G.R. No. 191618.June 7, 2011.

*
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, petitioner, vs.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, respondent.
Constitutional Law; Election Law; Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET); Presidential Electoral
Tribunal (PET) is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution
and as supported by the discussions of the Members of the Constitutional Commission; The
Constitution cannot contain the specific wording required by petitioner in order for him to
accept the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).We reiterate that
the PET is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution and as
supported by the discussions of the Members of the Constitutional Commission, which
drafted the present Constitution. The explicit reference by the framers of our Constitution to
constitutionalizing what was merely statutory before is not diluted by the absence of a
phrase, line or word, mandating the Supreme Court to create a Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. Suffice it to state that the Constitution, verbose as it already is, cannot contain the
specific wording required by petitioner in order for him to accept the constitutionality of the
PET.

Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Doctrine of Necessary Implication; Under the
doctrine of necessary implication, the additional jurisdiction bestowed by the last paragraph
of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution to decide presidential and vice-presidential
elections contests includes the means necessary to carry it into effect.Judicial power
granted to the Supreme Court by the same Constitution is plenary. And under the doctrine of
necessary implication, the additional jurisdiction bestowed by the last paragraph of Section
4, Article VII of the Constitution to decide presidential and vice-presidential elections
contests includes the means necessary to carry it into effect.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the Supreme Court.

Macalintal vs. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 651 SCRA 239, G.R. No. 191618 June
7, 2011

G.R. No. 160753. June 28, 2005.*

JIMMY L. BARNES, a.k.a. JAMES L. BARNES, petitioner, vs. HON. MA.
LUISA C. QUIJANO PADILLA, Presiding Judge, Br. 215, Regional Trial
Court, Quezon City and TERESITA C. REYES, ELIZABETH C. PASION,
MA. ELSA C. GARCIA, IMELDA C. TRILLO, MA. ELENA C. DINGLASAN
and RICARDO P. CRISOSTOMO, respondents.
Actions; Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the
prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory
character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily
and the parties right to an opportunity to be heard.Private respondents harp on the fact
that the Court applied procedural rules liberally in favor of the petitioner which they consider
an injustice. They, however, must realize that the Rules of Court itself calls for its liberal
construction, with the view of promoting their objective of securing a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The Court is fully aware that
procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed
procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true
that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts
the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory
character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily
and the parties right to an opportunity to be heard. In numerous cases, the Court has
allowed liberal construction of the Rules of Court with respect to the rules on the manner
and periods for perfecting appeals, when to do so would serve the demands of substantial
justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Same; Same; Range of Reasons and Elements which may Provide Justification for a Court to
Resist a Strict Adherence to Procedure.In the Sanchez case, the Court restated the range
of reasons which may provide justification for a court to resist a strict adherence to
procedure, enumerating the elements for an appeal to be given due course by a suspension
of procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence
of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e)
a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the
other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Elements or circumstances (a), (d), (e)
and (f) exist in the present case.

Same; Same; Attorneys; The lawyers negligence without any participatory negligence on
the part of his client is a sufficient reason to set aside an assailed resolution of the Court of
Appeals.A suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case since the procedural infirmity
was not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the petitioner. Petitioners counsel
was understandably confused with the absence of an explicit prohibition in the 2002 Internal
Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA) that the period of filing a motion for reconsideration is
non-extendible, which was expressly stated in the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of
Appeals that was in effect prior to the IRCA. The lawyers negligence without any
participatory negligence on the part of the petitioner is a sufficient reason to set aside the
resolution of the CA.

Same; Ejectment; Specific Performance; An ejectment case is simply designed to summarily

restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or
forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties opposing claims
of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings; Suits for specific performance with
damages do not affect ejectment actions; as an ejectment case for non-payment of rentals
is not prejudicial to an action to enforce the right of preemption or prior purchase of the
leased premises.It is well to state, by way of reminder, that while petitioner may have
brought up the MOA in the ejectment suit, by way of defense, any ruling therein is merely
provisional, only for purposes of resolving the issue of physical possession and is not res
judicata or conclusive on the issue of the enforceability of the MOA, as such determination is
not clothed with finality. This is so because an ejectment case is simply designed to
summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been
illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties
opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. The Court has long
recognized that suits for specific performance with damages do not affect ejectment actions;
an ejectment case for non-payment of rentals is not prejudicial to an action to enforce the
right of preemption or prior purchase of the leased premises. Moreover, the consistent case
law is that a judgment rendered in an ejectment case shall not bar an action between the
same parties respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be conclusive as to the facts
therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving
possession.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Mariano L. Ordoez II for petitioner.

Rafael S. Dizon for private respondent.

Barnes vs. Padilla, 461 SCRA 533, G.R. No. 160753 June 28, 2005

G.R. No. 102782. December 11, 1991.*

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL vs. THE METROPOLITAN MANILA
AUTHORITY and the MUNICIPALITY OF MANDALUYONG
Court rules; Power of Supreme Court to suspend procedural rules.The Metropolitan Manila
Authority is correct in invoking the doctrine that the validity of a law or act can be
challenged only in a direct action and not collaterally. That is indeed the settled principle.
However, that rule is not inflexible and may be relaxed by the Court under exceptional
circumstances, such as those in the present controversy. x x x. Regrettably, not one of the
complainants has filed a formal challenge to the ordinances, including Monsanto and Trieste,
who are lawyers and could have been more assertive of their rights. Given these
considerations, the Court feels it must address the problem squarely presented to it and
decide it as categorically rather than dismiss the complaints on the basis of the technical
objection raised and thus, through its inaction, allow them to fester. The step we now take is
not without legal authority or judicial precedent. Unquestionably, the Court has the power to
suspend procedural rules in the exercise of its inherent power, as expressly recognized in
the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts. In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of
substantial justice, which otherwise may be miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic
adherence to such rules,

Administrative Law; Local Government; Delegation of legislative power.The Court holds

that there is a valid delegation of legislative power to promulgate such measures, it
appearing that the requisites of such delegation are present. These requisites are: 1) the
completeness of the statute making the delegation; and 2) the presence of a sufficient
standard. Under the first requirement, the statute must leave the legislature complete in all
its terms and provisions such that all the delegate will have to do when the statute reaches
it is to implement it. What only can be delegated is not the discretion to determine what the
law shall be but the discretion to determine how the law shall be enforced. This has been
done in the case at bar. As a second requirement, the enforcement may be effected only in
accordance with a sufficient standard, the function of which is to map out the boundaries of
the delegates authority and thus prevent the delegation from running riot. This
requirement has also been met. It is settled that the convenience and welfare of the
public, particularly the motorists and passengers in the case at bar, is an acceptable
sufficient standard to delimit the delegates authority.

Same; Same; Requisites for validity of a municipal ordinance; Measures under consideration
do not conform to existing law.According to Elliot, a municipal ordinance, to be valid: 1)
must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2) must not be unfair or oppressive; 3)
must not be partial or discriminatory; 4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5) must
not be unreasonable; and 6) must be general and consistent with public policy. A careful
study of the Gonong decision will show that the measures under consideration do not pass
the first criterion because they do not conform to existing law. The pertinent law is PD 1605.
PD1605 does not allow either the removal of the license plates or the confiscation of drivers
licenses for traffic violations committed in Metropolitan Manila.

Same; Same; Same.The requirement that the municipal enactment must not violate
existing law explains itself. Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a
valid delegation of legislative power from the national legislature (except only that the
power to create their own sources of revenue and to levy taxes is conferred by the
Constitution itself). They are mere agents vested with what is called the power of
subordinate legislation. As delegates of the Congress, the local government unit cannot
contravene but must obey at all times the will of their principal. In the case before us, the
enactments in question, which are merely local in origin, cannot prevail against the decree,
which has the force and effect of a statute.

PETITION to review the resolution of the Metropolitan Manila Authority.

Solicitor General vs. Metropolitan Manila Authority., 204 SCRA 837, G.R. No.
102782 December 11, 1991

G.R. No. 103276. April 11, 1996.*

DOMINGO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. THE
SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and the PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Supreme Court; Rules of Court; The power of the Supreme
Court to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operations whenever
the purposes of justice require it, cannot be questioned.After carefully considering anew
petitioners plight and keeping in mind that substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme
over technicalities, this Court is swayed to reconsider. The power of this Court to suspend its
own rules or to except a particular case from its operations whenever the purposes of justice
require it, cannot be questioned. In not a few instances, this Court ordered a new trial in
criminal cases on grounds not mentioned in the statute, viz: retraction of witness,
negligence or incompetency of counsel, improvident plea of guilty, disqualification of an
attorney de oficio to represent the accused in trial court, and where a judgment was
rendered on a stipulation of facts entered into by both the prosecution and the defense.
Similarly, in a considerable host of cases has this prerogative been invoked to relax even
procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance, such as the period
to appeal.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Clearly, when transcendental matters like life, liberty or State
security are involved, suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously, and
under the circumstances of the instant case, higher interests of justice and equity demand
that an accused be not penalized for the costly importunings of his lawyers.Clearly, when
transcendental matters like life, liberty or State security are involved, suspension of the
rules is likely to be welcomed more generously. Petitioners present dilemma is certainly not
something reducible to pesos and centavos. No less than his liberty is at stake here. And he
is just about to lose it simply because his former lawyers pursued a carelessly contrived
procedural strategy of insisting on what has already become an imprudent remedy, as
aforediscussed, which thus forbade petitioner from offering his evidence all the while
available for presentation before the Sandiganbayan. Under the circumstances, higher
interests of justice and equity demand that petitioner be not penalized for the costly
importunings of his previous lawyers based on the same principles why this Court had, on
many occasions where it granted new trial, excused parties from the negligence or mistakes
of counsel. To cling to the general rule in this case is only to condone rather than rectify a
serious injustice to petitioners whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust his
innocence to his previous lawyers. Consequently, the receipts and other documents
constituting his evidence which he failed to present in the Sandiganbayan are entitled to be
appreciated, however, by that forum and not this Court, for the general rule is that we are
not triers of facts.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The power of the Supreme Court to suspend or even disregard
the rules of procedure can be so pervasive and encompassing so as to alter even that which
the Court itself has already declared to be final.Let us not forget that the rules of
procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Even the Rules of Court
envision this liberality. This power to suspend or even disregard the rules can be so
pervasive and encompassing so as to alter even that which this Court itself has already
declared to be final, as we are now compelled to do in this case. And this is not without
additional basis. For in Ronquillo v. Marasigan, the Court held that: The fact that the
decision x x x has become final, does not preclude a modification or an alteration thereof
because even with the finality of judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or
unjust, as in the instant case, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same with
justice and the facts. (Emphasis supplied)

Same; Same; Same; Same; Courts in rendering real justice have always been, as they in fact
ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that when on the balance, technicalities
take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around.The Rules of
Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice
but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere
slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts
in rendering real justice have always been, as they in fact ought to be, conscientiously
guided by the norm that when on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against
substantive rights, and not the other way around. Truly then, technicalities, in the
appropriate language of Justice Makalintal, should give way to the realities of the situation.
And the grim reality petitioner will surely face, if we do not compassionately bend backwards
and flex technicalities in this instance, is the disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime
which he might not have committed after all. More so, considering that petitioners record as
public servant remained unscathed until his prosecution. Indeed, while guilt shall not
escape, innocence should not suffer.

OMNIBUS MOTION for leave to vacate first motion for reconsideration and to set aside
conviction.

De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 171, G.R. No. 103276 April 11, 1996

G.R. No. 192217.March 2, 2011.*

 DANILO L. PAREL, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF SIMEON
PRUDENCIO, respondents.
Remedial Law; Judgments; Execution; Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment
sets at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality.
Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in
disposing justiciable controversies with finality. Once a judgment becomes final and
executory, all the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. All that
remains is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right.

Same; Same; Same; Instances Where a Writ of Execution may be Appealed.Banaga v.

Majaducon, 494 SCRA 153 (2006), however, enumerates the instances where a writ of
execution may be appealed: 1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; 2) there has been
a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust; 3) execution
is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution; 4) it appears that the
controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court; 5) the terms of the
judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it
appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in
substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or
otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority.

Same; Same; Same; The inherent power of the court carries with it the right to determine
every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.The Court ruled in
Mejia v. Gabayan, 455 SCRA 499, 512 (2005): x x x The inherent power of the court carries
with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the
execution. The court may stay or suspend the execution of its judgment if warranted by the
higher interest of justice. It has the authority to cause a modification of the decision when it
becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it.
The court is also vested with inherent power to stay the enforcement of its decision based
on antecedent facts which show fraud in its rendition or want of jurisdiction of the trial court
apparent on the record. (Emphasis supplied.)

Same; Same; Same; Exceptions that have been previously considered by the Court as
meriting a relaxation of the rules in order to serve substantial justice.There are exceptions
that have been previously considered by the Court as meriting a relaxation of the rules in
order to serve substantial justice. These are: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property;
(2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (3) the merits of the case; (4) a
cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules; (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous
and dilatory; and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Parel vs. Heirs of Simeon Prudencio, 644 SCRA 496, G.R. No. 192217 March 2,
2011

G.R. No. 183843.January 19, 2011.*

GOLDEN ARCHES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE HOLDINGS, INC., respondent.
Remedial Law; Actions; Venue; Venue, in essence, concerns a rule of procedure. In personal
actions, it is fixed for the greatest possible convenience of the plaintiff and his witnesses,
and to promote the ends of justice; Specifically with respect to a domestic corporation, it is
in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is located as
stated in the articles of incorporation.Venue, in essence, concerns a rule of procedure. In
personal actions, it is fixed for the greatest possible convenience of the plaintiff and his
witnesses, and to promote the ends of justice. Respondents complaint, being one for
enforcement of contractual provisions and recovery of damages, is in the nature of a
personal action which, under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, shall be filed at the
plaintiffs residence. Specifically with respect to a domestic corporation, it is in a
metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is located as stated in
the articles of incorporation.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Golden Arches Development Corporation vs. St. Francis Square Holdings, Inc., 640
SCRA 227, G.R. No. 183843 January 19, 2011

G.R. No. 189151.January 25, 2012.*

SPOUSES DAVID BERGONIA and LUZVIMINDA CASTILLO,
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (4th DIVISION) and
AMADO BRAVO, JR., respondents.
Remedial Law; Certiorari; Appeals; The extraordinary remedy of certiorari can be availed of
only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, while Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states that an appeal may be
taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or a particular
matter therein.It bears stressing that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari can be availed
of only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states that an
appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or
a particular matter therein.

Same; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Rules to determine whether a courts disposition is

already a final order or merely an interlocutory order and the respective remedies that may
be availed in each case.In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 662 SCRA 152
(2011), this Court laid down the following rules to determine whether a courts disposition is
already a final order or merely an interlocutory order and the respective remedies that may
be availed in each case, thus: Case law has conveniently demarcated the line between a
final judgment or order and an interlocutory one on the basis of the disposition made. A
judgment or order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding
completely, or terminates a particular stage of the same action; in such case, the remedy
available to an aggrieved party is appeal. If the order or resolution, however, merely
resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of
the case, the order is interlocutory and the aggrieved partys remedy is a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. Jurisprudence pointedly holds that: As distinguished from a final
order which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular
proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has
been determined by the court, an interlocutory order does not dispose of a case completely,
but leaves something more to be adjudicated upon. The term final judgment or order
signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the case as to all the parties, reserving no
further questions or directions for future determination. On the other hand, a court order is
merely interlocutory in character if it leaves substantial proceedings yet to be had in
connection with the controversy. It does not end the task of the court in adjudicating the
parties contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as against each other. In this
sense, it is basically provisional in its application.

Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave
abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist.Even if we are to assume arguendo that
the petitioners resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is proper, the instant petition
would still be denied. A petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is
alleged and proved to exist. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law
or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. Here, there was no hint of whimsicality or
gross and patent abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it dismissed the appeal of
the petitioners for the failure of the latter to file their appellants brief.

Same; Civil Procedure; Appellants Brief; The Court of Appeals authority to dismiss an
appeal for failure to file the appellants brief is a matter of judicial discretion.In a long line
of cases, this Court has held that the CAs authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file
the appellants brief is a matter of judicial discretion. Thus, a dismissal based on this ground
is neither mandatory nor ministerial; the fundamentals of justice and fairness must be
observed, bearing in mind the background and web of circumstances surrounding the case.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

Bergonia vs. Court of Appeals (4th Division), 664 SCRA 322, G.R. No. 189151 January 25,
2012