February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 196683 : February 15, 2012]
ESPERANZA A. HIPONA, BRAULIO D. HIPONA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, SERGIA ABRAGAN, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 196683 (Esperanza A. Hipona, Braulio D. Hipona, et al. v. Court of Appeals, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Sergia Abragan, et. al); G.R. No. 196713 (Cagayan Country Club, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines, representing the Director of Lands and Armed Forces of the Philippines, et al.); G.R. No. 196717 (Esperanza A. Hipona, Braulio D. Hipona, et al v. Republic of the Philippines, representing the Director of Lands and Armed Forces of the Philippines, Cagayan Country Club, Inc., Sergia Abragan, et al.) � On 28 September 2011, this Court issued a Resolution denying the consolidated Petitions for failure to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) to warrant the exercise by this Court of the latter's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. In addition, this Court found that all the Petitions suffered from several technical defects, which were fatal to their case.
On 28 November 2011, this Court issued a Resolution treating the Manifestation filed in G.R. No. 196717 as a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated 28 September 2011 and denying the said Manifestation.
Before this Court are the following motions:
- Motion to Admit Supplement to Petition dated 23 November 2011, filed by petitioner Heirs of Braulio Hipona in G.R. No. 196683
- Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 November 2011, filed by petitioner Cagayan Country Club, Inc. in G.R. No. 196713
- Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 December 2011, filed by petitioners in G.R. No. 196717
In the Motion to Admit Supplement to Petition in G.R. No. 196683, petitioners herein - Heirs of Braulio Hipona - allegedly to cure the technical defects of the petition, submitted the following documents:
- Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
- Affidavit of Service
Petitioners claim that the failure to attach these documents to the Petition was due to excusable negligence and honest inadvertence and was caused by human frailties. They also pray for the relaxation of the technical rules.
Unfortunately, petitioners have not shown any justifiable, persuasive and compelling reason for the relaxation of the rules in their favor.[1] The lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the Petition.[2] Moreover, no new argument has been raised that would show any reversible error on the part of the CA.
In the Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 November 2011 in G.R. No. 196713, petitioner correctly alleges that the explanation of why personal service was not made, which was not indicated on the Petition, is instead stated in the Affidavit of Service.
However, petitioner claims that it could not notify this Court of the pendency of G.R. Nos. 196683 and 196717, as it received copies of these other petitions after it filed its own Petition. Petitioner overlooks the fact that in its Certification, it precisely undertook to notify this Court of any pending similar actions within five days after learning of the case.
In any case, petitioner has not presented any new argument on the merits that would rebut the denial of the Petition on the ground that there was no reversible error on the part of the CA.
In the Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 December 2011 in G.R. No. 196717, petitioners insist that the petition does not suffer from technical defects and should instead be decided on the merits.
Previously, however, petitioners in G.R. No. 196717 have already filed a Manifestation dated 10 October 2011, which prayed for the reconsideration of the denial of their Petition. In a Resolution dated 28 November 2011, this Court resolved to treat the Manifestation as a motion for reconsideration and to deny the same.
In the Manifestation, petitioners by counsel admitted that they had received a copy of the Resolution[3] denying their Petition on 7 October 2011. They then had until 22 October 2011 to file a motion for reconsideration. Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration dated 1December 2011 was filed out of time.
In the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, they claim that they received a copy of the Resolution denying their Petition "through [counsel]" only on 17 November 2011. Assuming that only the parties received a copy of the Resolution on 7 October 2011, the filing through counsel of a Manifestation seeking relief may be deemed a waiver of such notice to counsel.[4] The general rule � that notice or service made upon a party who is represented by counsel is a nullity � may be waived by a party.[5]
In any case, the Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 December 2011 does not present any compelling argument to reverse the questioned Resolution.
a. With respect to the statement of material dates, petitioners acknowledge that the Petition only states that the Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was "filed within the reglementary period." However, they claim that this allegation alone is sufficient, since there "could have been no intention to hide the actual date of filing since it was made within the reglementary period." Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is clear that the petition must indicate the material dates showing when a motion for reconsideration was filed.
b. Petitioners allege that they attached "clear legible copies" of the assailed Decision and even included the Notice of Judgment, even though it was not required. Required under the Rules, however, are clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed Decisions. Clear copies or photocopies are not sufficient.[6]
c. With respect to the authority of the affiant to sign the Verification/Certification, petitioners claim that the former was duly authorized by a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) attached to the Petition. However, the SPA attached was executed by only 4 out of the 6 petitioners.[7]
d. With respect to the defective notarization of the Verification/Certification for lack of competent evidence of identity, petitioners claim that the affiants are very close relatives of the notary public and are thus personally known to the latter. However, as the jurat does not contain a statement to that effect, the Court cannot simply assume that the affiant is personally known to the notary public.[8]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Admit Supplement to Petition dated 23 November 2011, filed by petitioner Heirs of Braulio Hipona in G.R. No. 196683; Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 November 2011, filed by petitioner Cagayan Country Club, Inc. in G.R. No. 196713; and Motion for Reconsideration dated 1 December 2011, filed by petitioners in G.R. No. 196717 are DENIED with FINALITY. No further pleadings will be allowed. Let Entry of Judgment be made in due course. (J. Brion, on leave; J. Villarama, Jr., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1195 dated 15 February 2012)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 412 (2000).[2] Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170625, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 510.
[3] While the Manifestation refers to a Resolution dated "31 August 2011," the actual Resolution dated 31 August 2011 is one consolidating the Petitions in G.R. Nos. 396713 and 196717. It was the Resolution dated 28 September 2011 that denied the consolidated Petitions.
[4] See Garrucho v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 542 (2003); De Leon v. Court of Appeals, 432 Phil. 774 (2002); National Lumber & Hardware Co. v. Velasco, 106 Phil. 1098 (1960); Republic v. Reyes, 163 Phil. 445 (1976).
[5] Hegerty v. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 542 (2003).
[6] Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171098, 26 February 2008, 546 SCRA 595.
[7] Although the caption indicates that there are seven petitioners, one of them filed a separate petition.
[8] See Kilosbayan Foundation v. Janolo, G.R. No. 180543, 27 July 2010, 625 SCRA 684.
