SECOND DIVISION.
ANTONIO
T. DONATO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
129638
December 8, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
COURT
OF APPEALS,
FILOMENO ARCEPE, TIMOTEO BARCELONA,IGNACIO BENDOL,
THELMA P. BULICANO, ROSALINDA CAPARAS,ROSITA DE COSTO,
FELIZA DE GUZMAN, LETICIA DE LOS REYES,ROGELIO
GADDI,
PAULINO
GAJARDO, GERONIMO IMPERIAL,HOMER IMPERIAL,
ELVIRA LESLIE, CEFERINO LUGANA,HECTOR PIMENTEL,
NIMFA PIMENTEL, AURELIO G. ROCERO,ILUMINADA TARA,
JUANITO VALLESPIN, AND NARCISO YABUT,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before us is a "Petition
for Review on
Certiorari"
filed on July 17, 1997 which should be a
Petition
for
Certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court. It assails the
Resolutions[1]
dated March 21, 1997 and June 23, 1997 issued by the Court of Appeals
in
CA-G.R. SP No. 41394.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual background
of the case is as follows:
Petitioner Antonio T.
Donato is the registered owner of a real property located at Ciriaco
Tuason
Street, San Andres, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No.
131793 issued by the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila on
November
24, 1978. On June 7, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint before the
Metropolitan
Trial Court (Branch 26) of Manila (MeTC) for forcible entry and
unlawful
detainer against 43 named defendants and "all unknown occupants" of the
subject property.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner alleges that:
private respondents had oral contracts of lease that expired at the end
of each month but were impliedly renewed under the same terms by mere
acquiescence
or tolerance; sometime in 1992, they stopped paying rent; on April 7,
1994,
petitioner sent them a written demand to vacate; the non-compliance
with
said demand letter constrained him to file the ejectment case against
them.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Of the 43 named defendants,
only 20 (Private Respondents,[5]
for brevity) filed a consolidated Answer dated June 29, 1994 wherein
they
denied non-payment of rentals. They contend that they cannot be evicted
because the Urban Land Reform Law guarantees security of tenure and
priority
right to purchase the subject property; and that there was a
negotiation
for the purchase of the lots occupied by them but when the negotiation
reached a passive stage, they decided to continue payment of rentals
and
tendered payment to petitioner's counsel and thereafter initiated a
petition
for consignation of the rentals in Civil Case No. 144049 while they
await
the outcome of the negotiation to purchase.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Following trial under
the Rule on Summary Procedure, the MeTC rendered judgment on September
19, 1994 against the 23 non-answering defendants, ordering them to
vacate
the premises occupied by each of them, and to pay jointly and severally
P10,000.00 per month from the date they last paid their rent until the
date they actually vacate, plus interest thereon at the legal rate
allowed
by law, as well as P10,000.00 as attorney's fees and the costs of the
suit.
As to the 20 private respondents, the MeTC issued a separate judgment[6]
on the same day sustaining their rights under the Land Reform Law,
declaring
petitioner's cause of action as not duly warranted by the facts and
circumstances
of the case and dismissing the case without prejudice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not satisfied with the
judgment dismissing the complaint as against the private respondents,
petitioner
appealed to the Regional Trial Court (Branch 47) of Manila (RTC).[7]
In a Decision[8]
dated July 5, 1996, the RTC sustained the decision of the MeTC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Undaunted, petitioner
filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA for brevity),
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 41394. In a Resolution dated March 21, 1997,
the CA dismissed the petition on two grounds: (a) the certification of
non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner's counsel and not by
petitioner
himself, in violation of Revised Circular No. 28-91;[9]
and, (b) the only annex to the petition is a certified copy of the
questioned
decision but copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the
record as would support the allegations of the petition are not
annexed,
contrary to Section 3, paragraph b, Rule 6 of the Revised Internal
Rules
of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA).[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 17, 1997, petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[11]
attaching thereto a photocopy of the certification of non-forum
shopping
duly signed by petitioner himself[12]
and the relevant records of the MeTC and the RTC.[13]
Five days later, or on April 22, 1997, petitioner filed a Supplement[14]
to his motion for reconsideration submitting the duly authenticated
original
of the certification of non-forum shopping signed by petitioner.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Resolution[16]
dated June 23, 1997 the CA denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration
and its supplement, ruling that "petitioner's subsequent compliance did
not cure the defect in the instant petition."[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the present petition
anchored on the following grounds:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I.
RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION BASED ON
HYPER-TECHNICAL
GROUNDS BECAUSE:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
PETITIONER
HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 28-91. MORE,
PETITIONER SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE
PROCEEDINGS
A DULY AUTHENTICATED CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING WHICH HE HIMSELF
SIGNED AND EXECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. PETITIONER
HAS SUBSTANTIALLY
COMPLIED WITH SECTION 3, RULE 6 OF THE REVISED INTERNAL RULES OF THE
COURT
OF APPEALS. MORE, PETITIONER SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED DURING THE PENDENCY
OF THE PROCEEDINGS COPIES OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THE CASES BELOW.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. PETITIONER
HAS A
MERITORIOUS APPEAL, AND HE STANDS TO LOSE SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY IF THE
APPEAL
IS NOT GIVEN DUE COURSE. THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MUST BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED
TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II.
RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFUL
DETAINER
ARE PRESENT IN THE CASE AT BAR.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III.
RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE RTC MANILA, BRANCH 47, COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF MTC MANILA, BRANCH 26, THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS
CANNOT BE EJECTED FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR
SECURITY
OF TENURE EVEN IF THE TERM OF THE LEASE IS MONTH-TO-MONTH WHICH EXPIRES
AT THE END OF EACH MONTH. IN THIS REGARD,
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.
RESPONDENT
COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE RTC MANILA COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN NOT RULING THAT TENANTS UNDER P.D. 1517 MAY BE EVICTED FOR
NON-PAYMENT
OF RENT, TERMINATION OF LEASE OR OTHER GROUNDS FOR EJECTMENT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. RESPONDENT
COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE RTC MANILA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR
IN NOT RULING THAT THE ALLEGED "PRIORITY RIGHT TO BUY THE LOT THEY
OCCUPY"
DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE LANDOWNER DOES NOT INTEND TO SELL THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, AS IN THE CASE AT BAR. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. RESPONDENT
COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE RTC MANILA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR
IN RULING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A ZONAL
IMPROVEMENT
AREA OR APD.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D. RESPONDENT
COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE RTC MANILA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR
IN NOT RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CONDITIONS
UNDER THE LAW RESULT IN THE WAIVER OF PROTECTION AGAINST EVICTION.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
E. RESPONDENT
COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE RTC MANILA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR
IN NOT RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION
UNDER P.D. 2016 SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO INTENTION OF ACQUIRING THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
F. RESPONDENT
COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE RTC MANILA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR
IN FINDING THAT THERE IS AN ON-GOING NEGOTIATION FOR THE SALE OF THE
SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND THAT IT RENDERS THE EVICTION OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
PREMATURE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
G. RESPONDENT
COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RULED THAT THE RTC MANILA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR
IN NOT RULING THAT THE ALLEGED CASE FOR CONSIGNATION DOES NOT BAR THE
EVICTION
OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS SHOULD PAY
PETITIONER
A REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THEIR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY
IN THE AMOUNT OF AT LEAST P10,000.00 PER MONTH FROM THE DATE THEY LAST
PAID RENT UNTIL THE TIME THEY ACTUALLY VACATE THE SAME, WITH LEGAL
INTEREST
AT THE MAXIMUM RATE ALLOWED BY LAW UNTIL PAID.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
V.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
RESPONDENT COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS SHOULD PAY
PETITIONER
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION OF AT LEAST P20,000.00, PLUS
COSTS.[18]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner submits
that a relaxation of the rigid rules of technical procedure is called
for
in view of the attendant circumstances showing that the objectives of
the
rule on certification of non-forum shopping and the rule requiring
material
portions of the record be attached to the petition have not been
glaringly
violated and, more importantly, the petition is meritorious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The proper recourse
of an aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for
review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, if the
error,
subject of the recourse, is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained
of was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the
aggrieved
party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. As
enunciated by the Court in Fortich vs. Corona:[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the first issue,
in order to determine whether the recourse of petitioners is proper or
not, it is necessary to draw a line between an error of judgment and an
error of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the court may
commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is
reviewable
only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one
where
the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a
quasi-judicial
body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion
which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. This error is
correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.[20]
(Emphasis
supplied).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Inasmuch as the present
petition principally assails the dismissal of the petition on ground of
procedural flaws involving the jurisdiction of the court a quo to
entertain
the petition, it falls within the ambit of a special civil action for
certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the time the instant
petition for certiorari was filed, i.e., on July 17, 1997, the
prevailing
rule is the newly promulgated 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However,
considering
that the CA Resolution being assailed was rendered on March 21, 1997,
the
applicable rule is the three-month reglementary period, established by
jurisprudence.[21]
Petitioner received notice of the assailed CA Resolution dismissing his
petition for review on April 4, 1997. He filed his motion
reconsideration
on April 17, 1997, using up only thirteen days of the 90-day period.
Petitioner
received the CA Resolution denying his motion on July 3, 1997 and
fourteen
days later, or on July 17, 1997, he filed a motion for 30-day extension
of time to file a "petition for review" which was granted by us; and
petitioner
duly filed his petition on August 15, 1997, which is well-within the
period
of extension granted to him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We now go to the merits
of the case.cralaw:red
We find the instant
petition partly meritorious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The requirement regarding
the need for a certification of non-forum shopping in cases filed
before
the CA and the corresponding sanction for non-compliance thereto are
found
in the then prevailing Revised Circular No. 28-91.[22]
It provides that the petitioner himself must make the certification
against
forum shopping and a violation thereof shall be a cause for the summary
dismissal of the multiple petition or complaint. The rationale for the
rule of personal execution of the certification by the petitioner
himself
is that it is only the petitioner who has actual knowledge of whether
or
not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in other courts or
tribunals; even counsel of record may be unaware of such fact.[23]
The Court has ruled that with respect to the contents of the
certification,
the rule on substantial compliance may be availed of. This is so
because
the requirement of strict compliance with the rule regarding the
certification
of non-forum shopping simply underscores its mandatory nature in that
the
certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements
completely
disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance
with
its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition for review
filed before the CA contains a certification against forum shopping but
said certification was signed by petitioner's counsel. In submitting
the
certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by himself in his
motion
for reconsideration,[25]
petitioner has aptly drawn the Court's attention to the physical
impossibility
of filing the petition for review within the 15-day reglementary period
to appeal considering that he is a resident of 1125 South Jefferson
Street,
Roanoke, Virginia, U.S.A. were he to personally accomplish and sign the
certification.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We fully agree with
petitioner that it was physically impossible for the petition to have
been
prepared and sent to the petitioner in the United States, for him to
travel
from Virginia, U.S.A. to the nearest Philippine Consulate in
Washington,
D.C., U.S.A., in order to sign the certification before the Philippine
Consul, and for him to send back the petition to the Philippines within
the 15-day reglementary period. Thus, we find that petitioner has
adequately
explained his failure to personally sign the certification which
justifies
relaxation of the rule.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have stressed that
the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely designed to promote
and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be
interpreted
with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate
objective[26]
which is simply to prohibit and penalize the evils of forum-shopping.[27]
The subsequent filing of the certification duly signed by the
petitioner
himself should thus be deemed substantial compliance, pro hac vice.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In like manner, the
failure of the petitioner to comply with Section 3, paragraph b, Rule 6
of the RIRCA, that is, to append to his petition copies of the
pleadings
and other material portions of the records as would support the
petition,
does not justify the outright dismissal of the petition. It must be
emphasized
that the RIRCA gives the appellate court a certain leeway to require
parties
to submit additional documents as may be necessary in the interest of
substantial
justice. Under Section 3, paragraph d of Rule 3 of the RIRCA,[28]
the CA may require the parties to complete the annexes as the court
deems
necessary, and if the petition is given due course, the CA may require
the elevation of a complete record of the case as provided for under
Section
3(d)(5) of Rule 6 of the RIRCA.[29]
At any rate, petitioner attached copies of the pleadings and other
material
portions of the records below with his motion for reconsideration.[30]
In Jaro vs. Court of Appeals,[31]
the Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz[32]
and Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission[33]
that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for
reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the
relaxation
of the rules of procedure. We find no cogent reason to depart from this
doctrine.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Truly, in dismissing
the petition for review, the CA had committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in putting a premium on
technicalities
at the expense of a just resolution of the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Needless to stress,
"a litigation is not a game of technicalities."[34]
When technicality deserts its function of being an aid to justice, the
Court is justified in exempting from its operations a particular case.[35]
Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate
justice.
While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective,
granting
substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.[36]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's pronouncement
in Republic vs. Court of Appeals[37]
is worth echoing: "cases should be determined on the merits, after full
opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and
defenses,
rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that
way,
the ends of justice would be better served."[38]
Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is
given
the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or
defense
rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere
technicalities.[39]
This guideline is especially true when the petitioner has
satisfactorily
explained the lapse and fulfilled the requirements in his motion for
reconsideration,[40]
as in this case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In addition, petitioner
prays that we decide the present petition on the merits without need of
remanding the case to the CA. He insists that all the elements of
unlawful
detainer are present in the case. He further argues that the alleged
"priority
right to buy the lot they occupy" does not apply where the landowner
does
not intend to sell the subject property, as in the case; that
respondents
cannot be entitled to protection under P.D.
No. 2016 since the government has no intention of acquiring the
subject
property, nor is the subject property located within a zonal
improvement
area; and, that assuming that there is a negotiation for the sale of
the
subject property or a pending case for consignation of rentals, these
do
not bar the eviction of respondents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not persuaded.
We shall refrain from ruling on the foregoing issues in the present
petition
for certiorari. The issues involved are factual issues which inevitably
require the weighing of evidence. These are matters that are beyond the
province of this Court in a special civil action for certiorari. These
issues are best addressed to the CA in the petition for review filed
before
it. As an appellate court, it is empowered to require parties to submit
additional documents, as it may find necessary, or to receive evidence,
to promote the ends of justice, pursuant to the last paragraph of
Section
9, B.P.
Blg. 129, otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Intermediate
Appellate Court shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings,
receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve
factual
issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate
jurisdiction,
including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further
proceedings.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is PARTLY GRANTED. The Resolutions dated March 21, 1997 and June 23,
1997
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41394 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in
CA-G.R. No. 41394, entitled, "Antonio TDonato vs. Hon. Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, Filomeno Arcepe, et al."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing, Callejo,
Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Justice Ramon A. Barcelona and concurred in by Justices
Artemon
D. Luna and Hilarion L. Aquino.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Entitled, "Antonio TDonato vs. Hon. Judge of the Regional Trial
Court
of Manila, Branch 47, Filomeno Arcepe, et al."
[3]
Docketed as Civil Case No. 144362, entitled "Antonio T. Donato vs.
Erlinda
Aguilar, Remedios Arcelis, Elsa Arcepe, Filomeno Arcepe, Erlinda
Avellano,
Anita Barcelona, Bienvenido Barcelona, Timoteo Barcelona, Severa Basco,
Ignacio Bendol, Thelma P. Bulicano, Rosalinda Caparas, Rosita de Costo,
Feliza de Guzman, Dominador de Guzman, Leticia de los Reyes, Angelo de
los Reyes, Rogelio Gaddi, Paulino Gajardo, Mercedita Y. Gonzales,
Emmanuel
Imperial, Geronimo Imperial, Homer Imperial, Elvira Leslie, Ceferino
Lugana,
Eleuterio Malto, Marife Maramara, Criselda Pimentel, Hector Pimentel,
Nimfa
Pimentel, Aurelia G. Rocero, Lamberto Sison, Zenaida Sunga, Dominador
Tara,
Iluminada Tara, Benosa Tomas, Ines Trinidad, Ligaya Usi, Carlito
Varallo,
Hena Valespin, Juanito Valespin, Milagros Yabut, Narciso Yabut and All
Unknown Occupants of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title
No. 151795 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila, with address at Ciriaco
Tuason Street, San Andres District, Manila."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 96.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Namely: Filomeno Arcepe, Timoteo Barcelona, Ignacio Bendol, Thelma P.
Bulicano,
Rosalinda Caparas, Rosita De Costo, Feliza De Guzman, Leticia De Los
Reyes,
Rogelio Gaddi, Paulino Gajardo, Geronimo Imperial, Homer Imperial,
Elvira
Leslie, Ceferino Lugana, Hector Pimentel, Nimfa Pimentel, Aurelio G.
Rocero,
Iluminada Tara, Juanito Vallespin, and Narciso Yabut; id., p. 101.
[6]
Penned by Judge Reinato G. Quilala, Id., p. 147.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Docketed as Civil Case No. 95-72700.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Penned by Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Otherwise known as "Additional Requisites for Petitions filed with the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to Prevent Forum-Shopping or
Multiple
Filing of Petitions and Complaints".
[10]
Section 3(b), Rule 6 of the RIRCA reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the disputed
decisions, judgments, or orders of the lower courts, together with true
copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as
would
support the allegations of the petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Court of Appeals (CA) Rollo, p. 74.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., p. 88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., pp. 90–286.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., p. 287.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., p. 291.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo, p. 91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id., p. 93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., pp. 29–32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
289 SCRA 624 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id., p. 642.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Lapulapu Development & Housing Corporation vs. Risos, 261 SCRA 517,
526 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Now found in Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Mendigorin vs. Cabantog, G.R. No. 136449, August 22, 2002; Digital
Microwave
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 286, 290 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
MC Engineering, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 360 SCRA
183, 189–190 (2001), citing Dar vs. Alonzo-Legasto, 339 SCRA 306
(2000);
Kavinta vs. Castillo, Jr., 249 SCRA 604 (1995); Loyola vs. Court of
Appeals,
245 SCRA 477 (1995); and, Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 192
(1994).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
See Note Nos. 12 and 15, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Cavile vs. Heirs of Cavile, G.R. No. 148635, April 1, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
BA Savings Bank vs. Sia, 336 SCRA 484, 490 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Section 3(d), Rule 3 of the RIRCA reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When
a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required number of
copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the
petitioner
to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the
petition
before docketing the case. Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be
returned to the sender by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Section 3(d)(5), Rule 6 of the RIRCA reads as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
Court may order the Clerk of the Regional Trial Court to elevate the
original
record of the case including the documentary evidence and transcript of
stenographic notes to this Court within ten (10) days from notice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
See Note No. 13, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Jaro vs. Court of Appeals, 377 SCRA 282, 297 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
336 SCRA 113 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
357 SCRA 640 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Aguam vs. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 784, 789 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
PHHC vs. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471, 475–476 (1964).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
Twin Towers Condominium Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
123552,
February 27, 2003; Shipside Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, 352 SCRA
334, 347 (2001).
[37]
292 SCRA 243 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Id., pp. 251–252.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
Government Service Insurance System vs. Bengson Commercial Buildings,
Inc.,
375 SCRA 431, 445 (2002); Apex Mining, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 319
SCRA
456, 468 (1999).
[40]
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146923,
April
30, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |