)

138. Under the aforequoted law,

it is explicit that if the

appeilant failed to include any matters which are d'eemed


essential to the Ceterrnination of facts or issues involved in the
appeal, the court may direct the arnendment of the record on
or di.rect the appeilant to incorporate matters or re-draft
^bbeaf
tkre record on aPPeal;

139. In the case at bar, no oppCIrtunity to correct, amend,


or r.e-draft the record on appeal- was afforded by 'the public
respond"ent to herein appeilint. Consistent with the sharn
character of the trial conducted before his sala for the all0wance
of ttrre wiIl, the public respondent not only p;revented petitioner
to presenl his *itrr*""es but also disregarded his fundamental
right to appeal;
140" As r,vas helcl i.n the case of Roman vs' Tizon et a1.,
We cited

32

in the Ozaeta decision the cases of

Guerra Enterprises Company, Inc' vs' Court'


of First instance of Lanao del Sur I and

petitioners,
l--30345. March 27,1974.!;THELMATANALEGA, and FERNANDo ROMAN,
DELGADO' and
vs. HONORABLE TITO V. TIZON, as Presiding Judge of the cFl of Bataan; ANTONIO

"[e .n.No.

NEI-LlE C. DELGAD0, resPondents'

53

Dela Torre vs. Ericta, et

al'

10 In the former

case, we ruled that "since the record on


appeal wa,s still within the control of the
respondent court, all that was needed
*** to order aPPellant to make ttre
requisite amendments, and not to bar
the appeal . . . ." 11 Thus, it was held that

although the record on appeal failed to


specify the date when certain orders were
received it was not proper for respondent
court to bar the appeal. What it should have
done was to order the appellant to amend
the r,ecord on appeal to incorporate therein
the omitted data pursuant to its powers
under Sec. 7, Rule 4l- of the Revised Rules
of Court. L2 In the latter case of Dela Torre
vs. Ericta, this Court stressed:
"There can be no question, therefore, that

he could determine, bY examining the whole


record before him, what said date was and,
consequently, whether or not the appeai
had been perfected on time. He seems to be,
however, under the impression that - even if
said record warranted an affirmative answer

he could not order the amendment of


petitioner' record on appeal for the
completion of the data lacking in the
original record on appeal." 13
)o(xxx>ua(

Ernphasis was also rnade of the fact that

im cases of incomplete or

defective
record on appeal, Section 7, RuIe 4L, 'L4
clearly efilpowers the court to order the
anaendment of the same and, to grant the
appetrlant time within which to submit or
fi!,e the amended record on irpp6al' 15
In the instant case, the "intervening facts"
which petitioners failed to incorporate in
their record on appeal were particularly
known to respondent Judge because he

hirnself granted petitioners' motion for


extension to file record on appeal in his

order of November 26, L968, as follows:


".
Consid.ering the motion ex-parte for
extension of time to file record on appeal by
the defendants thru counsel for a period of
fifteen (15) days from November 29, 1968 to
54

beinorderandjustified",thecourthereby
grantsthesamewithunderstandingthatno
further extension shall be granted"'
RespondentJudgeshouldnotsimplyhave

closedhiseyes,obliviousofhisownorder
approving the extension, specially since

p"iitiorrers complied with the said order and


submitted the record on appeal well within

theperiodallowedintheorder.sound
discretionandacleardutybehoovehim

to have rxtilized his powers under Sec' 7'

4L, supra, by directing petitioners to


a.mend, the record' on appeal to include
rr.l.le

thereintheex.partemotionforextension

amd order granting the sarne' Etris


adarmag'strefusaltoreconsiderhis
positionr'lnd'erthecircunrstancesdespite

mrotiom for

reconsideration

bY

petitionerswaswhimsicalandarbi'trary,
arnountingtograveabuseofdiscretioR.

l4l"Inthecaseatbar,therecord'onAppealfiledbyand
herein petitioner complied rn'ith the rules on the form
provid'es'
contents of the reccrd on Appeal. Section 6 of Rule 41
thus:

on appeal; for*

and
The fulI names of all the
contents thereof.
parties to the proceedings shall be stated in
ih" ".ption of th" record on app-eal- and it
shall include the judgment or finaL ' order

Sectiora 6.Record

from which the appeal is taken and' in


chronological ordei, copies of only such
pleadings, petitions, motionS and all

interlocutory orders as are related to the


appealed judgment or ,fi1at order for the
piop"t .lt d"t*tanding of the issue involved'
iogutfr*t with such data as rn'ill show that
th; appeal was perfected on time' If at1
issue of fact is to be raised on appeal, the
record on appeal shall include by reference

all the evidence, testimonial and


docutnentary, taken upon the issue
involved" The reference shal1 specify the
documentary e'u'idence by the exhibit

5i'

nuilrbers or letters bY which it was


identified when admitted or offered at the

hearing, and the testimoniatr evidence by the


names of the corresponding witnesses. If
the whole testimoniai and documentary
evidence in the case is to be included, a
statement to that effect will be sufficient
without mentioning the names of the
witnesses or the numbers or letters of
exhibits. Every record on appeal exceeding
twenty (20) pages must contain a subject
index.
tr42. The Record on Appeal filed by herein petitioner,
heneto attached as ,S,m,nex ttU", as well as the Amended Record
on Appeal, hereto attached as Amnex 6(R", included the

following, thus:

to the proceedings
as stated in the caption of the record on appeal33;
a. Ttre fulL names of the parties

Crder of Judgment frorn which the appeal


is taken chronologically al'ranged in the Amended
b. The

Record on Appeai as follows:

b.1. Order ciated Novemb er 22, 2O123a, where


the respondent Court required the petitioner to
rest his case;
b.2. Order dated December 27,2OL235, where
the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of
the Crder dated November 22, 2A72 was
denied;
b.3.Orden dated March Ll, 2A13tu, where the
pubiic respondent denied the petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration of the order
rendered on December 27, 2Ol2;

b.4. Order dated" September 25, 20L337, where


the pubtric respondent denied the Notice of
3i

Amencled Record on Appeal. page

rr Amended Record on Appeai, page 1233


rs

Aruendecl Recorci on Appeal. page 12.75.


Appetrl. page i307.
irArnencled Record ori Appetrl. page 1331.

}j Aruencied Record ot

56

Appeatr filed by the petitioner;

of such pleadings, petitions, motions,


and interl.ocutory orders as are related to the
appealed order and necessary for the proper

c. Copies

understanding on the issue involved. The subject


index with the corresponding table of pages
i.ncorporated in the petitioner's Record on
Appeal38 would show this compliance;

that the appeal was perfected


on'l time. Page 374 of the Record on Appeal
explicitly indicated the material dates when the
otd*r* subject of the appeal was rendered, appeal
boncl was paid and the dates where said orders

d. Data as wiltr show

were received;
e. Issues of fact

if there are any. Considering that

the issue subject of the record on appeal were the


Crders dated ldovernbet 22, 2Ol2 and December
27

, 2072, where the respondent court bluntly

deprived herein petitioner of his right to present


his witnesses and compelled herein petitioner to
rest his case on the face of his vigorous objection,
the original record on appeal, merely enllmerated
the contested orders and the pleadings filed by the
petitioner contesting such orders;

f. The rule mandates the inclusion of the subject

inclex if the record" on appeal exceeds twenty (20)


pages. F{ence, petitioner included a subject index
in his Record on APPeal;
143. A reading of
attached hereto as fuinex

the Record on Appeal, previously

"U", filed by the petitioner before the


respondent court would undeniably show the petitioner's
compliance with the rules. The only error if such would be
an error, is the fact that the court orders and the
"on*id*redof the parties were not photocopies but instead repleadings
iyped by the petitioner in his Record on Appeal;
38

Record on Appeais, Subject index. pages 2 to 5'

57

L44. And such defect, if it will be considered a defect at


alL, was in f,act, corrected by the petitioner himself when he filed
ieis Amended Record on Appeal3e and attached thereto by
reference the photocopies of the court orders and the pleadings
of ttrre parties;

such error found by the respondent


court and further considering the immediate action of the
petitioner in filing the Amended RecorC on Appeal to meet the
iequinements of the Court, it is indeed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to trach or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
145. Consiclering

to deny herein petitioner of his right to appeal


nespondurrt
"o,rrt
orders;
the contested
tr46. Xn the recent case of De La Rosa vs.
Appeals, et al.ao, the highest Court declared, thus:

the Court of

appeal fls affi. essemtial part of our


jlxdic$al systent. We have advised the
cottnts to proceed with caution so as not to
"AsB

a party of the right to appeal


(National Waterworks and Sewerage

d.epnive

Authority vs. Municipality of Libmartart, 97


SCRA 138) and instructed that every party
iitigant should be afforded the amplest

opportunity for the proper and just


diJposition of his cause, f'reed from the
constrair^rts ot" technicalities (A-One Feeds,
inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 590).

"The rules of procedure afe i-ot


applied in a very rigid and technicatr

to

be
sense.

The rules of procedure are used only to help


secure, not override substantial justice"
le

Arnenclecl Record on Appeal. hereto attaclted trs

fuu ex "R';

VDA. DE DELA ROSA, petitioner, vs,


[C.R. No. 103028. October 10, ].997.1;CARLOTA DELGADO
R.
COURI'OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF MARCIAT\A RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN, NAMCIY: GUILLERMO
DAMTAN & JOSE R. DAMTAN; HETRS OF HORTENCIA RUSTIA CRUZ, namely:TERESITA CRUZ-SISON,

uo

HORACIO R. CRUZ, JOSEFINA CRIJZ-RODIL, AMELIA CRUZ-ENRIQUEZ ANd FIDEL R. CRUZ, JR,; HEIRS
OF ROMAN RUSTIA, namely: JOSEFINA RUSTIA-ALBANO, VIRGINIA RUSTIA-PARAlS0, ROMAN
RUSTIA, JR., SERGIO RUSTIA, FRANCISCO RUSTIA, LETICIA RUSTIA-MIRANDA; GUILLERMINA R.
RU

STIA and

I.J I

LLE R

MA R USTIA-ALARAS, respondents'
5B

(Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA


L2A\. Therefore, we ruled in Republic vs.
Court of Appeals (83 SCRA 453) that a sixday Celay in the perfection of the appeal
does not warrant its dismissal. And again in
Ramos vs. Bagasao, (96 SCRA 3951, this
Court held that the delay of four (4) days in
filing a notice of appeal and a motion for
extension of time to file a record on appeal
can be excused on the basis of equity'"

. Also, in the case of serina vs. the


&1.o', the highest court declared, thus:
147

court of Appeals

et

"Moreover, despite the procedural lapse,


there is no gainsaying that the appeal was
indeed perfected on time because the notice
of appeal, the record on appeal and the
appeal bond were all filed within the
reglementary period.

The petitioners have not in our view


committed such a serious omission as to
deserve the dismissal of their appeal. Even

the private respondent cannot deny that the


appeal was perfected on time and merely
faults the record on appeal because of what
he caIls a fatal defect. The defect was not
fatal and in any event should be deemed
waived by his failure to object seasonably, if
not cured by the subsequent tirire filing of
the appeal bond. Reinstatement of the
petitioners' appeal is therefore in order.

*,[G.R.

srRtNa,
No. L-28661. February 21, 1989.]; RAYMUNDO SrRtNtR, SATURNINA SERINIR, ttruo
M. sERlNlA,
LADTsLAo M. sERrNrA, TIRSo srRrNtA, FAUSTINo v. srntNtR, JUAN M. sERlNlA, zoslMo
BY RIGHT
srRtNta
RosALlA sgRtNtA, GoMoLo, vtcToRtco, coRAZoN, and PILAR ALL sURNAMTo
srRtNtn
oF REpRESENTATIoN oF vtcroRlo srntNte (DECEASED); RosALlA sERlNlA, and JUSTO
DE
G'
PRlsclLA
(DECEASED),
sALVE By RTGHT oF REpRESENTATIoN oF ANDREA srRtNtR
ANd RUFO EDSIOMA'
DAGONGON AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE MINOR SALUSTIANO STNINE
petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO PELAEZ, respondents'

59

Once again we end as in LeYte v. Cusi:


"While it is desifable that the Rules of Court

be faithfully and even

meticulously

observed, courts should not be so strict


abor.lt procedural lapses like this that do
not reatrly impair the Proper

administration of justice. If the Rules of


Court are intended to ensure the order[y
comduct of titigation, it is because of the
higher objective they seek, which is ttree
protectlom of the substantive rights of
thg parti,es. "

PK.&YER,
considered, petitioner most
respectfully prays of this Honorable Court to render an Order:
$,VE[mR,ErORE,

1)

2)

all premises

Dectraring the Order dated September 25, 2013


and the brder dated January 24, 2014 nuI1 and
void; anri

Approving the Notice of Appeal and the


AmendeC R""ord on Appeal or directing herein
Petitioner to submit a redrafted record on
appeal, if necessary.

other relief, just and equitable under the premises is


likewise prayed for.

60

Mokoti City (for Monilo) , 3lst do

rch

ELIZABETH A. ANDRES

JUDI

Counsel for P iitioner


2nd & 3rd Flrs.,rE.A.A. Bldg,
Project 5, Q. C" I l00
Tel. Nos. (02) 929-2343
(02) ?2?-2s83

for Petitioner
Coun
No. 7256 J. Vicior St.

PTR

NO. 9043391

Jonuory 2,2014; Quezon City


IBP No. (Lifetime) 000969; Q.C.
Roll No. 27133
MCLE No. 4-00,l0685; Dec. 20,2012

2O14.

Z. LUIS

Brgy. Pio del Pilqr, Mokoii City


Tel. Nos. 822-4?091468-0612

No. 9280944
Jon. 28 ,2014; Quezon Ciiy
IBP Lifeiime No. 0395.l; Q.C.

PTR

Roll No. 38963


MCLE 4 - 00.l866; April 26,2CI13

LOpy FUrnrsneo:
Regionol Triol Court, Monilo
Broch 49

Atty. Roberison

Aquino
Counsel for Privqte Respondent
Atty. Diosdodo Modrid
Suite 305-A Deltq Bldg.
Cor. West & Quezon Ave., Q.C.
R,

Atty. Alvin A. Corullo


Counsel for Privaie Respondent
Dr. Mq. Corozon
Romono LL. Delos Sontos
Suite I60? l6lF Jollibee Plozo
F. Oriigos Jr. Rood (ex-Emerold Ave.)
Ortigos Center, Posig Ciiy 1605

.r' lirir,lill
'..
it
',,\
1-.

',4i'6i /

fl

REPUBi,IC OF THE PHILIFPINES }

} S.S.

of legal age, Filipino, and- wittr residence at No' 108'


duly sworn in accordance with
Cenacle Drive, Sanville, Tandang Sora, Quezoi Cit!, afterbeing

I,

.A.tty; Eruesto De tr,os Santos,

law, herebY dePoses and states that:

the
am the petitioner in the above captioned "*: Td. have caused
contents
,Certiorari and I have read and know the
preparation of the foregoing Egti4tn
knowledge
owu
my
=for
cortect based on
thereof and the ul"gutiEnr Ioffiand

1.

That

and authentio records;

the same issues


have not heretofore cornmenced any other action inyolvrle
divisions thereof, or any other
before the supreme Court, in the Court of Appeals rr th. different
tribunal or agency;

2. T;,,at I

proceeding has been filed or is


should thereafter leam ttrat a similar action or
or
Corrt, or in the Court of Appeals, br different divisions thereof'
pending before rhr
infonn this Honorable Court and
any other trib,nal o, igrn"y, I hereby undertake to promptty
the aforesaid tribunal oiag"*y within five (5) days therefrom.

3.

If I

l;il;.

t,*ffi"1r&r^oM

Atty. Ernesto De Los Sautos

SUBSCRIBED.{1.{D swoRN

ro before me this

/,.1
4.[/'u n
fl
da$t&r&&dUi834+014'

/ '{',

rililrtd*trarfiftr,rutie.

ffi;il:#:
t'i".]tr;

eo"ot<

Series of 2014.

""'

'

RI PUBLIC OF

IHE PHILIPPINES

UEZON CITY

SS.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WITH EXPLANAIION

of legol oge, monied, Filipino ond with office oddress


MARILyN E. PURISIMA
of EAA Bldg. No. 6 Rood 3, Project 6 , Quezon City ofier hoving been duly sworn ini
occordonce with low, depose ond soy

l,

ihot

t.

om q stoff

of

E.A. ANDRES LAW OFFICE with office oddress

No. 6 Rood 3 Project 6, Quezon CitY

ot

EAA Bldg'

4.2014, I personolly served copies of the foregoing Petition for


entitled "
Certiorori in cose docketed qs CA G,R. SP. No.Triol
Regionol
Judge,
Atty. Ernesto L. Delos Sontos vs. Hon. Doniel Villonuevcr. Presiding
Court of Monilo, Bronch 49, Atty. Diosdodo Q. lvtodqid ond Dr. Mo. Romono delos
Sontos " to tfle following :

2. On April

o)

Hon. Doniel C. Villonuevq


Bronch 49. RegionolTriol Courl
Monilo

b)

Aquino
Counsel for Privote ResPondent
Atiy. Diosdodo Modrid
Suite 305-4 Delto Bldg., cor. West &
Quezon Avenues, Q.C.

c)

Aity. Alvin A. Corullo


Counsel for Privqte ResPondeni
r.
Dr. Mo. Romono delos Sontos
Jr'
Rood
F.
Ortigos
Plozo
16/F
Jolibee
,
I
Suite 609
.l605
(ex-Emerold Ave.) Orligos Center, Posig City

Aity. Robertson

R.

rN wrTNEss wHEREoF, I
20'14 crt Quezon Ciiy"

hove hereunto offiv.ed my sisnoirr*t'flX

m'i

April

rlfu>fuu'Lv"

MARTLYNt. pUktStn^n
SUBSCRTBED AND SWORN

to before me this 4th doy of

April

2014 ot

euezon City by the offioni who personolly oppeored before me exhibiting


her competent evidence of identity her SSS lD with No. 33-4724653-7.
,-JI

Doc. t to.

lir

1*.

-i

.j#;

Poge No. Z;
Book No. 4 ;
Series of 2014.

r"ii.,iic.
7r.t,l
l. ro).{/

h'{

i-li. i:l i j r,,. i

i'i'

i'i J'.i: l,r''r, rl':l'"

::. i "j
Il:iL, I,jil. t|iij'irr
.t.

A,'\{ J
lt11!\r-...
.'-.li

-i
l?

"

I i.;

ir,t-'l,i,_(;).{."j,

["i';1.]rllr.liliii':,:,;, ,I:, i i ,;,:.- I':{,, i-.1.{.-'


A,r1m. Irlo. l'l f i-I, .;,.i ..:'. ;.. i1-,.1 -1,ii i
pu'p. iit)'i
11,
'JBi'il }.r' 1,:. i.'l':.'' 'i',.
,l :'i,-,i'i
SCOUT i'ii t1'1'{.1'11i:;1, '. ;i,;li]l
{lueetirr u)itv

os