ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 164282.� August 8, 2005]
YUJUICO vs. ATIENZA
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2005.
G.R. No. 164282 (Teresita M. Yujuico vs. Honorable Jose L. Atienza, Jr., et al.)
The Court in its Resolution dated June 15, 2005 required Teresita M. Yujuico (Petitioner) to comment on the issue of material change in the membership of the City School Board (CSB) of Manila and respondents to reply thereto in view of the provision of Section 17, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on separation of a party who is a public officer.
In her Comment dated July 13, 2005, petitioner asserted that the change in the membership of the CSB was raised for the very first time by respondents in their Comment / Opposition to petitioner's Motion for Execution before the trial court. At such time, however, only two members of the CSB had been replaced but six (6) of the original respondents remained. These six (6) members still constituted a majority of the CSB.
While a second major change in the composition of the CSB has since occurred, resulting in having five (5) new members therein currently, according to petitioner, this second change was raised by respondents only in their Comment filed before this Court on October 7, 2004. Petitioner asserts that the incumbent members of the CSB have been collectively impleaded already as "respondent CSB" in her Petition for Review on Certiorari filed on July 30, 2004 before this Court.
Invoking Sections 11 and 17, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the case of Juarez v. Court of Appeals, [1] cralaw petitioner posits that the change in the CSB's composition merely calls ad cautelam for a substitution of respondents-predecessors with their successors. Moreover, petitioner asserts that there was substantial compliance on its part already with the rule on substitution pursuant to Section 17, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure when the CSB had been impleaded as additional respondent before this Court.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of law for the proper substitution of parties. They stress that substitution of a public officer as a party to an action is allowed only if within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, the petitioner has satisfactorily shown that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining the action for mandamus. Reasonable notice of the application for substitution as well as the opportunity to be heard should have likewise been afforded the officers sought to be included as party-respondents. No compliance with these requirements having been made by petitioner, respondents conclude that the petition for review on certiorari must be denied.
Considering the arguments posited by both parties, this Court is of the view that a substitution of the original respondents by the members of the CSB who replaced them is warranted. The phrase "or such time as may be granted by the Court" in Sec. 17, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure denotes that the Court before whom the motion for substitution is filed may grant a period longer than thirty (30) days for the purpose. In any event, technical rules on substitution of a party should not be so narrowly construed as to prevent this Court from taking cognizance of a case and deciding it on the merits. Moreover, petitioner did make an attempt to implead the new members of the CSB by making the CSB itself a respondent before this Court. There is also no showing that the new members of the CSB have deviated from the stand of their predecessors-in-interest; hence, there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining petitioner's action against them.
WHEREFORE, petitioner's motion for substitution is hereby GRANTED. Manuel M. Zarcal, Benjamin Balbuena, Francesca Gernale, Roger Gernale and Vicente Macarubbo are hereby IMPLEADED in substitution of Arlene Ortiz, Percival Florendo, Miles Roces and Isabelita Ching as respondents in the case at bar. The Comment dated October 7, 2004 of the aforenamed former respondents is considered as the Comment of the new respondents, unless the latter manifest otherwise. The new respondents are required to either COMMENT on the petition or to manifest that they are adopting the Comment of the former respondents as their own, within an inextendible period of five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw G.R. No. 93474, October 9, 2002, 214 SCRA 475.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
