ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 136378.December 4, 2000]

ADVINCULA, et al., vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your in formation, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 4 2000.

G.R. No. 136378(Cesar Advincula, Humiliada Advincula, Romeo Alberto, Alejandro Amansec, Jovencio Ayles, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Presiding Judge, Branch 225, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, University of the Philippines, Emilio Q. Javier, Jose B. Abueva, et at.)

Petitioners are residents of Block 11, Employees' Villages A and B of the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines (UP). Sometime in May 1993, private respondents allegedly caused the demolition of petitioners' houses. This prompted petitioners to file in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for damages with preliminary injunction against private respondents for violation of the 1987 Constitution, the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA), and the Civil Code provisions on Human Relations and Damages. Respondent UP filed its Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses alleging, inter alia, that it is exempt from the provisions of UDHA, and that the case should accordingly be dismissed.

On September 28, 1993, the presiding judge of Branch 94 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), to which the case was raffled, issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the eviction of petitioners and the demolition of their houses.

Thereafter, the case was re-raffled to Branch 216 of the same court. Petitioners filed a motion to admit an amended complaint to implead Emil Q. Javier as additional respondent. The trial court granted the motion and admitted the amended complaint. Respondent UP filed its Answer, maintaining its position that it was exempt from the provisions of the UDHA. Upon motion of respondent UP, a hearing was conducted to resolve this issue, after which the parties submitted their respective memoranda. The presiding judge of Branch 216 of respondent RTC denied respondent UP's motion to dismiss the case "on the ground that some of the issues raised therein involve questions of facts which should be threshed out in a full-blown hearing." ¹ Petition, Rollo, p. 7.

Subsequently, the case was re-raffled to Branch 225 of the QC-RTC. During the pre-trial conference, respondent UP again raised the issue of its exemption from UDHA. In a Resolution dated November 21, 1996, respondent RTC this time ordered the dismissal of the case. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioners questioned the said Resolution of the respondent RTC before the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In its Decision dated August 14, 1998, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for having been filed one day late. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of said Decision. But the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit and explained that:

Admitting the late filing of his petition, counsel for petitioners explain that this was due to the untimely death of Attys. Roberto A: Gana and Carlos M. Ollado, his colleagues in the Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panlegal (SALIGAN) who perished on February 2, 1998 when Cebu Pacific Flight 387 crashed in Misamis Oriental, as he attended to the needs of their families, the wake, the tributes and gatherings, etc. Lamentably, counsel failed to account for the period of twenty-three (23) days before the tragic death of his colleagues, and about thirty (30) days thereafter, which combined period to a lawyer worth his salt would be more than enough for the preparation and filing of the petition. ² Rollo , p. 23.

In the instant petition for review on certiorari, petitioners assail the Decision dated August 14, 1998 and Resolution dated November 24, 1998 of the Court of Appeals on the principal ground that respondent appellate court should have decided the case on its merits and not on a mere procedural technicality. Petitioners further reiterate that respondent UP was not exempted from the provisions of UDHA.

The subject petition for review on certiorari is not meritorious. The respondent Court of Appeals committed no reversible error when it rendered its Decision dated August 14, 1998 and Resolution dated November 24, 1998.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE