January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 166679 : January 27, 2010] TAGAYTAY CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORABLE MAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ERNESTO DE LOS REYES AND MILAGROS DE LOS REYES, RESPONDENTS. :
[G.R. No. 166679 : January 27, 2010]
TAGAYTAY CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORABLE MAYOR, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ERNESTO DE LOS REYES AND MILAGROS DE LOS REYES, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 27 January 2010:
G.R. No. 166679: TAGAYTAY CITY, represented by its Honorable Mayor, petitioner, versus SPOUSES ERNESTO DE LOS REYES AND MILAGROS DE LOS REYES, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 18 October 2004 and Resolution[3] dated 23 December 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 75247. The CA nullified and set aside the Orders dated 16 July 2002 and 3 December 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City, Cavite, Branch 18.
On 1 August 1996, then Tagaytay City Mayor Isaac Tolentino issued Executive Order No. 10[4] creating the Philippine Constabulary Enlisted Men and City Employees Village (village), pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 770.[5] The village was envisioned to be in a city-owned property and awardees were required to meet certain qualifications: (1) that they must be bona fide residents of Tagaytay City; (2) that they be employees of the city government on a plantilla basis; (3) that they, or their spouses or their parents do not own lots in the city; (4) that they shall not be allowed to dispose, sell, cede, or transfer the lot awarded within a period of five (5) years from the date of the award, and that after such period of time, the transfer or sale must be in favor of a bona fide resident employed with the Tagaytay City government on a plantilla basis; and (5) that they shall not possess more than one lot, except upon unanimous consent of the members of the awards committee, which should as well carry the approval of the city mayor.
Sometime in 1996, petitioner Tagaytay City discovered that respondents spouses Ernesto and Milagros de los Reyes owned a number of lots in the village which were originally awarded to the spouses Eufronio and Gliceria Erni, Eduardo Crizaldo, and Lolita C. Cabrera. Petitioner alleged that respondents never possessed the qualifications of an awardee or a subsequent allowable transferee of the lots.
On 16 July 1998, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents with the RTC of Tagaytay City, Cavite, Branch 18. Petitioner prayed that the acquisition of the lots be declared void and the lots be reverted to the city.
In their Answer, respondents interposed special and affirmative defenses: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, which lies with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB); (2) improper venue; (3) that they are purchasers in good faith and for value, as well as builders in good faith; (4) that the lots allegedly awarded originally to the Erni spouses were purchased by respondents from the Rural Bank of Cavite City; (5) that said lots were registered under their name as early as 13 June 1988; (6) that petitioner allowed respondents to own, possess, occupy and enjoy the lots for quite a while; (7) that the cause of action is barred by laches, estoppel, and prescription; and (8) that petitioner is not the real party in interest.
Subsequently, both parties filed their respective pre-trial briefs. On 18 July 2000, the RTC judge issued a pre-trial order setting the reception of petitioner's evidence on 28 September 2000 and 12 and 26 October 2000. Ostensibly, the schedule of hearings specified in the pre-trial order was not complied with.
On 23 October 2001, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement and for the resetting of the initial presentation of its evidence. Petitioner alleged that its first witness, City Treasurer Norberto San Mateo, could not make it on 24 October 2001, the initial date for the presentation of petitioner's evidence. Petitioner reasoned that the witness had to attend to urgent matters in Manila.
On 24 October 2001, the RTC issued an Order dismissing the case for lack of interest. The dispositive portion states:
On 14 November 2001, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
In an Order dated 22 November 2001, the RTC gave respondents 10 days to submit their comment or opposition to the motion for reconsideration. The RTC set the hearing of the motion on 11 January 2002.
On 10 December 2001, respondents' counsel filed a motion to reset the hearing citing conflicting court schedules. In an Order dated 29 December 2001, the hearing was moved to 28 February 2002.
At the heaving on 28 February 2002, petitioner's counsel and representative did not appear. Thus, in an Order dated 28 February 2002, the RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The relevant portion of the order states:
On 21 March 2002, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to set aside the Order dated 28 February 2002. Respondents filed their opposition to the motion for reconsideration alleging that the motion was devoid of merit and not allowed under Section 5, Rule 37[8] of the Rules of Court.
On 3 May 2002, petitioner filed a reply insisting that the motion for reconsideration dated 21 March 2002 was not in the same class as a second motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argued that the latest motion merely prayed for the setting aside of the Order dated 28 February 2002 and the resetting of the hearing of its oral arguments on its earlier motion for reconsideration.
On 16 July 2002, the RTC granted the motion for reconsideration and set aside its Order dated 24 October 2001. The relevant portion of the order[9] states:
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated 16 July 2002 which was denied by the RTC in its Order[10] dated 3 December 2002.
Respondents then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order. The petition was initially dismissed for failure of one of the respondents, Milagros de los Reyes, to sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping. However, the CA reconsidered the petition since Ernesto de los Reyes, as the principal party, and not his wife, was the one required under Section 5, Rule 71[11] of the Rules of Court to certify against forum shopping.
On 18 October 2004, the appellate court decided the case in favor of respondents. The CA issued the writs applied for and nullified and set aside the challenged orders, dated 16 July 2002 and 3 December 2002, of the RTC.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated 23 December 2004.
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondents' petition.
Petitioner insists that the motion for reconsideration filed on 21 March 2002 is not a second motion for reconsideration since this motion for reconsideration is not directed against the RTC Order dated 24 October 2001 dismissing the case for lack of interest. This motion for reconsideration is a motion directed against the RTC Order dated 28 February 2002 and prayed that the non-appearance of petitioner's counsel and representative be excused or be deemed justified and that the hearing of the motion be set to another date.
On the other hand, respondents maintain that petitioner violated the prohibition against a second motion for reconsideration.
The petition lacks merit.
Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court states:
A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading which shall not be allowed, except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons.
In the present case, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents in July 1998. For several reasons, the hearings had been postponed and reset until finally the RTC decided to dismiss the case due to lack of interest in its Order dated 24 October 2001. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration dated 14 November 2001. The RTC again set a date in order to hear the motion. However, on the date of the hearing, petitioner's counsel and representative did not appear. On respondents' oral motion given in open court, the RTC issued an Order dated 28 February 2002 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed another motion for reconsideration, dated 21 March 2002, of the RTC's Order dated 28 February 2002. The RTC granted the motion for reconsideration in its Orders dated 16 July 2002 and 3 December 2002. Citing Section 5, Rule 37, the appellate court ruled in favor of respondents. Petitioner now comes to us alleging that the motion for reconsideration dated 21 March 2002 should not be considered as a second motion for reconsideration.
This motion for reconsideration, even if not designated as a second motion for reconsideration, is a disguised second motion for reconsideration since the arguments in the motion are merely a reiteration of petitioner's earlier arguments. More importantly, the motion is too unsubstantial to require consideration. The grounds cited were directed towards one goal and that is to persuade the court to reconsider its earlier order dismissing the complaint for lack of interest. It is incumbent upon petitioner to prosecute its complaint with assiduousness in order to safeguard its rights. However, in its failure to appear before the court without any justifiable reason, petitioner gave the RTC a compelling need to deny the motion for reconsideration for failing to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time.[12] Even if the RTC later rescinded its earlier order and granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the appellate court correctly ruled against petitioner.
In deciding against petitioner, the appellate court made the following findings:
We agree with the appellate court's observations. Petitioner's negligence or failure to give attention to the case resulted to adverse consequences that petitioner must bear alone. Time and again, we have ruled that there must be exceptional circumstances to allow the relaxation of the rules.[14] We find no such circumstances existing in the present case.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 18 October 2004 and Resolution dated 23 December 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75247.
SO ORDERED. (Abad, J., on official leave; Corona, J., designated additional member)
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Renato C. Corona (designated additional member per S.O. No. 812), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 20th day of January, 2010.
G.R. No. 166679: TAGAYTAY CITY, represented by its Honorable Mayor, petitioner, versus SPOUSES ERNESTO DE LOS REYES AND MILAGROS DE LOS REYES, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 18 October 2004 and Resolution[3] dated 23 December 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 75247. The CA nullified and set aside the Orders dated 16 July 2002 and 3 December 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay City, Cavite, Branch 18.
On 1 August 1996, then Tagaytay City Mayor Isaac Tolentino issued Executive Order No. 10[4] creating the Philippine Constabulary Enlisted Men and City Employees Village (village), pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 770.[5] The village was envisioned to be in a city-owned property and awardees were required to meet certain qualifications: (1) that they must be bona fide residents of Tagaytay City; (2) that they be employees of the city government on a plantilla basis; (3) that they, or their spouses or their parents do not own lots in the city; (4) that they shall not be allowed to dispose, sell, cede, or transfer the lot awarded within a period of five (5) years from the date of the award, and that after such period of time, the transfer or sale must be in favor of a bona fide resident employed with the Tagaytay City government on a plantilla basis; and (5) that they shall not possess more than one lot, except upon unanimous consent of the members of the awards committee, which should as well carry the approval of the city mayor.
Sometime in 1996, petitioner Tagaytay City discovered that respondents spouses Ernesto and Milagros de los Reyes owned a number of lots in the village which were originally awarded to the spouses Eufronio and Gliceria Erni, Eduardo Crizaldo, and Lolita C. Cabrera. Petitioner alleged that respondents never possessed the qualifications of an awardee or a subsequent allowable transferee of the lots.
On 16 July 1998, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents with the RTC of Tagaytay City, Cavite, Branch 18. Petitioner prayed that the acquisition of the lots be declared void and the lots be reverted to the city.
In their Answer, respondents interposed special and affirmative defenses: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, which lies with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB); (2) improper venue; (3) that they are purchasers in good faith and for value, as well as builders in good faith; (4) that the lots allegedly awarded originally to the Erni spouses were purchased by respondents from the Rural Bank of Cavite City; (5) that said lots were registered under their name as early as 13 June 1988; (6) that petitioner allowed respondents to own, possess, occupy and enjoy the lots for quite a while; (7) that the cause of action is barred by laches, estoppel, and prescription; and (8) that petitioner is not the real party in interest.
Subsequently, both parties filed their respective pre-trial briefs. On 18 July 2000, the RTC judge issued a pre-trial order setting the reception of petitioner's evidence on 28 September 2000 and 12 and 26 October 2000. Ostensibly, the schedule of hearings specified in the pre-trial order was not complied with.
On 23 October 2001, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement and for the resetting of the initial presentation of its evidence. Petitioner alleged that its first witness, City Treasurer Norberto San Mateo, could not make it on 24 October 2001, the initial date for the presentation of petitioner's evidence. Petitioner reasoned that the witness had to attend to urgent matters in Manila.
On 24 October 2001, the RTC issued an Order dismissing the case for lack of interest. The dispositive portion states:
In view of the vehement objection on the part of the counsel for the defendants on the ground that this case has been languishing since December 1998 and in view of the reasons as set forth in the Urgent Motion for Postponement as filed by the movant, City of Tagaytay, is not meritorious, as prayed for, let this case be DISMISSED for lack of interest. [6]
On 14 November 2001, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
In an Order dated 22 November 2001, the RTC gave respondents 10 days to submit their comment or opposition to the motion for reconsideration. The RTC set the hearing of the motion on 11 January 2002.
On 10 December 2001, respondents' counsel filed a motion to reset the hearing citing conflicting court schedules. In an Order dated 29 December 2001, the hearing was moved to 28 February 2002.
At the heaving on 28 February 2002, petitioner's counsel and representative did not appear. Thus, in an Order dated 28 February 2002, the RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The relevant portion of the order states:
From the records, it appears that the "Motion for Reconsideration" as filed by the herein plaintiff (petitioner) by virtue of an Order dated December 29, 2001, and an Order was sent to the parties by way of registered mail on January 9, 2002. From the return, it appears that a copy which was sent to Arty. Joseph Salud, counsel for the plaintiff, was received by the addressee's agent on January 17, 2002, and as such, counsel for the plaintiff was duly notified of the hearing which is set for today.
In view of the non-appearance of the representative of the plaintiff Tagaytay City and their counsel, the oral motion given in open court by counsel for the defendants is hereby GRANTED. Let the Motion for Reconsideration as filed by the plaintiff be DENIED. [7]
On 21 March 2002, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to set aside the Order dated 28 February 2002. Respondents filed their opposition to the motion for reconsideration alleging that the motion was devoid of merit and not allowed under Section 5, Rule 37[8] of the Rules of Court.
On 3 May 2002, petitioner filed a reply insisting that the motion for reconsideration dated 21 March 2002 was not in the same class as a second motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argued that the latest motion merely prayed for the setting aside of the Order dated 28 February 2002 and the resetting of the hearing of its oral arguments on its earlier motion for reconsideration.
On 16 July 2002, the RTC granted the motion for reconsideration and set aside its Order dated 24 October 2001. The relevant portion of the order[9] states:
This resolves the plaintiff Tagaytay City's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order dated October 24, 2001 dismissing the case for lack of interest.
Considering the arguments as posited by the parties plus the fact that mandatory pre-trial conference has already been held in the case and further that it is an avowed policy of the law that cases should be decided on their merits and parties should be given the fullest opportunity to ventilate their respective claims in a full blown trial, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED with a forewarning that no further postponements will be allowed.
WHEREFORE, let the Order of the Court dated October 24, 2001 be rescinded and set aside and the case is hereby set for hearing for the presentation of the plaintiffs evidence on September 12, 2002 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated 16 July 2002 which was denied by the RTC in its Order[10] dated 3 December 2002.
Respondents then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order. The petition was initially dismissed for failure of one of the respondents, Milagros de los Reyes, to sign the verification and certification on non-forum shopping. However, the CA reconsidered the petition since Ernesto de los Reyes, as the principal party, and not his wife, was the one required under Section 5, Rule 71[11] of the Rules of Court to certify against forum shopping.
On 18 October 2004, the appellate court decided the case in favor of respondents. The CA issued the writs applied for and nullified and set aside the challenged orders, dated 16 July 2002 and 3 December 2002, of the RTC.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated 23 December 2004.
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondents' petition.
Petitioner insists that the motion for reconsideration filed on 21 March 2002 is not a second motion for reconsideration since this motion for reconsideration is not directed against the RTC Order dated 24 October 2001 dismissing the case for lack of interest. This motion for reconsideration is a motion directed against the RTC Order dated 28 February 2002 and prayed that the non-appearance of petitioner's counsel and representative be excused or be deemed justified and that the hearing of the motion be set to another date.
On the other hand, respondents maintain that petitioner violated the prohibition against a second motion for reconsideration.
The petition lacks merit.
Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 5. Second motion for new trial. -
xxx
No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order.
A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading which shall not be allowed, except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons.
In the present case, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents in July 1998. For several reasons, the hearings had been postponed and reset until finally the RTC decided to dismiss the case due to lack of interest in its Order dated 24 October 2001. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration dated 14 November 2001. The RTC again set a date in order to hear the motion. However, on the date of the hearing, petitioner's counsel and representative did not appear. On respondents' oral motion given in open court, the RTC issued an Order dated 28 February 2002 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed another motion for reconsideration, dated 21 March 2002, of the RTC's Order dated 28 February 2002. The RTC granted the motion for reconsideration in its Orders dated 16 July 2002 and 3 December 2002. Citing Section 5, Rule 37, the appellate court ruled in favor of respondents. Petitioner now comes to us alleging that the motion for reconsideration dated 21 March 2002 should not be considered as a second motion for reconsideration.
This motion for reconsideration, even if not designated as a second motion for reconsideration, is a disguised second motion for reconsideration since the arguments in the motion are merely a reiteration of petitioner's earlier arguments. More importantly, the motion is too unsubstantial to require consideration. The grounds cited were directed towards one goal and that is to persuade the court to reconsider its earlier order dismissing the complaint for lack of interest. It is incumbent upon petitioner to prosecute its complaint with assiduousness in order to safeguard its rights. However, in its failure to appear before the court without any justifiable reason, petitioner gave the RTC a compelling need to deny the motion for reconsideration for failing to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time.[12] Even if the RTC later rescinded its earlier order and granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the appellate court correctly ruled against petitioner.
In deciding against petitioner, the appellate court made the following findings:
xxx The records of this case must constrain us to dismiss the subject complaint. First, the non-prosecution of the case, which was filed in 1998, was not entirely due to the fault of petitioner [City of Tagaytay]. It is just that, per the statement of the [petitioner] in its motion for reconsideration: the [petitioner] had 'lesser occasion of moving for continuance/extension of time than defendants." It should be noted that [petitioner] could have objected to any unnecessary postponements, but for some accountable reasons, it did not. Second, the records also revealed that [petitioner] had not given the instant case the importance it deserved. There is the fact that when it could, and should, have started to present its evidence, its first witness, a city government employee, was unable to testify, as he was allegedly tasked to perform a function outside Tagaytay City. Then, when it could have been heard in court on its motion for reconsideration, its counsel and his secretary were suddenly afflicted with a medical condition on the same day. But what appalls us is the apparent ignorance or misapprehension of [petitioner's] own counsel as to the appropriate characterization of its case which was initially pleaded before us as an expropriation case, although it certainly was not.[13]
We agree with the appellate court's observations. Petitioner's negligence or failure to give attention to the case resulted to adverse consequences that petitioner must bear alone. Time and again, we have ruled that there must be exceptional circumstances to allow the relaxation of the rules.[14] We find no such circumstances existing in the present case.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 18 October 2004 and Resolution dated 23 December 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75247.
SO ORDERED. (Abad, J., on official leave; Corona, J., designated additional member)
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Renato C. Corona (designated additional member per S.O. No. 812), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 20th day of January, 2010.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L.LAUREA
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L.LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 31-43- Penned by Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court) and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurring.
[3] Id. at 44-45.
[4] Id. at 51-52.
[5] Id. at 49-50.
[6] Records, p. 212.
[7] Id. at 230.
[8] Sec. 5. Second motion for new trial. - x. x x No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order.
[9] Rollo, p. 68.
[10] Id. at 69-70
[11] Section 5, Certification against forum shopping - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith xxx.
[12] Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court
[13] Rollo, p. 42
[14] Manaya v. Alabang Country Club, Inc., GR No. 168988, 19 June 2007, 525 SCRA 140, 150, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 92, 98-99 (2000).
