ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 139324. April 20, 2005]

E.M. PINZON vs. CA

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 20 2005.

G.R. No. 139324 (E.M. PINZON DEVELOPERS, INC. represented by its President, RODOLFO D. PINZON, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REYNALDO DAWAY, in his capacity as the RTC Judge, National Capital Region, Branch 90, Quezon City; and the NATIONWIDE BUILDERS DEVELOPERS, INC., represented by its President, VIRGILIO REGALA.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution dated January 11, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50085, entitled "E.M. Pinzon Developers, Inc. represented by its President, Rodolfo D. Pinzon, vs. Judge Reynaldo B. Daway and The Nationwide Builders Developers, Inc., represented by its President, Virgilio Regala."

This case stemmed from Civil Case No. Q38558 for rescission of contract filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Quezon City, by respondent Nationwide Builders Developers, Inc. against E.M. Pinzons Developers, Inc., petitioner. On June 9, 1986, the parties, assisted by their respective counsel, submitted to the trial court a Compromise Agreement quoted as follows:

"1. That plaintiff has a claim against defendant in the amount of P1,934,733.00 as stated in the complaint for the development of its subdivision and in full payment and settlement of such claim, defendant agrees to cede and transfer unto the plaintiff a portion of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-138603 consisting of a total area of 55,155 square meters less the area occupied by NIA consisting of 9,120 sq. m. and situated at the left side of the National Highway going to Cagayan Valley. The identification of the property is encircled in the attached subdivision plan marked as Annex 'A;'

2. That defendant hereby agrees to execute the necessary deed of transfer of said portion of the property in favor of the plaintiff as well as to deliver the individual titles covering the portion to be ceded within a period of ninety days from execution of this compromise agreement;

3. That all the necessary and legal expenses that may be incurred in the registration of the portion of said properties in the name of the plaintiff shall be borne by the plaintiff. The expenses which legally shall be shouldered by a seller in such transaction shall be borne by the defendant;

4. That in the event that defendant fails to comply with its undertaking to transfer the title of the property in favor of the plaintiff as mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, plaintiff shall be entitled to secure an order from this Honorable Court to direct the Register of Deeds of the province of Isabela to transfer the title of the portion of the property in favor of the plaintiff as identifies and summarized in the documents marked as Annex 'A' thereof;

5. That, furthermore, defendant hereby agrees to construct a concrete passageway from the National Highway leading to the portion of the property ceded to the plaintiff in the event that the government authorities shall fail to construct said passageway. On the other hand, plaintiff undertakes to shoulder a portion of the expenses for the construction of the concrete passageway up to a maximum amount of 20% of the full construction cost. The passageway to be constructed should be strong and wide enough to carry the normal load and traffic leading to the property and should conform with all the government standards, rules and specifications for such passageway;

6. That the parties hereto have agreed to comply strictly with the terms and conditions of the Compromise Agreement and non compliance by the defendant of the terms thereof shall entitle the plaintiff to the issuance of a writ of execution without notice."

The trial court approved the Compromise Agreement in its Decision dated June 25, 1986.

After ten years, or on June 21, 1996, upon motion of respondent Nationwide Builders Development Inc., the trial court ordered the execution of the Compromise Judgment.

On December 29, 1998, petitioner, represented by its president Rodolfo D. Pinzon, without the assistance of counsel, filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, alleging that the trial court, in ordering the execution of the Compromise Judgment, acted with grave abuse of discretion since the enforcement of such judgment has prescribed.

In a Resolution dated January 11, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on the grounds that: (1) there is no explanation why a copy of the petition was not personally served upon respondent; and (2) no affidavit of service is attached to the petition.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining why personal service of a copy of the petition upon respondent was not effected, submitting the affidavit of service.

Respondent filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration, claiming that the petition was "again interposed obviously to delay further the early resolution of this case," pointing out that petitioner previously filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the validity of the Compromise Judgment and later on elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari. On April 17, 1996, the Supreme Court denied the petition with finality.

On March 23, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

On May 3, 1999, petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration. In a Resolution dated July 19, 1999, the Appellate Court denied the motion, holding that it is prohibited and that "there appears on record, not contested by petitioner, that the delay in die execution is attributed to petitioner which assailed, albeit unsuccessfully, the validity of the compromise judgment before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. These proceedings suspended the prescriptive reglementary period within which execution may issue."

The instant petition utterly lacks merit.

We sustain the assailed Resolution dated January 11, 1999 of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition on the grounds that a copy was not served personally upon respondent; and that there is no affidavit of service attached to the petition. Verily, the Appellate Court did not gravely abuse its discretion.

Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

"SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. -Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed."

In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Hon. Helen Bautista Ricafort [1] we held:

"We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to other modes of service and filing, the exception. Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is practicable, in light of the circumstances of time, place and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by a written explanation as to why personal service or filing was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11. This Court cannot rule otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation introduced by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate delay in the administration of justice."

We thus find no reason to discuss the merits of the case. For all litigation must come to an end at some point in accordance with established rules of procedure and jurisprudence.

In Sebastian vs. Morales, [2] cralaw we ruled that "(l)itigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure, which exception is not present here. Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules."

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, is hereby DIRECTED to cause the enforcement of its Order of August 30, 1996 directing the execution of the Compromise Judgment dated June 25, 1986 with DISPATCH.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw G.R. No. 132007, August 5, 1998, 293 SCRA 661, cited in Fulgencio vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 141600, September 12, 2003, 411 SCRA 69.

[2] cralaw See G.R. No. 141116, February 17, 2003, 397 SCRA 549.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com