November 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > November 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 191359 : November 17, 2010] LUCILA PURIFICATION VS. CHARLES T. GOBING AND ATTY. JAIME VILLANUEVA :
[G.R. No. 191359 : November 17, 2010]
LUCILA PURIFICATION VS. CHARLES T. GOBING AND ATTY. JAIME VILLANUEVA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 November 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 191359 (Lucila Purification vs. Charles T. Gobing and Atty. Jaime Villanueva)
For consideration of the Court are petitioner's First Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Petition for Review on Certiorari and the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
In the Resolution dated 21 July 2010, this case was declared terminated for failure of petitioner to file the intended petition for review on certiorari within the extended period which expired on 8 April 2010.
In the present Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Petition for Review filed last 1 October 2010, the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the Department of Agrarian Reform, petitioner's counsel, accounts for the delay in the filing of the subject petition in that petitioner, who is 94 years old, could not be timely located and that it was only recently that she appeared before the DAR. Given petitioner's advanced age and personal circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, it then prays that the petition be admitted.
Considering that this case involves a claim for a homelot, and taking into account the spirit of our tenancy laws, the Court resolves anew to decide the case on its merits and not on technicality. Time and again, we have held that it is more prudent for the court to excuse a technical lapse and to afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice.[1]
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (1) GRANT petitioner's First Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Petition for Review on Certiorari; (2) SET ASIDE the Resolution dated 21 July 2010 declaring the case terminated; (3) ADMIT the Petition for Review on Certiorari; and (4) REQUIRE respondents to file a COMMENT thereon, not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 191359 (Lucila Purification vs. Charles T. Gobing and Atty. Jaime Villanueva)
For consideration of the Court are petitioner's First Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Petition for Review on Certiorari and the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
In the Resolution dated 21 July 2010, this case was declared terminated for failure of petitioner to file the intended petition for review on certiorari within the extended period which expired on 8 April 2010.
In the present Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Petition for Review filed last 1 October 2010, the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of the Department of Agrarian Reform, petitioner's counsel, accounts for the delay in the filing of the subject petition in that petitioner, who is 94 years old, could not be timely located and that it was only recently that she appeared before the DAR. Given petitioner's advanced age and personal circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, it then prays that the petition be admitted.
Considering that this case involves a claim for a homelot, and taking into account the spirit of our tenancy laws, the Court resolves anew to decide the case on its merits and not on technicality. Time and again, we have held that it is more prudent for the court to excuse a technical lapse and to afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice.[1]
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (1) GRANT petitioner's First Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Petition for Review on Certiorari; (2) SET ASIDE the Resolution dated 21 July 2010 declaring the case terminated; (3) ADMIT the Petition for Review on Certiorari; and (4) REQUIRE respondents to file a COMMENT thereon, not a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Aguam v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 587, 594 (2000).
