[G.R. No. 153285. January 26, 2004]




Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 26 2004.

G.R. No. 153285 (People of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Hon. Pablo M. Paqueo and Salvacion Apolinar, respondents.)

Before this Court is an Omnibus Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and to Declare Null and Void the Resolution of July 8, 2002, Resolution of August 26, 2002 and All Succeeding Resolutions, filed by petitioner's counsel. This motion was received by this Court on January 8, 2004. After a careful review of the rollo on hand, we rule that said motion should be expunged.

The rollo of this case shows the chronology of pertinent incidents, including pleadings filed by petitioners before us:

On April 19, 2002, original petitioner through counsel Romulo S.J. Tolentino received a copy of the Order dated April 15, 2002, denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 23, presided by herein respondent Judge Pablo M. Paqueo, Jr. [1] cralaw

On May 21, 2002, petitioner, filed before this Court a Motion for Extension of Time for thirty (30) days, to file a petition for review on certiorari. [2] cralaw This motion was denied in a resolution dated July 8, 2002 [3] cralaw for lack of sufficient showing that petitioner had not lost the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period to appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, it appearing that the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration of the assailed order before the trial court is not stated.

Subsequently, counsel Tolentino alleged that he filed a Motion for Leave to File and Admit a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, [4] cralaw attaching thereto said petition. [5] cralaw Allegedly they were posted on June 6, 2002. But the Affidavit of Service (Rollo, p. 62) clearly states that what was being filed is the motion for leave together with the petition intended for another case, entitled, PEOPLE VS. HON. ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, ET AL. and not the case before us against Hon. Judge Pablo M. Paqueo, et al. This is an irregularity, if not actually a species of fraud, that vitiates counsel Tolentino's claim that his motion for leave to file and the petition itself against Judge Paqueo was filed on time. It renders the petition patently defective and the motion inadmissible.

As indicated at p. 9 of the Rollo, the date of receipt by this Court of the original of the present petition for certiorari and mandamus was only on June 26, 2002. Counting back from that date to April 19, 2002, the date counsel Tolentino admittedly received the denial of Motion for Reconsideration by the trial court (Rollo, p. 2), more than sixty days already elapsed. Note also that his Motion for Leave to File and Admit a Petition this time again omitted to mention the actual date he filed his motion for reconsideration of the assailed order before the trial court.

Finally, it must be noted further that only counsel Tolentino signed the Verification and the Certification against forum-shopping (Rollo, pp. 37-38), leaving out co-petitioners, namely Marites de la Torre (SSS) and Regional Prosecutor Santiago Turingan.

Thus, we denied the motion for leave and dismissed the petition filed by counsel Tolentino, et al. in our Resolution dated August 26, 2002 [6] cralaw pursuant to Rule 65 in relation to Rule 46, Rule 56 and other provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Under the rules, only petitions which are accompanied or comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. We reiterated also that petitioners failed to file a petition within the period fixed in Section 4, Rule 65, in view of our denial of the motion for extension to file the petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners must have presumed that their motion for extension of time would be granted and erroneously went on with the filing of the present petition.

Patently, petitioner's counsel had actually misled the Court in its motion for extension. In this motion, the counsel categorically stated that petitioner would file a petition for review on certiorari, [7] cralaw but instead filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus. In this case, having denied the motion for extension for failure to state a material date, specifically, the failure to state the date of filing the motion for reconsideration of the assailed order of the Regional Trial Court, that denial of the motion for extension on the aforementioned ground, carries over to all subsequent pleadings and motions.

Since petitioner in his motion for extension, misled the court to rely and act on his motion for extension under Rule 45 within a reglementary period of 15 days, leaving petitioner to file a petition for review on certiorari only till May 4, 2002, and since we denied this motion, any pleading filed thereafter would have been filed out of time. Petitioner cannot thenceforth turn to Rule 65 and capriciously file a petition for certiorari and mandamus under a different rule. To allow him to change rules in this case, would be tantamount to allowing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 as a substitute for a lost appeal. In any event, the petition for certiorari and mandamus was, as already stated, also fatally defective.

In our resolution dated November 11, 2002, [8] cralaw acting on petitioners' motion for reconsideration filed by signatory counsel Romulo S.J. Tolentino but allegedly through "counsel by State Prosecutor and Special State Prosecutor for SSS cases in Region V and SSS counsel Atty. Marites de la Torre," we denied with finality said motion inasmuch as there was no compelling reason to warrant the reconsideration sought. We also instructed that no further pleadings and motions be entertained.

Despite the finality of our order, petitioners, banking on the patience of this Court, filed another motion for reconsideration [9] cralaw of our resolution dated November 11, 2002, followed by the filing of a Manifestation/Comment [10] cralaw signed by petitioners/SSS counsel Marites de la Torre. Again the motion was denied and the manifestation was noted without action. [11] cralaw

Taxing further the patience of this Court, petitioners through counsel Romulo S.J. Tolentino filed what he entitled a "Motion for Second Reading of Motion for Reconsideration dated December 18, 2002 on the Bases of Truth and Fairness." [12] cralaw We then ordered in a resolution dated June 25, 2003 [13] cralaw that no further pleadings or motions be entertained in this case and ordered the entry of final judgment. On March 21, 2003, judgment on the case became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. [14] cralaw

On September 1, 2003, petitioners filed through counsel Tolentino what he called a "Comment for Elucidation in Furtherance of Judicious Discourse and Determination on the Uncontested Admitted Truth by Silence that the Minute Resolution with Entry of Final Judgment in Due Course Has No Basis in Truth, therefore Infirm and Void, Constitutionally Impermissible, Constitutive of Miscarriage of Justice." [15] cralaw Again said comment for elucidation was only noted without action in our resolution dated October 6, 2003. [16] cralaw

On January 8, 2004, petitioners through counsel Romulo S.J. Tolentino, together with counsels Marites C. de la Torre and Santiago M. Turingan in defiance of the aforecited resolutions and using insistent but piquant language, filed the present omnibus motion. Finding said motion entirely baseless and utterly without merit, we now DENY it with a stern warning that this Court shall not countenance counsels' manifest discourtesy in their pleadings and warn them against abuse of legal processes. To conclude, said omnibus motion is hereby ordered EXPUNGED from the records.


Very truly yours,


Asst. Div. Clerk of Court


[1] cralaw See Rollo, p. 2.

[2] cralaw Ibid.

[3] cralaw Id. at 6.

[4] cralaw Id. at 9-12.

[5] cralaw Id. at 13-38.

[6] cralaw Id . at 64.

[7] cralaw Supra. note 1.

[8] cralaw Id. at 76.

[9] cralaw Id . at 78-81.

[10] cralaw Id . at 85-87.

[11] cralaw Id . at 89.

[12] cralaw Id . at 91-94.

[13] cralaw Id. at 97.

[14] cralaw Id. at 99.

[15] cralaw Id . at 104-127.

[16] cralaw Id . at 155.

Back to Home | Back to Main






ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :