Você está na página 1de 50

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
ROMEO B. RAMIREZ,
Represented by: Atty-In-Fact

Narciso Luisto A. Ordoa;


Petitioner,

G.R. No. _______________


A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ
MeTC-51 Civil Case No. 03-27338
For: Collection of Money & Damages

-Versus
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Associate Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO


Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG
Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES
Judge ANGELENE MARY QUIMPO-SALE
Judge ALMA CRISPINA C. LACORTE
Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA
Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO
Sheriff III ARNIEL S. APOSTOL, and,
CARMEN A. SALVADOR,

Respondents.
X-----------------------------------------------X

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI, and


For ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT on the GROUNDS OF
LACK OF JURISDICTION & EXTRINSIC FRAUD
(As provided for under Rule 65 and Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
COMES NOW, PETITIONERs Representative by himself, and hereby petitions this
Honorable Supreme Court to review on certiorari the October 25, 2005, DECISION,
rendered by the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, in Civil Case
No. 03-27338, for Collection of Sum of Money & Damages, (filed by therein Plaintiff, now
herein Respondent Carmen Salvador, vs. therein Defendant, now herein Petitioner
Romeo Ramirez), and likewise, seeks the Annulment of Judgment on further grounds of
Lack of Jurisdiction & Extrinsic fraud, as provided for under Rules 65 and 47 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
THE PARTIES
The Parties to this petition are:
PETITIONERs representative Narciso Luisito A. Ordoa, of legal age, married,
Filipino, with residence at Lot 31, Blk.114, TowerVille 6B, NHA Relocation Site, Bgy. Gayagaya, City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan; who, by virtue of the hereto attached August 8,
2011, Special Power of Attorney (SPA)[Annex-1] and Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) April 16, 2012. ORDER,[Annex-2] is acting for and in behalf of his Uncle-In-Law,
Defendant-Petitioner Romeo B. Ramirez, who just DIED recently, on April 1, 2015, due to
sudden STROKE / Brain Attack;[Annex-3]

The NINE (9) RESPONDENTS are, (1) Retired Court of Appeals (C.A.) 8th Division,
Associate Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO; (2) Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG, Presiding
Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 128, and was formerly the
Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, who rendered
the herein DECISION being assailed; (3) Retired Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, former
Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121; (4) Judge
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE, Presiding Judge of Quezon City, Regional Trial
Court (RTC) Branch 106, and was formerly the Presiding Judge of Quezon City Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 32, who instantaneously dismissed the Plaintiff-Respondents first
Complaint despite vigorous objection of the Defendant-Petitioner; (5) Judge ALMA
CRISPINA C. LACORTE, Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
Branch 51, who issued a Writ of Execution prior to an ORDER for the release of such; (6)
Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent, with office
address at Medina Law Offi ce, 3rd Floor Doa Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza Rizal cor. Gen Luna St.,
Caloocan City;(7) Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, with office address at Suite 402,
JR. Bldg., 1520 Quezon Avenue, South Triangle, Quezon City;(8) Sheriff III ARNIEL S.

APOSTOL, of Caloocan City, MeTC Branch 51; and (9) Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen A.
Salvador, of legal age, Filipino, married and resident of No. 83, Malolos Ave., Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City, where summons and other court processes may be served upon their

respective addresses.

PREFATORY STATEMENT
This Petition for Certiorari seeks a review and annulment of the October 25, 2005
DECISION [Annex-4] of Caloocan City MeTC-branch 51, rendered by its former Presiding
Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, the decreetal portion of which is quoted hereunder as follows;

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Carmen


A. Salvador and against the Defendant Romeo B. Ramirez, ordering the latter as
follows:
1.

To pay the plaintiff the remaining balance of the purchase price in the
amount of Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 220,000.00).

2.

To pay the plaintiff the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred


(Php1,500.00) pesos a month, as rentals for the use and occupancy of the
subject lot until the Defendant has fully paid the remaining balance of the
purchase price.

3.

To pay the Plaintiff the amount of Php 20,000.00 as attorneys fees, and

4.

To pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.
Caloocan City, Metro Manila, October 25, 2005.

(sgd)ELEANOR R. KWONG
Presiding Judge

The aforesaid Decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City
and was raffled to Branch 121, presided by Judge Adoracion Angeles who affirmed the
MeTC Decision and dismissed the appeal in its March 30, 2006 Decision [Annex-5]. The
RTC decision was then elevated to the Court of Appeals which upheld and sustained the
same in its January 10, 2007 Decision [Annex-6], CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, through the
ponencia of Justice Renato Dacudao.
However, the Defendant as well as his 3rd Counsel Atty. Ricardo Barba, was not
furnished and did not receive any copy of the C.A.s January 10, 2007 Decision/Resolution,
thus, neither Motion for Reconsideration was filed, nor elevated the case to the Supreme
Court. Consequently, the assailed Decision became final and executory and was eventually
recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment on February 01, 2007.[Annex-7]
Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan City MeTC-51, now presided by
Judge Alma Crispina Collado-Lacorte, who issued the June 20, 2008 ORDER [Annex-8],
granting plaintiffs Motion for the Execution of judgment.
[I n view of that June 20, 2008 ORDER, Petitioner would like to raise in
particular, a very significant issue, that PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that June 20,
2008 ORDER, granting Plaintiffs Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution,
there w as already a WRIT OF EXECUTION dated June 19, 2008 [Annex-9] that
HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???..., by the same trial courts new Presiding
Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte, herself, ordering Sheriff III Arniel Apostol,
to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment penned by former MTC-51 presiding
Judge Eleanor R. Kw ong.]
Thus, by virtue of that June 19, 2008 Writ of Execution, (issued in advance, ahead of
the ORDER for the issuance of such),

Sheriff III Arniel Apostol, (without even carefully

analyzing and understanding the contents o f the Writ of Execution, had even mistakenly
identified Judge Eleanor R. Kwong as the one who issued the Writ of Execution ), then and

there, hurriedly prepared a Sheriffs Notice / Demand to Pay [Annex-10] and immediately
served it to Romeo B. Ramirez, demanding the immediate payment of THREE HUNDRED
EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P382,000.00), of which the same is hereby (word for
word using exactly the same format) quoted hereunder for quick and easy reference;

SHERIFFS NOTICE/DEMAND TO PAY


TO: ROMEO B. RAMIREZ
Blk 15, Lot 3 C.P. Garcia St. Bonifacio Drive
Pasong Tamo, Quezon City
G R E E T I N G S:
You are hereby notified that by virtue of the W rit of
Execution dated June 19, 2008, issued by the Hon. ELEANOR R.
KW ONG, former Presiding Judge of this Court in the above entitled case, copy of which is herewith attached and served
3

upon you, plaintiff thru this office hereby demands that


payment of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS(P382,000.00) be
made immediately upon receipt of this notice.
You are thereafter adviced to pay the said amount to
the undersigned Sheriff so that we may apply the same to the
full satisfaction of the Writ of Execution issued in the instant case. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Please be guied accordingly.
Caloocan City, Metro Manila.

November 14
__________________,
2008
(SGD.) ARNIEL S. APOSTOL
Sheriff III
attached: Writ of Execution
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Upon receipt of the Sheriffs Notice, Petitioner hurriedly contacted his counsel Atty.
Ricardo Barba, just to find out that the latter was already suffering a seriously bad health
condition due to old age and that NO copy of CA Decision was also received by him.
Because of that development, Petitioner having a clear conscience and in good faith,
found it hard and difficult to accept the unfounded decision and injustices that were
deliberately inflicted upon him, thereafter sought again another legal assistance and hired the
services of his 4th Private Lawyer, Atty. Oscar I. Mercado who was recommended to him by
his relative as a more competent and efficient private lawyer who can best represent him in
court and help obtain the true justice the he deserves. Unfortunately, all Manifestations and
Motions for Reconsideration to stop and set aside the Sheriffs Notice/Demand to Pay, and
other legal actions and remedies available under the rules of court, being submitted and filed
by his 4th counsel Atty. Mercado were time and again being DENIED by MeTC-51 of
Caloocan City.
Due to the seemingly hopeless and desperate situation and his inability to produce
the huge amount being demanded from him, Ramirez started to experience the feeling of
shyness and timidity not only among his friends, neighbors, and relatives, but more so to his
family particularly to his oldest daughter whose hard earned money from working as OFW in
Japan will be simply lost and gone. Petitioner Ramirez felt extreme embarrassment, deep
worry and fear leading to sleepless nights causing him to suffer serious anxiety and stress,
thus resulting for him to live a daily life suffering from severe headache, loss of appetite and
frequent rise of blood pressure, which extremely affected both of his eyes, thereby requiring
him to undergo series of eye treatment and surgery under Dr. Joel R. Castro, M.D. DBPO, of
Clinica Viras with clinic address at Rm. 201, Doa Consolacion Bldg., Gen. Santos Ave.,
Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City.(as already manifested on pages 5 & 6 of Petitioners
August 19, 2011, Amended Complaint submitted and filed at the Office of the
Supreme Court Administrator.)

Left with no more recourse, being financially drained and nothing left except poor
health and deteriorating physical condition, his family brought him to their hometown in
4

Roxas, Oriental Mindoro to hide away from extreme humiliation and shame, and to hopefully
recuperate from his disconcertment. Unfortunately, the emotional feeling of having been
victimized by the unjust decisions rendered by all the Justices who ruled out against him and
in favor of the real culprit Respondent Carmen Salvador who victoriously emerged despite
deliberately committing the unlawful acts of fraud and deceit, turned out into a horrible
nightmare he couldnt get through with, that ultimately dragged him into living an
immeasurable worst kind of life full of sorrow, agony and pain which nobody could possibly
imagine.
In the course of time, his hypertensive cardiovascular disease worsened even more
with frequent incidents of blood pressure rising higher. His family decided to bring him back
again here in Manila on the 2nd week of March 2015, but few days later, he suffered stroke
and sudden brain attack. Though he was immediately rushed and confined at the Intensive
Care Unit (ICU) of the New Era General Hospital, yet, Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan
result showed enormous damage in his brain which eventually caused his untimely death on
April 1, 2015, at the age of 69.
Fortunately, being a true Christian and devoted follower of our Lord and Savior Christ
Jesus, his sincere devotion and prayer without ceasing night and day ( while still alive in Roxas,
Oriental Mindoro), was finally answered by the Almighty God, the Most High Judge who paved

His way to divinely intervene by anointing a SERVANT from this globally proclaimed
Nation of Servants as declared to the world on March 27, 2009, by Hong Kongs author &
award-winning columnist Chip Tsao, which even caused furious anger and irritation not only
to millions of Filipinos around the world but also to Philippine government officials who
demanded public apology both from Hongkong online magazine and the Chinese
writer/journalist who himself remained defiant and unapologetic, thus made him the
Philippines public enemy No.1. In fairness to Tsao, perhaps his silence may probably
suggest that he was not aware with what he actually wrote, for being unconscious that it was
not actually his own doing but of an unseen force that only used him as an instrument to write
down a prophecy that has been fulfilled.
Thus, on October 29, 2010, while solitarily celebrating his 50th Golden Birthday, inside
his newly-constructed room of worship atop the roof of their rented 2-storey house located
in one of the biggest squatters area beside Manila Memorial Park in Sitio Target, Bgy. BF
Homes, Paraaque City, undersigned Petitioners representative, popularly known among his
friends and relatives as Brother LOUIE was finally blessed and gifted with divine
knowledge and wisdom, to be an instrument of Peace and ADVOCATE of Love, Obedience,

U nity, Integrity & Excellence, (LOUIE), and was subsequently anointed to be the
SERVANT tasked to defend and to fight for the constitutional rights of the numerous victims
of injustices, in order that TRUTH, JUSTICE and EQUITY may in the end prevail.
Hence, the hereto attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated August 8, 2011,
executed by Romeo Ramirez, appointing and constituting undersigned Bro. LOUIE, to be

the formers legal counsel, representative & Attorney-in-fact, of which the same was officially
noted by the Caloocan City MeTC-51, on its April 16, 2012 ORDER.
By virtue of the aforesaid SPA, undersigned Petitioners representative, by himself
prepared, submitted and filed through the Office of Supreme Court Administrator, his August
19, 2011, 45-pages Verified Amended Complaint Against the Unfounded Decision of
Caloocan City MeTC-51, which was subsequently given due course and eventually ripened
into an Administrative Matter for Agenda, with OCA -I.P.I. No. 11-3730-RTJ. (Narciso Luisito

A. Ordoa vs. 1) Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, Branch 128, Regional Trial Court [RTC],
Caloocan City; 2) Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale, Branch 106, RTC, Quezon City; 3) Judge
Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Branch 51, RTC, Caloocan City; and 4) Sheriff III Arniel S.
Apostol, Branch 51, Metropolitan Trial Court [MeTC], Caloocan City).

P ETITIONERS P ERSONAL STATEMENT


First and foremost, herein Petitioner (Bro. Louie) desires to reiterate and to manifest
what he had previously stated on page 3, of his aforesaid August 19, 2011, AMENDED
COMPLAINT, that he is neither a lawyer nor had been a student of any law school, and
nobody has ever taught him regarding Philippine Laws, Jurisprudence, Statutes and Codes,
as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court.
He is just a 4th year High School graduate, without any formal College education, and
whose means of livelihood and employment to support his familys (wife & 10 children) daily
financial need for over thirty (30) years is by working as Master CARPENTER, both local and
abroad. It being so, does not necessarily mean, however, that he is no longer capable of
preparing and filing this Petition, which is normally being done only by License Professional
Lawyers who have earned not only diploma, but also Title/Degree, after successfully
completing all academic requirements and subsequently passing the Bar Examination Tests.
His intense FAITH and BELIEF in the Most High Judge, and sincere devotion of
continuously Seeking the Will of God above everything else, might have found favor in
the eyes of God who blessed and gifted him with divine knowledge and wisdom from above,
anointed by the power of the Holy Spirit, appointed to be the Servant of the Poor,
named as the Philippine EAGLE King of Mindanao [ https://youtu.be/hh4CjbSxvgE ],
and is given the task to DEFEND and to FIGHT for the Constitutional RIGHTS of ALL
VICTIMS of injustices, that made him competent (but not perfect), to effectively represent and
proficiently act as the representative, Legal Counsel and Atty-in-Fact of Petitioner Romeo
Ramirez for the preparation, submission and filing of this Petition.
On the other hand, while it may be true that herein Petitioner has been actually gifted
with a divine knowledge and wisdom, yet, his human nature, lack of formal education and
lack of legal practice and actual experiences in the courts of law, (with respect to Judicial
conduct and court processes), might limit his ability to fully comply with the prevailing
requirements set forth under the Rules of Court and Rules of Civil procedure made by men.
6

Hence, above-mentioned manifestation is offered as a means to request for consideration in


guiding and instructing him on any deficiencies and/or non-compliance whatsoever, that
require corrections, amendments and/or modifications for this instant Petition.
Petitioner, further respectfully seeks the kind indulgence of this Honorable Supreme
Court to bear with him in going over the records of the case for the LAST and FINAL TIME so
that truth and justice may in the end prevail.
With due respect and candor, Petitioner begs this Honorable Supreme Court to give a
final look and glimpse on the overlooked substantial FACTS, ISSUES and material
EVIDENCES that require utmost consideration, which if proven and given credit in the
appreciation and determination of the issue will surely alter the final outcome of the case.
It was just unfortunate that from the time the herein subject Decision became Final &
Executory and has been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment, no one among the
many Private Professional Lawyers who were consulted and offered to be hired (aside from
Atty. Oscar Mercado), became interested anymore to assist Romeo Ramirez in finding a
remedy on how to obtain the TRUE JUSTICE that he deserves. Everybody believed that the
case is already closed and nothing more can be done.
Even Lawyers at the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), at DOJ Agencies Bldg, NIA Road
cor., East Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, refused, ignored and failed to provide the needed
assistance being requested from them, despite the October 3, 2011, Indorsement letter of
Atty. Bobby V. Dumlao, CESO III at Malacaang Presidential Action Center[Annex-11], and
the November 22, 2011, Letter of PAO Chief Percida V. Rueda-Acosta [Annex-12], inviting
and promising the Petitioner to be given effective and speedy assistance, yet nothing
happened.
Petitioner was briskly DENIED any form of assistance at the PAO-Quezon City
District Office, particularly by PAO-NCR and PAO-Quezon City Officer-in-charge Atty.
EMMANUEL H. DIONES, who merely ignored and delayed the timely processing of his
request. Upon follow-up after months of waiting, Atty. Diones still remained unaware of the
issue, simply said; Ano ba kasi itong sinabmit nyo dito, ang kapa l-kapa l, na
Complaint? Kung ito ay re klamo nyo sa isa ng kaso na nadesisyonan na at gusto
nyo i-apela, doon kayo dapat pumunta sa Head office ng PAO, meron doon para
sa Special Appealed Cases , sakop nila ito , hindi dito!

Contrary to what Atty. Diones said, Petitioner ended up again being ignored, blamed,
criticized and scolded like little kid by someone who attended to him at the PAO Special
Appealed Cases division, who explicitly said; e h, wala na ito , this case a lready
attain finality, patay na ang kaso nasa a rchive na kasi na-enter na sa Book of
Judgment. 2007 pa pala, PINAL na a ng Desisyon ng KORTE at wa la na sa
itinakdang panahon para mai-apela pa ito sa Supreme Court. Wala nang
magagawa pa ang sinuman tungkol diyan. Tanggapin nyo na lang ang pagkatalo
ninyo at huwag na kayo guma wa pa ng kung a nu-ano, lalo ka na, (referring to

me), hindi ka naman pala abogado, na gmamagaling ka pa, gagastos lang kayo at
maaabala tayo pare-pareho,

Left with no other choice, Petitioner again earnestly prayed and sought Divine
assistance and guidance from the Most High Judge to intervene and have his August 19,
2011 Amended Complaint, be given due course by the highest Tribunal of our land.
After THREE (3) years of waiting, finally on September 15, 2014, upon inquiry made
by the undersigned at the Office of Court Administrators Legal Office, regarding the
update/status of his self-initiated August 19, 2011 Amended Complaint, he was informed
and furnished with a Notice of Resolution, dated November 18, 2013, [Annex-13] which
is hereby reproduced hereunder, for quick and easy reference;

Republic of the Philippines


Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November
18, 2013 which reads as follows:
OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ (Narciso Luisito A. Ordoa vs. Judge Eleanor R.
Kwong, Regional Trial Court, Branch 128, Caloocan City; Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City; Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City; and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 51 Caloocan City).- Considering the amended complaint against the alleged
unfounded decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City in Civil Case
No. 03-27338 ( Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez) dated August 15, 2011 (with
Enclosures) of Narciso Luisito A. Ordoa against Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary
Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol relative to Civil Case
No. 03-27338, entitled Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, the Court resolves to
NOTE:
(1)
(2)

the aforesaid amended complaint; and


the Report dated August 28, 2013 of the Office of the Court Administrator.

The Court further resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator in the attached Report
dated August 28, 2013 (Annex A). Accordingly, the instant administrative complaint against
Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte and Sheriff
III Arniel S. Apostol is DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for utter lack of merit.
BERSAMIN, J., on leave; CARPIO, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1597 dated
November 12, 2013.
Very truly yours,
(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

RESOLUTION

OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ

November 18, 2013


x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
8

With all due respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, but just for clarification and for
the record, Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, is NOT a Presiding Judge of Regional Trial
Court, (RTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City, as stated in the notice of resolution, but she is the new

Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, (MTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City;
In view of the aforesaid Notice of Resolution, Petitioner respectfully concurs with the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court
Administrator in their August 28, 2013 REPORT, accordingly recommending that, the
instant administrative complaint against the respondent Judges be DISMISSED, on the basis
that the Complaint is judicial in nature; and likewise, with their EVALUATION, that the
correctness of a decision cannot be challenged in an administrative complaint against
the judge who rendered it; and that, an administrative complaint is not the proper
remedy where

judicial recourse

is still available, of which Evaluation and

Recommendation, was likewise, ADOPTED and APPROVED in the November 18, 2013,
Resolution of the Supreme Courts First Division.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, as provided
for under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and, Petition for Annulment of
Judgment due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Extrinsic Fraud as provided for under Rule 47 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby submitted and filed as a judicial recourse to
rectify and correct the Judgment in the October 25, 2005 DECISION, that was rendered with
anomaly and partiality by Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51,
penned by its former Presiding Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION
While it may be argued that this Petition for Certiorari is dismissible for being filed out
of time, as provided for under Section 4, Rule 65, Petitioner humbly begs for this Honorable
Supreme Court to kindly consider and take into account the mitigating EVENTS, and
underlying CIRCUMSTANCES previously explained, as well as the vital ISSUES and
essential FACTS which shall be discussed henceforth. In the interest of substantial Justice,
let this Petition be given due course and be acted upon its merit. Furthermore, it has long
been settled already and was held in several cases, that;
the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid
technical sense. Rules on procedure are used only to secure, not
override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the
rules is made, then their aim would be defeated. (Arse nio Reyes Jr.
vs. C.A. et al. G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000)

Howbeit, should this Petition for Review on Certiorari still be found dismissible
for being filed out of time, Petitioner invokes Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure and New Rules of Court, Revised and Approved on October 3, 2000,
which provides TWO (2) VALID GROUNDS for the ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT,
namely;
1.) LACK OF JURISDICTION; and 2.) EXTRINSIC FRAUD
9

It further states that if based on EXTRINSIC FRAUD, the period for filing such action,
is within FOUR (4) YEARS from its discovery (Sec. 3, Rule 47).
It bears stressing then, that this Petition is hinged not only for a review on Certiorari,
but also on the grounds of Lack of Jurisdiction and Extrinsic Fraud, which were the
primary reasons that prompted herein Petitioner to submit and file to the Office of Supreme
Court Administrator, his December 22, 2010, original Complaint ., and his August 19,
2011 Amended Complaint. against the subject Unfounded Decision, henceforth assailed
by this Petition.
Herein Petitioner, barely DISCOVERED some of the numerous EXTRINSIC
FRAUDS that abound in this case while reviewing the voluminous (TWELVE) 12-year
records on file with this case (from year 2000 -2012), after his Entry of Appearance was noted
and approved by Caloocan City MeTC-Branch 51, on its April 16, 2012, ORDER.
Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, when herein Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN
SALVADOR concocted again and filed another fallacious and unfounded COMPLAINT for
EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez [Annex-14],
before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 1304180-CV, (Carmen A. Salvador, Plaintiff vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, et.,al., Defendants), more
EXTRINSIC FRAUDS were DISCOVERED again by herein Petitioner, which prompted him
to finally file Criminal Cases against Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, before the Quezon
City Prosecutors Office, namely;

1.) For the crimes of SWINDLING / ESTAFA thru Falsification of Public


Documents, (Luz G. Ramirez, represented by Atty-in-fact Narciso Luisito A.
Ordoa, Complainant vs. Carmen A. Salvador and Alexander A. Parco,
Respondents),with I.S. No. XV-03-INV-14A-00635.
2.) For the crimes of Falsification of Private Documents; SWINDLING /ESTAFA,
thru Falsification of Public Docume nts; PERJURY, Giving False Testimony
and Specific Performance with Damages, (Romeo B. Ramirez, Lilibeth R.
Ponce, and Eden G. Mostales, all represented by Atty-In-Fact Narciso Luisito A.
Ordoa, Complainant vs. Carmen A. Salvador, Respondent), submitted and filed
on October 01, 2014, with NPS Docket No. XV-03-INV-14J-9408.
WHEREFORE, from the first time the extrinsic frauds were discovered on April 16,
2012, the reglementary FOUR (4) year period (Sec. 3, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure) within which to file this Petition is up to April 16, 2016, hence, the filing of this
Petition for Annulment of Judgment, not only on the ground of Lack of Jurisdiction but also
on the ground of EXTRINSIC FRAUD is timely made.

PROPER VENUE OF ACTION


While the Rule on the Annulment of Judgment or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts
asserts that it has to be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former
10

(Sec. 10, Rule 47), and that the Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts ( Sec. 9(2) of BP 129, The
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 ); however, if the ground for ANNULMENT is LACK

OF JURISDICTION, another remedy is CERTIORARI under RULE 65, in which case the
Court of Appeals does not have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction since the SUPREME
COURT also has JURISDICTION.
Be that as it may, and considering that the herein subject Decision, being sought to
be annulled by this instant Petition has already been affirmed, upheld and sustained by both
the appellate Court Caloocan City RTC-121, and the Court of Appeals (CA) Eighth Division,
hence, this Petition for Annulment of Judgment due to LACK OF JURISDICTION and
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI is now being filed at the proper venue, which is the Supreme
Court that holds the over-all jurisdiction above other courts and tribunals.

FACTS OF THE CASE


At the outset, it has to be emphasized that this Petition is predicated on the October
25, 2005 DECISION,rendered by the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch
51, on Civil Case No. 03-27338, for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages, filed by
therein Plaintiff, now herein Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, against therein
Defendant and now herein Petitioner ROMEO B. RAMIREZ, represented by his
undersigned Atty.-in-fact NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOA, a.k.a. Bro. Louie
That subject DECISION, penned by the trial courts former Presiding Judge
ELEANOR R. KWONG, (now the Presiding Judge of Caloocan City, RTC, Branch-128), was
willfully and maliciously rendered with partiality in favor of RESPONDENT Carmen Salvador
and against PETITIONER Romeo B. Ramirez.
On March 30, 2006, Petitioner thru his 3rd Counsel Atty. Ricardo Barba, appealed the
aforementioned DECISION and was raffled to Regional Trial Court, (RTC) Br-121, Caloocan
City, in which Petitioner raised SIX (6) ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the MeTC erred in not dismissing the case due to forum
shopping.
2. Whether or not the MeTC had jurisdiction to try the case.
3. Whether or not the MeTC erred in holding that the Decision of Quezon
City, RTC-79, in Civil Case No. Q-11138 (penned by Judge Demetrio B.
Macapagal) had already attained finality.
4. Whether or not the MeTc erred in ordering the Plaintiff to pay the
remaining balance of the purchase price.
5. Whether or not the MeTC erred in holding that Defendant is liable to
pay plaintiff monthly rentals of Php 1,500.00 until Defendant has fully
paid the remaining balance of the purchase price.
6. Whether or not the MeTC erred in awarding the Plaintiff the amount of
Php 20,000.00 as attorneys fees and to pay the cost of suit.
Addressing these issues, the Caloocan City RTC-121 ratiocinated, as follows;
11

xxxxxxx
After a judicious scrutiny of the evidence and arguments ventilated
by the parties, this Court accordingly rules in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.
The Court could not sustain defendant-appellants theory
that there was forum shopping. While it may be true that at the time
of the filing of the instant case before the court a quo there was
still a similar pending case before the MTC of Quezon City, it is
equally true that plaintiff-appellee had already filed a motion to withdraw
the case before the MTC of Quezon City. The grave evil sought to be
avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two
competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.
(TF Ventures, Inc. vs. Matsura, 431 SCRA 526). Obviously, the rule
against forum shopping could not be applied to plaintiff-appellee
because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo was
not to shop for a favorable judgment .
The Court also upholds the Bilihan between herein parties.
Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual
relationship, it is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their
rights and obligations thereunder--- obligations arising from contracts have
the force of law between the contracting par ties and should be complied
with in good faith. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA
686). Equity demands that a party cannot disown its previous declaration
to the prejudice of the other party who relied reasonably and justifiably on
such declaration. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra).
A scrutiny of the contract between the parties discloses that the
subject matter of the sale is not only the HOUSE but also the RIGHTS
over the lot where the house stands. Defendant-appellant could not
therefore claim that the consideration of Php 400,000.00 indicated therein
is absurd.
The stipulations in the contract relative to the payment of the
consideration are likewise crystal-clear. Defendant-appellant has admitted
not paying the balance of Php 220,000.00. The court a quo was therefore
correct in ordering Defendant-appellant to pay the money pursuant to the
provisions of the agreement.
The contention that the contract is not valid for being un-notarized
is not tenable. This appears to be a mere afterthought contrived to avoid
the effects of the agreement. It bears stressing that the parties have
already partly executed the contract when defendant-appellant himself
paid the initial payment. The notarization of the contract is not a requisite
for its validity considering that it is merely consensual in character.
Moreover, paragraph 6 of the contract also provides for the payment
of rentals in case of default in the payment of the balance of the purchase
price. This provision must be correlated with paragraph 2 stating that the
amount of rental is Php1,500.00 monthly.
Finally, defendant-appellant could not insist on the ownership of
one Wilfredo Torres as the latters title has already been nullified, contrary
to defendant-appellants assertion that the decision of the RTC of Quezon
City is not yet final as the same is still on appeal. The withdrawal of the
appeal has necessarily resulted to the said judgment ripening into finality.
(underscoring and emphasis supplied )
12

As for the propriety of the award of attorneys fees, the Court


upholds the same considering that plaintiff-appellee was compelled to
litigate to protect her rights.
Thus, the RTC concluded with this adjudicative pronouncement;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is accordingly
rendered DISMISSING the appeal. With costs against defendant-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Caloocan City, March 30, 2006.
(SGD) ADORACION G. ANGELES

Presiding Judge
Thereafter, Petitioner by the same 3rd Counsel (Atty. Barba) appealed the RTC
DECISION by way of Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (C.A.). It was assigned
to Ninth (9th ) Division, however, a Group Resolution dated January 10, 2007, with CA-G.R.
SP NO. 94866, was issued by the Court of Appeals, Eighth (8th ) Division, which upheld and
sustained the RTC Decision.

[In view of the above circumstances, Petitioner sincerely requests the Honorable
Supreme Court to have a Resolution constituting a Panel of Investigators to conduct
an honest and fair investigation regarding the aforementioned matter, and find out
how the case initially assigned with the 9th Division was eventually transferred to the
8th Division. It has to be emphasized that the country's second highest courts, the
Court of Appeals, had already been embroiled in scandal and controversy, wherein on
August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court, in its bounden duty, constituted a three-person
panel to assist in the investigation of the improprieties of the actions of the Justices of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 (Antonio V. Rosete, et al. v. SEC, et al.);
to determine the culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in
the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to
the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality,
competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.( A.M. No. 08-8-11CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP
NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]
Thus, being unaware of the aforesaid C.A. 8th Divisions Group Resolution, neither
Motion for Reconsideration was filed nor elevated the CASE to the Supreme Court, as
previously mentioned, mainly because neither the Defendant nor his 3rd Counsel, Atty.
Ricardo Barba was furnished with a copy or notice of the Court of Appeals, EIGHTH (8 TH )
Divisions Group Resolution.
Hence, the October 25, 2005 DECISION rendered by Caloocan City, MTC-51,
became Final and Executory, and was eventually, entered and recorded in the Book of
Entries of Judgment on February 01, 2007. Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan
City MeTC-51.

13

Then, on June 18, 2008, at 3:05 p.m., Plaintiff by her Counsel Atty. Dayang Preciosa
M. Medina submitted and filed a Manifestation and Motion to resolve the Plaintiffs
pending Motion for Execution of Judgment, dated August 10, 2007.
After only ONE (1) day, the aforesaid Motion was immediately granted by the
Caloocan City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, in an ORDER,
dated June 20, 2008, ordering for the issuance of a Writ of Execution.
However, as already manifested above (page 3), what is terribly significant to point out
here is that, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that ORDER, dated June 20, 2008, ordering
for the issuance of a writ of execution, there was already a WRIT OF EXECUTION, dated
June 19, 2008 that HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???????, by the same Caloocan
City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, which was issued to Sheriff III
Arniel Apostol ordering him to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment of former MTC-51
Judge Eleanor R. Kwong.

[ Herein Petitioner is somewhat confused on how was that made possible? Was
it JUST a SIMPLE MISTAKE?... a CLERICAL ERROR perhaps?... or maybe it was a
CLEAR-CUT DEMONSTRATION showing how INCOMPETENT are, the Caloocan City,
MeTC-51s Ministerial Officers / Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and Judicial
Employees to diligently PERFORM their SWORN DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES in
the administration of Justice?...or, most probably, this is a CRYSTAL CLEAR
INDICATION that there are really something FISHY and ANOMALOUS
TRANSACTIONS tainted with IRREGULARITIES, CORRUPTION and ANOMALIES that
are actually GOING ON, TAKING PLACE, and PROLIFERATING in SOME or MOST,
if not ALL Courts of Justice in the Philippine Judicial System, by which Lawyers,
Clerk of Courts and Presiding Judges are conniving and conspiring with each other to
further their dirty and devious tricks! particularly in this City of Caloocan which
based from what happened, may even be regarded now as a City of CALOKOHAN!!!]
It is enormously alarming, shocking, and disgusting to discover that these sorts of
things are actually happening and still proliferating within our very own Judicial System.
Anybody who would assess, evaluate and visualize the foregoing events and circumstances,
using their sound reasoning and impartial interpretation, can easily com prehend and realize
what actually happened at the Calokohan City MeTC-51, by simply reading between the lines
and picturing in mind the factual scenario that might have transpired on those days of June
18, 19 and 20, 2008.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

[ It is again, quite noting to emphasize here a very relevant issue, by which, exactly on
these dates of June 18, 19 & 20, 2008, in the much publicized dispute and charges of
impropriety among the justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) involved in CA-G.R. SP No.
103692 entitled "Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.", was
a very similar anomalous transaction that was taking place, between and among the C.A.
Justices, that resulted to the DISMISSAL from service of the very notorious (sic) Associate
Justice Vicente Q. Roxas being found guilty of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the

14

best interest of the service. The similar events being compared with the same dates are as
follows;
On June 18, 2008, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of five days or until June
23, 2008 within which to file their consolidated memoranda of authorities and reply to the
comment of the SEC. On June 19, 2008, MERALCO filed an ex-parte manifestation together
with their reply to the comment of the GSIS. Meanwhile, Justice B. L. Reyes asked Atty.
Custodio to report on "what transpired between her and Justice Sabio" when she returned
the cartilla. "Teary-eyed," Atty. Custodio begged off from making a report. Justice Reyes
decided to consult the Presiding Justice "to avoid an ugly confrontation" with the Justices on
the "highly politicized case involving giants of the Philippine society." He explained to the
Presiding Justice his understanding of the relevant IRCA rules and "the actual practice in
similar situations in the past." The Presiding Justice promised to talk with Justice Sabio and,
"for the sake of transparency and future reference," Justice Reyes requested permission to
write an inquiry on the matter.
On the same day, Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasque z a letter calling the
attention of Justice Edgardo P. Cruz ("Justice Cruz"), Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, to
the "dilemma" as to who between him and Justice Sabio should "receive" CA -G.R. SP No.
103692. Justice Reyes posed these questions before the Presiding Justice:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
On June 20, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez referred the letter of Justice Reyes to Justice
Cruz, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, noting "some urgency involved as the hearing of
the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008." ( A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING
JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]
x- - - -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --x

Going back to the anomalous advance issuance of the Wirt of Execution, (dat ed June
19, 2008), ahead of the ORDER for the issuance of such, (dated June 20, 2008), it is widely

accepted in every Court of Law and in all investigation processes that a slight variance on
specific DATES and TIMES is very critical and crucial in the determination of ones guilt and in
assessing and evaluating the credibility of ones testimony. An accused for example who
would testify and claim that he killed Victim-X on June 19, 2008, because he merely followed
and obeyed the instruction from a written ORDER given to and received by him on June 20,
2008, or a day after the crime has already been committed by him, is a totally absurd, bizarre
and ridiculous statement, that cannot be given any weight at all, and has to be immediately
stricken out, instead!
The testimony of Sheriff III Apostol, stated and contained in the Sheriffs
Notice/Demand to Pay, also clearly states the actual DATE of the Writ of Execution,

by virtue of the Writ of Execution dated June 19, 2008


But then, that would make someone to ask, how come that a Writ of Execution was
issued on June 19, 2008 considering that Caloocan City MeTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma
Crispina B. Lacorte, only released the ORDER for the issuance of such on June 20, 2008??

15

Now, the question is, which of the two (2) judicial documents came out first? The Writ
of Execution, dated June 19, issued to Sheriff Apostol ? Or the ORDER, of Judge Lacorte,
dated June 20 ordering for the issuance of the Writ?
Perhaps, the Writ of Execution itself would provide a vividly clear answer. And,
hereunder reproduced is the Writ of Execution for quick and easy reference;

WRIT OF EXECUTION
TO

ARNIEL S. APOSTOL
Sheriff III of this Court authorized by law to serve process.

G R E E T I N G S:
WHEREAS, October 25, 2005, Decision in the above-entitled case was
rendered by this Court,.
xxxx..

WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007 and on June 18, 2008, a Motion for
Execution and Manifestation and Motion were filed respectively by plaintiffs
counsel and the Motion for Execution was granted by this Court in its Order
dated June 20, 2008.
xxxx

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of this Court this 19th of June
2008 at Caloocan City, Metro Manila.

(underscoring & emphasis supplied)

(SGD) ALMA CRISPINA B. COLLADO-LACORTE


Presiding Judge

NOW, what sort of explanation would justify the enormous error openly
manifested in the conflicting DATES presented above? Perhaps, there could only be
THREE (3) reasonable and realistic justifications;
1. THAT, it was just a simple mistake or cle rica l e rror committed by the
Ministerial Officers,

Branch Clerk of

Court

Personnel and Judicial

Employees, of Caloocan City, MeTC-51s, which all of those involved had


simply overlooked or had failed to SEE bec ause they were ALL BLINDfolded (sim ilar to the blind-folded Lady Justice symbol in the Philippine
Justice System), while performing their duties, including Judge Lacorte
herself who, likewise, didnt notice the conflicting dates when she signed
it.

2. THAT, the Ministerial Officers, Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and


Judicial Employees of the Caloocan City, MeTC-51, had ALL became so
INCOMPETENT

to

diligently

PERFORM

their

SWORN

DUTIES

and

RESPONSIBILITIES in the administration of Justice? which, perhaps

16

necessitates all of them t o undergo further trainings & seminars; and,


that ALL these things were the result of JUDGE ELEANOR KWONGs
greediness in having numerous records of cases filed in her court , to the
point of even admitting complaint outside her jurisdiction, which she
should rather had dismissed right away, in order to lessen the job of her
courts personnel.
3. THAT, it is indeed a CRYSTAL CLEAR INDICATION pointing to the
REALITY of something FISHY and ANOMALOUS TRANSACTIONS tainted
with IRREGULARITIES and CORRUPTION that are actually GOING ON,
TAKING PLACE, and PROLIF E RATING in SOME or MOST, if not ALL
Courts of Justice in the

Philippine Judicial System, by which corrupt

Lawyers, Clerk of Courts and Presiding Judges are

conniving and

conspiring with each other to further their dirty and devious tricks! A
glaring FACT being tolerated by each and every one due to

the main

reason AGAIN, that ALL of them are actually performing their respective
sworn DUTIES and RESPONSIBILTIES, but most often failed to do their
jobs honestly, diligently and w ith accuracy because they have been
BLIND-folded, similar to the existing classical SY MBOL in the Philippine
Judicial System.

Irrefutable and indisputable here is the FACT, that when Petitioner submitted and filed
his numerous Motion to Dismiss due to FORUM-SHOPPING and LACK OF JURISDICTION, it
took almost a YEAR before it was resolved, whereas, on the other hand, when it comes to the
Respondents Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution to implement the Judgment, it
took only ONE (1) DAY for the court to resolve, notwithstanding the FACT that a Writ of
Execution has already been issued in advance.??? WERE THERE NO FAVORITISM,
PREDJUDICE and PARTIALITY IN THAT?
The Supreme Court in its per curiam DECISION, on CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692, entitled
Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. [A.M. NO. 08-8-11-CA :
September 9, 2008], stated, thus;
The Judiciary, which is acclaimed as the firmest pillar of our democratic institutions,
is vested by the Constitution with the power to settle disputes between parties and to
determine their rights and obligations under the law. For judicial decisions, which form part
of the law of the land, to be credible instruments in the peaceful and democratic resolution
of conflicts, our courts must be perceived to be and, in fact be, impartial, independent,
competent and just. To accomplish this end, it is imperative that members of the Judiciary
from its highest magistrates to its humblest employees adhere to the strictest code of
ethics and the highest standards of propriety and decorum. Indeed, it is unfortunate that
one of the country's second highest courts, the Court of Appeals, should be presently
embroiled in scandal and controversy. It is this Court's bounden duty to determine the
culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy
and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial
ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in
the performance of official functions.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
17

ISSUES for Arguments / Discussions


Issue No. 1 : FORUM SHOPPING
When Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR filed her Complaint before
the Caloocan City MeTC-51, [Annex-14] on June 17, 2003, For Collection of Sum of Money
& Damages, there was still a PENDING, UNRESOLVED CASE of the SAME NATURE and
ISSUE in Quezon City MeTC-32, [Annex-15] docketed as Civil Case No. 29501 For Specific
Performance with Damages, which the same Respondent filed on October 30, 2002 against
the same Petitioner Romeo B. Ramirez.
In view of that first complaint filed in Quezon City, Petitioner by his 1st Counsel Atty.
Hilario Quiambao (now deceas ed) filed his ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM on December
10, 2002,. However, instead of commenting on the Defendants Answer with Counterclaim,
Respondent filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case [Annex-16] on June 16,
2003, stating that she is no longer interested to prosecute the instant case and she now
desires to withdraw the said case.
On the contrary, immediately on the following day, June 17, 2003, Respondent
hurriedly filed again her readily prepared SIMILAR COMPLAINT of the SAME NATURE and
ISSUE, having IDENTICAL CAUS E OF ACTION before the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial

Court (MeTC) Branch 51.


It bears stressing here that the obvious REASON why Respondent filed an Urgent
Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the Case in Quezon City, and have another one filed in her
place of residence, was not merely to change the venue for her case and against thi s, no
serious objection can be rai sed , (as ruled out by the Court of Appeals on p.10, DECISION,
CA-G.R. SP NO. 94866), of which the same was likewise asserted by the Caloocan City

RTC-121, which declared and gave an opinion that, the rule against forum shopping could not
be applied to plaintiff-appellee because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo
was not to shop for a favorable judgment. (p.4, of Caloocan City, RTC-121, DECISION) .

On the contrary, Plaintiff-Respondent evidently changed the venue for her case so she can
shop for a favorable judgment, by means of willfully, maliciously and abusively modifying her
COMPLAINT from claiming to be the OW NER of a certain portion of undivided LOT 799, Pi edad
Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her FIRST COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter,

DENIED her OWNERSHIP to the subject LOT and simply claimed ONLY the OW NERS HIP to a
residential HOUSE which i s allegedly erected over the said portion of land , in her second

complaint filed in Caloocan City.


Thus, it is crystal CLEAR that both Caloocan City RTC-128, and Court of Appeals
8 Division gravely ERRED in not sustaining defendant-appellants theory that there was
th

forum shopping, when they issued their rulings, stating that, the chances that the evil
sought to be prevented or avoided by the rules on forum -shopping would have
transpired by reason of the a ctions of the responde nt in the Quezon City and
later in the Caloocan City, was remote, if not altogethe r nil ..All the respondent

18

did was to change the venue of he r case-and aga inst this, no serious obje ction
can be raised, -paragraph 2, page 10, CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, January 10, 2007,

DECI SI ON- (underscoring and

emphasis supplied)

[WOW WHAT A PERFECT PORTRAYAL OF BLIND-folded C.A. JUSTICE Renato

Dacudao in the Philippine Judicial System!!! Is this the kind of Justice that has been
multi-awarded with prestigious awards, such as; Outstanding State Prosecutor,
Ministry of Justice, 1978; Presidential Awardee, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all
over the country, Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration June 9, 1989; Awardee, Best
Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro Memorabilia Commission,
1995; Winner, The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as Outstanding RTC Judge,
Foundation for Judicial Excellence , 1996. ????

DEAF and BLIND??? Mga Bulag na nga ba ang mga nakapwesto sa ating
Judicial System? O sadyang nagbubulag-bulagan lamang?...dahil naka-piring at
may takip ang mga MATA na pati ang mga TENGA ay natakpan na rin kaya pati
mahahalagang TESTIMONYA ay balewala na rin sa kanila.]
Being BLIND-folded Justices, they even FAILED to SEE (or perhaps deliberately
ignored to SEE), that Respondent Carmen Salvador, LIED not only in Quezon City MeTC32, in stating that she is no longer interested to prosecute the instant case and she
now desires to withdraw the said case, but worst of all, she also LIED before the
Caloocan City MeTC-51, by submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION [Annex-17] that she has
not commenced any other ACTION and that no similar ACTION of the SAME NATURE
and ISSUE is pending with any other tribunal or agency, which is already a CLEAR
VIOLATION of the Rule against Non-Forum Shopping, as provided for under the New
Rules on Civil Procedure.
Unaware of the second Complaint filed in Caloocan City, Petitioner was even caught
in surprise to receive from Caloocan City MeTC-51, a copy of an Urgent Motion to Declare
(him) Defendant (Ramirez) in Default, dated August 25, 2003. Upon receipt of the said
motion, Petitioner immediately submitted and filed in Caloocan City his ANSWER, dated
September 01, 2003 and promptly sought the immediate DISMISSAL of the instant
Complaint filed against him. Petitioner not only pointed out and raised before the Trial
Court that Plaintiff had willfully violated the Rule on Non-FORUM SHOPPING in
submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION, but also raised the ISSUE that Caloocan City has
NO JURISDICTION over the instant Complaint, on the basis that the PROPERTY (LOT
and HOUSE) that was fraudulently sold by the Respondent to Petitioners family is located in
Quezon City, hence, only the proper Courts in Quezon City have the JURISDICTION over
the instant Complaint.
On the other side, upon ORDER of the Court in Quezon City, Petitioner by his 1st
Counsel Atty. Hilario Quiambao, on September 01, 2003 submitted and filed his COMMENT
on the Plaintiffs Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case, and explicitly stated thereat his
VIGOROUS OBJECTION to it, in view of his ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM.

19

However, after FIVE (5) months, when Respondent failed to submit and file a REPLY
to the Petitioners vigorous objection not to grant the Plaintiffs Urgent Ex-Parte Motion
to Withdraw Case in view of his (Ramirez) Answer with Counterclaim, and upon failure of
Ramirez Counsel Atty. Quiambao to file within the reglementary period of 15 days, a
Manifestation of his preference for the court to resolve his counterclaim, the Plaintiffs
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case was eventually RESOLVED by Quezon City
MeTC-32, in its ORDER, dated February 2, 2004, issued by its Presiding Judge
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE, granting the DISMISSAL of the Complaint, the
decreetal portion reads;
The court grants plaintiffs motion for the dismissal of the
complaint. Despite the opposition of the Defendant, he did not, within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Plaintiffs motion to dismiss, file a
manifestation of his preference for this court to resolve his counterclaim
in this case.
Wherefore, the complaint is ordered dismissed, without
prejudice to the defendants filing of a separate action on his
counterclaim.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, February 2, 2004.
(SGD) ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Presiding Judge

This above verdict of Judge Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale,


(again, another muti-awarded Judge who was recently honored last year by the Judiciary and
was cited on the 23rd anniversary of the Judicial Excellence Awards (JEA), extolling her roles in moving
judicial reform forward and for being diligent in her duties;??? received the Chief Justice Cayetano
Award for Outstanding Second Level Court Judge, for having significantly contributed to judicial
reform???...cited as the Outstanding Trial Court Judge for First Level Courts in 2006, being the
select few to have won both excellence awards???)
in instantaneously GRANTING the Respondents Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to
Withdraw Case and DISMISSING the case right away, despite Petitioners VIGOROUS
OBJECTION to it in view of his ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM, and her Courts failure to
notify or direct the Petitioner to file his Manifestation of preference to resolve his Counterclaim,
if such is still needed, is tantamount to neglect of duty and is not in accordance with the
CANONS of the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. What was the point of filing again
another separate action on the Counterclaim? Why go through long processes again of
filing a separate action for the Petitioners counterclaim? The case is already within her court
and it was just a matter of resolving the Petitioners Counterclaim and the case could have
been ended already.
Quite noting here is the FACT, that when Petitioner received the Plaintiffs Urgent ExParte Motion to dismiss, he immediately submitted and filed his COMMENT with
VIGOROUS OBJECTION to the said Motion in view of his COUNTERCLAIM. WAS IT NOT
20

THEN A SUFFICIENT MANIFESTATION OF HIS PREFERENCE TO RESOLVE HIS


COUNTERCLAIM?
It might be safe to say and assume therefore, that Judge Quimpo-Sales ACTION on
instantaneously granting the Respondents MOTION to Dismiss, is a clear manifestation of her
being influenced only by someone to DISMISS the Complaint within her jurisdiction in order
that the second complaint filed by the Respondent in Caloocan City can prosper and be
brought to a full-blown trialthus, Judge Quimpo-Sales unwarranted decision paved the way
for the second complaint filed in Caloocan City to be somewhat justified as if it had
substantially complied with the Rules on forum shopping as stated by the baseless ruling of
Judge Kwong. Was this one of the reasons or criteria for a Judge like Judge Quimpo-Sale to
be conferred with a Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award for Outstanding SecondLevel Court Judge?... another crystal clear indication that even in Quezon City MTC and
up to the Court of Appeals Tribunal, perhaps MOST if not ALL Judges are also BLINDfolded. who cannot clearly SEE or maybe deliberately refused to SEE???
If so, How can we ORDINARY, yet PEACEFUL and LAW-ABIDING Filipino Citizens of
the Republic of the Philippines o btain TRUE JUSTICE then???
Hence, Judge Quimpo-Sales award-winning VERDICT in instantaneously granting
the Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw Case despite the Defendants vigorous objection to it in view
of the latters Answer with Counterclaim, resulted into Caloocan City MTC-51 Presiding Judge
Eleanor R. Kwong to pave a way and acquire jurisdiction over it, and found good reason to
DENY the Petitioners MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO FORUM SHOPPING, by coming up
with her own shallow, unsound and untenable ruling that the Respondents action in
submitting an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw case, which was eventually granted, will
suffice her substantial compliance of non-forum shopping. ???
As previously stated above, starting on September 01, 2003, when Petitioner first
raised the ISSUE of FORUM SHOPPING in his ANSWER; and was then pointed out and
repeatedly raised it over and over again, on October 03, 2003

in the Defendants

COMMENT, to the Plaintiffs Urgent Motion to Declare Defendant in Default; on November


19, 2003, in the Defendants Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping; and finally, on June
24, 2004 in yet another Defendants Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping filed by
Defendants 2nd Counsel Atty. Regidor Pablo Pablo, Jr., who bluntly quoted the Supreme
Courts pronouncement on the Rule on Forum Shopping in the case of Prubankers
Association vs. Prudential Bank and Trust Company, 302 SCRA 74, and stated, thus;

The Rule on Forum Shopping was first included in Section 17 of


the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the Court on January 11,
1983, which imposed a sanction in this wise: A violation of the rule
shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the
summary DISMISSAL of both petitions, without prejudice to the
taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned .
Thereafter, the Court restated the Rule in Revised Circular No. 28-91
21

and Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Ultimately, the Rule was


embodied in the 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court .(Underscoring
and emphasis supplied).
It was ONLY then, AFTER almost a YEAR ( 10 months and 21 days), of repeatedly
showing, pointing and raising the ISSUE of Forum Shopping, that the Caloocan City
MeTC-51 former Presiding Judge Eleanor Kwong, finally decided to resolve said ISSUE, in
an ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, intentionally and maliciously DENYING the DefendantPetitioners Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, and ruled out with partiality in
FAVOR of Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, by merely stating that there was
substantial compliance of non-forum shopping, the dispositive portion of said ORDER
reads;
Plaintiffs counsel was given ten (10) days to comment but
NONE was filed, hence, the motion is now considered submitted for
resolution.
Perusal of the records of this case shows that plaintiff filed
before the said court an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case on
June 16, 2003, but the same was ONLY RESOLVED on February
2, 2004. The Complaint before this court was filed on June 17, 2003.
As the Motion to Withdraw case was filed before the filing
of this instant complaint, there is substantial compliance of nonforum shopping. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )
In an ATTEMPT to further JUSTIFY her above-quoted shallow and petty-minded
ruling, Judge KWONG, proceeded, thus;
It was held in several cases that the rules of procedure ought
not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, rules on procedure are
used only to secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and
rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated.

(Arsenio Reyes, Jr., vs. C.A. et. al., G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000).
If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had long
been considered submitted for decision, since the defendant
belatedly filed his Answer. This Court hereby accords both parties
fair play and the opportunity to ventilate their issues in a full blown
trial. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Caloocan City, Metro Manila
July 21, 2004
(SGD) ELEANOR R. KWONG
Presiding Judge
This kind of interpretation and application of law presented by Judge KWONG in
DENYING the Defendant-Petitioners Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, is not only a
clear demonstration of her IRRATIONAL and UNJUST ruling, but also clearly shows her
PARTIALITY, DISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDE, IGNORANCE of LAW and WILLFUL,
MALICIOUS, and HORRIBLE WAY of twisting and perverting the Rules of Court, as well as
22

DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to the Supreme Courts Administrative Orders, Directives and


Circulars.
On the other hand, the above-quoted NONSENSE and BASELESS ruling of Judge
KWONG, and intentional mis-interpretation of the law, became a BIG stepping stone for
HER to be elevated and promoted to a higher position into becoming the Presiding Judge
NOW of the CALOKOHAN City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 128. This is an INSULT
to the FILIPINO people who are required by Law to give due RESPECT, HONOR and HIGH
REGARD to the JUDICIARY, being ONE of the THREE highly-revered branches of our
government!!! No doubt why most narrow-minded Filipino individuals pretending to be
patriotic ended up being rebellious to the government.
With all due respect to the NEW ADMINISTRATION of the Honorable Supreme Court
and the Highest Tribunal of our Land, from which former Chief Justice Renato Corona was
recently impeached and subsequently removed from his post, now facing multiple charges of
corruption, irregularities and anomalies, the undersigned sincerely SEEKS and REQUESTS
that an IMMEDIATE and URGENT ASSESSMENT and EVALUATION of ALL JUSTICES
appointed to preside in various Courts and Tribunals within the Philippine Judicial System
should be PRIORITIZED, in order to avoid having more VICTIMS of INJUSTICES who are
now suffering in JAILS, mainly because of some dishonest and deceitful Judges who normally
render such kind of BASELESS and UNFOUNDED RULING similar to Judge Eleanor Kwong.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOI NG FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES, PETITIONER IS OF
HUMBLE SUBMISSION BEFORE THIS HONORABLE SUP REME COURT TO REVIEW ON
CERTIORARI, IF INDEED, THE ACT OF FILING ANOTHER COMPLAINT IN ANOTHER TRIBUNAL
CAN REALLY BE JUSTIFIED TO HAV E MET THE REQUI REMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLI ANCE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPI NG, BY MERELY FILI NG A MOTI ON TO WITHDRAW THE
FIRST COMP LAI NT FROM THE OTHER TRI BUNAL... THEN FILE THE S AME AGAI N INTO
ANOTHER TRIBUNAL THE FOLLOWING DAY, and much more with THE SUBMISSION OF FALSE
VERIFICATION!!!

Perhaps it could have been more justifiable if the filing of another case in another
tribunal was done ONLY, AFTER an ORDER for the DISMISSAL of the first complaint has
already been GRANTED, and not just by simply filing a Motion for the dismissal of the first
complaint.
What was presented above is just a tip of an iceberg, yet, clearly demonstrates why
thousands

of

INNOCENT

FILIPINOS

are

suffering

in

jail

as

VICTIMS

of

INJUSTICES!!!...because there are many appointed JUSTICES who are not only BLIND not
being able to SEE or willfully and deliberately ignore to SEE the real issues, facts and
circumstances, but they also LACK the expertise, knowledge and necessary skills needed to
properly utilize the weighing scale of Justice, yet they still get promoted from being an MTC
Judge into becoming an RTC Judge.???
On the other hand, Justices who have so much expertise, exceptional knowledge,
seasoned and skilled in the implementation and administration of justice had turned out to
23

become undesirable and corrupt in their practice of law. They normally connived with
undeserving, dishonest Counsels/Lawyers and together paved their own courts playing field
and twist the Rules of Court inside their jurisdiction, in order to render kind judgment to
whoever party they favored with, hence, the Almighty God as the Most High Judge found it
proper to intervene, by anointing a SERVANT and guiding him to elevate this matter to the
respectable NEW Administration of the most Honorable Supreme Court and the Highest
Tribunal of the Land which has the inherent power not only to correct the mistakes of lower
courts, but also to initiate or recommend Disciplinary proceedings against the Counsel and
Judges involved, for the advancement of Justice.
It bears stressing and significant to note, that the Honorable SUPREME COURT had
already set a vividly clear, definitive and decisive guidelines regarding the Rules on Forum
shopping, which assert as follows;
The ESTABLISHED RULE is that FORUM SHOPPING EXIST, IF BOTH ACTIONS
INVOLVE THE SAME TRANSACTIONS, SAME ESSENTIAL FACTS and
CIRCUMSTANCES and MUST RAISE IDENTICAL CAUSES of ACTIONS, SUBJECT
MATTER and ISSUES. [International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
249 SCRA 389, 394-395, October 18, 1995; GSIS vs. Sandiganbayan, 191 SCRA 655, 660,
November 26, 1990; and Silahis International Hotel, Inc. vs. NLRC, 225 SCRA 94 100, August 4,
1993.]
The RATIONALE for the requirement of a CERTIFICATION against forum
shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim
involving the same issues in another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency,
and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation. Filing MULTIPLE
petitions or COMPLAINTS constitutes ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES. (Wee vs.
Galves, G.R. No. 147394, 11August 2004, 436 SCRA 96, 108-109, CITING Zebra Security Agency
vs. NLRC, Phil.200, 209), which tends to degrade the administration of justice,
wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of
the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. (Nacuray vs. NLRC, 336 Phil. 749, 756).
Furthermore, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and
transparency among Lawyers and their Clients in the pursuit of their cases
before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue
inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts.
(Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 605, 616.)
Significantly, to curb the malpractice of forum shopping, the Rule ORDAINS
that a VIOLATION thereof would constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT and be a CAUSE
FOR THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL of BOTH PETITIONS without prejudice to the taking of
appropriate ACTION AGAINST the COUNSEL of the PARTY CONCERNED.

FINALLY, the Supreme Courts Administrative CIRCULAR No. 4-94, further states,
that;

24

Any VIOLATION of this CIRCULAR shall be a CAUSE for the DISMISSAL of the
COMPLAINT,..However, any CLEARLY, WILLFULL and DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING
by any PARTY and HIS COUNSEL through the filing of MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS or other
initiatory pleadings to obtain FAVORABLE ACTION shall be a GROUND for SUMMARY
DISMISSAL thereof and shall CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Furthermore, the SUBMISSION OF FALSE CERTIFICATION or NON-COMPLIANCE
with the UNDERTAKINGS therein as provided in Paragraph 1 hereof, SHALL
CONSTITUE INDIRECT CONTEMPT of COURT, without prejudice to DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COUNSEL and the FILING of a CRIMINAL ACTION
against the GUILTY PARTY. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)

Now,

are

these

above-quoted

JURISPRUDENCE,

MEMORANDUM,

CIRCULARS & RULINGS of the Supreme Court regarding Forum-shopping unknown


to the multi-awarded Court of Appeals Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, and to
Caloocan City RTC-121 Presiding Judge Adoracion G. Angeles and much more to
Judge ELEANOR KWONG? If so, then what made her qualified to be elevated into
becoming a Regional Trial Court (RTC) JUDGE of Calokohan City?
FOR THE WELL-A CCEP TE D RULE IS THA T, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES
NO ONE! and, CE RTAINLY NOT A CREDE NTIAL FOR PROMOTION, BUT PE RHAPS A
VALID GROUND FOR DEMOTION or rather TERMI NATION OF SERVICE PARTICULARLY
FROM BEING A JUDGE!
IT IS, THE REFORE, NE ITHER BEFITTING NOR PROPER A ND APPROP RIA TE TO
SIMPLY ALLE GE THA T CALOOCAN CITY Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch -51, as well as
CALOOCAN CITY Regional Trial Court, Branch-121 and COURT OF APPEALS 8
DIVISION, JUS T

TH

GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT SUS TA INING THE Defendant-P etitioners

THEORY THA T THERE WAS FORUM SHOPPING! IT WOULD ONLY FURTHE R DEGRADE
THE IMAGE A ND CREDIB ILITY OF THE P HILIPPINE JUS TICE SYS TEM A LL THE THREE
(3)

TRIBUNALS

W ILLFULLY,

KNOWINGLY,

DELIBERA TE LY,

MALICIOUSLY

A ND

INTENTIONALLY IGNORED THE WELL-ACCEPTED RULE AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING.


IF THEY ONLY ADHERRED IN THE P ROPER A DMINIS TRA TION OF JUS TICE , THIS
CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSE D LONG TIME AGO JUS T FOR WILFULL
VIOLA TION OF NON-FORUM S HOPPING A LONE, AND THE FILING OF APPROP RIA TE
ACTION

AGA INS T

EVERYBODY

INV OLVE D

SHOULD

HAVE

BEEN

LIKEWISE,

RECOMMENDED!

Issue No. 2 : LACK OF JURISDICTION


The Caloocan City MeTC-51 DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION over the instant
case filed therein by Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador (who, including her Counsel Atty.

Dayang Preciosa Medina are both residents of Calocohan City).


Nevertheless, being seasoned and expert, Judge Eleanor Kwong is skillful enough,
wickedly and immorally smart, clever and shrewd on what to do and how to acquire
25

Jurisdiction over the instant case, even if on its face alone she perfectly knew that she has no
jurisdiction over it. (perhaps there was a SECRET DEAL among them that she would get a

share from any amount that the Plaintiff may collect, for if not, then what reason did she have
in attending to such complaint? Unless, she wanted her court to have an overflowing cases to
attend to and to keep her courts personnel busy every day. ). Thus, Judge KWONG started
her FIRST move;

TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION (by all means)


Knowing fully-well and being totally aware that Calokohan City MeTC-51, does not
have jurisdiction over the instant COMPLAINT filed by Calokohan City resident, PlaintiffRespondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, through her Counsel ATTY. DAYANG PRECIOSA M.
MEDINA, with office address at Medina Law Office, 3rd flr., Doa Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza
Rizal cor. Gen. Luna St., Caloocan City, Judge KWONG, willfully, deliberately and maliciously
started to pave the way on how to illegally acquire her jurisdiction over the instant case, by
way of her July 21, 2004, ORDER, in resolving the Petitioner-Defendants Motion to Dismiss
due to Forum Shopping. Judge Kwong ruled, thus;

Plaintiffs counsel was given ten (10) days to comment but


NONE was filed, hence, the motion is now considered submitted
for resolution. (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
With all due respect your honor, but there was indeed a Plaintiffs COMMENT, dated
and filed by her Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA on July 26, 2004 or FIVE
(5) DAYS later???, after the court has already issued its July 21, 2004, ORDER???
In fact, that belatedly filed COMMENT was intentionally DONE, SUBMITTED and
FILED, then willfully and maliciously RECEIVED by the trial court, purposely to be transmitted
and forwarded to Caloocan City RTC-121, intended to be utilized as Plaintiffs additional
argumentative evidence to support the readily concluded DENIAL of the Petitioners expected
future appeal.
While Judge Kwong seemed not to be aware of it, yet, former Calocohan City RTC121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, (who was compulsory RETIRED from SERVICE
after her CONVICTION in Quezon City for the crime of child abuse), maliciously utilized and applied
that COMMENT which was clearly mentioned and pointed out in the Plaintiff-Appellees
Memorandum filed by Counsel on March 23, 2006.
The DECISION dated March 30, 2006 of former Calokohan City RTC-121, Presiding
Judge, now convicted Judge Adoracion Angeles, (which was instantaneously rendered after
ONLY SEVEN (7) days from the date Plaintiff filed her MEMORANDUM on March 23, 2006) openly
affirms;

xxx,She,

Plaintiff-Appellee, by counsel (referring to the Plaintiffs NEW

Counsel Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, who represented her in RTC ), argues that
there was substantial compliance with the rule against forum shopping because
26

the motion to withdraw case was filed in Quezon City before the filing of this case.
Moreover, Defendant-appellants motion to dismiss before the court a quo failed to
comply with the provisions of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

xxx,

(That foregoing particular boldly-underlined sentence, with emphasis


supplied by herein Petitioner, refers to the belatedly filed Plaintiffs COMMENT
of which Judge Kwong was seemed unaware of.)
DECISION, penned by Caloocan City RTC-121
Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, dated March 30, 2006,
- three (3) months prior to her being CONVICTED on JULY 17, 2006 at the
Quezon City RTC Branch 100, in CRIMINAL Case Nos. Q-97-69655-56,
for VIOLATION of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 for CHILD ABUSE.
Plaintiffs new Counsel Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio who represented Plaintiff
Carmen Salvador before Calocohan City RTC-121, in her MEMORANDUM for PlaintiffAppellee that she submitted and filed, in the ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION of, Issue No. I.
Whether or not the Trial Court erred in not Dismissing the Case due to Forum
Shopping, therein argued, (despite of her personal knowledge that the Plaintiffs COMMENT was
belatedly filed to and received by the trial court), still utilized the same to justify her baseless
argument, and frankly asserted, thus;

Moreover, as sta ted in Plaintiffs COMMENT on the said


Motion to Dismiss, which was received by the trial court after it
has already issued the aforementioned Order, the Motion to
Dismiss itself should not have been given due course, in the first
place, because of its failure to comply with the provisions of Section
4, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. (underscoring &
emphasis supplied)

MEMORANDUM (for Plaintiff-Appellee), submitted & filed on


March 23, 2006 by Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio before Calocohan City RTC-121.
It bears stressing to lay emphasis on the foregoing argument of Petitioners new
Counsel Atty. Judina Fabros-Bercasio that it has no basis at all, considering that the Plaintiffs
COMMENT was not raised at the trial court, it having been just intentionally and lately
received by MTC, and then maliciously forwarded to RTC where it was finally made an official
part of the records of the case.???????
These foregoing declarations contained in the Plaintiff-Appellees MEMORANDUM
and in the Caloocan City RTC-121 DECISION, are undoubtedly, crystal clear manifestations
of conspiracy among dishonest LAWYERS, deceitful CLERK OF COURTS and corrupt
JUDGES, which are substantial pieces of EVIDENCE that prove beyond reasonable doubt
about their willful and malicious way of manipulating and twisting the Rules of Court inside
their jurisdiction, which are specific acts constituting fraud or deceit not primarily on the part of
Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador but by and among her Counsels, Atty. Dayang
Preciousa Medina and Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio, in connivance with Calokohan City,

27

MeTC-51 Clerks of Court and convicted Calokohan City RTC-121, former Presiding Judge
ADORACION G. ANGELES.
To further proceed and continue with the undersigned presentation on how Judge
KWONG, willfully and maliciously paved the way to forcibly acquire improperly and unlawfully,
her JURISDICTION over the instant case, she EXPLOITED and TOOK ADVANTAGE of the
very popular COMMON PRACTICE well-known to everyone as delaying tactics during the
entire initial period when she had NO JURISDICTION yet over the instant case. In so doing,
Judge KWONG WITTINGLY, DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY delayed to resolve for
almost a YEAR, the Defendants Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping.
In reality, Judge KWONG cannot and could not actually resolve the Defendants
Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, much more that she cannot and could not cite the
Defendant-Petitioner in Default, not only because of her LACK OF JURISDICTION, but also
because by doing so, would only mean the END of the CASE. (If ONLY Defendant Ramirez had
the undersigned already as Counsel with him during those times, he could have given him the best
advice to simply disregard the Complaint filed against him in Caloocan City and let him be cited there
in DEFAULT which cannot and would never actually happen, even if he failed or refused to file an
ANSWER or REPLY and totally ignored the Complaint, for as long as the one pending in Quezon City is
not yet resolved and the Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw is also not granted, then the grave evil sought
to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping which is the rendition by two competent tribunals
of two separate and contradictory decisions, is MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN.)
During those times, the Plaintiff-Respondents Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw
the case in Quezon City MeTC-32, remains pending, and the FIRST COMPLIANT was,
likewise, not yet been DISMISSED. Thus, Judge Kwong fully-well knew that she had actually
NO JURISDICTION over the newly-filed case in Caloocan City, much more that she does
not have the option to resolve the Defendants Motion to dismiss which she intentionally and
deliberately intends to DENY, hence, she waited unwearyingly until the Urgent Ex-Parte
Motion to Withdraw the case filed by her favorite client Plaintiff Carmen Salvador in Quezon
City was finally GRANTED. Thereafter, found her time at last to ultimately resolve the ISSUE
on Forum Shopping by issuing the aforementioned ORDER dated July 21, 2004, the
dispositive portion of which is again quoted hereunder, which reads;

Perusal of the records of this case shows that plaintiff


filed before the said court an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw
Case on June 16, 2003, but the same was ONLY RESOLVED on
February 2, 2004. The Complaint before this court was filed on
June 17, 2003. As the Motion to Withdraw case was filed
before the filing of this instant complaint, there is
substantial compliance of non-forum shopping.???????

(underscoring, emphasis

and question marks supplied)

Xxxxx.
If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had
long been considered submitted for decision, since the
28

defendant belatedly filed his Answer. This Court hereby


accords both parties fair play and the opportunity to ventilate
their issues in a full blown trial.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )
SO ORDERED.
Caloocan City
July 21, 2004
(Signed)
ELEANOR R. KWONG
Presiding Judge

PERFECT! So now, the case is within Judge Kwongs JURISDICTION in Calocohan


City, where they can do all kinds of maneuvering and manipulation by setting their own
rules of the game in their own courts playing field and twisting the rules of procedure to suit
for their favor.
Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, who willfully, knowingly, intentionally
and deliberately violated the Rule on Forum Shopping by;
FIRSTLY, lying before the Quezon City MTC-32, in submitting her Urgent Ex-Parte
Motion to Withdraw the case, claiming that she is no longer interested in further prosecuting
the instant case and she desires to withdraw the said case, yet, on the following day
hurriedly submitted and filed another Complaint of the same nature, issue and
circumstances in Caloocan City;
SECONDLY, by lying again before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, for not informing
MeTC-51 regarding the pendency of the case before Quezon City MeTC-32, and
THIRDLY, by making MISREPRESENTATION when she submitted a FALSE
VERIFICATION, stating thereat that she has not commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in any other tribunal and agency, which is a clear violation of the
Rule on Non-Forum Shopping.
In the same manner, Plaintiffs Counsel ATTY. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA
who is also liable and guilty of forum shopping for conspiring with her client in maliciously
and abusively modifying the Plaintiffs Complaint from claiming to be the owner of a certain
portion of undivided lot 799 Piedad Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her FIRST
COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter, denied her ownership to the subject LOT and
simply claimed only the ownership of an alleged residential HOUSE which is purportedly
erected over the said portion of land, in her SIMILAR COMPLAINT filed in Caloocan City.
Thereafter, used it to justify her clients action of filing another case in Caloocan City by
arguing that the case filed in Quezon City involves a LOT whereas the one filed in Caloocan
City involves a HOUSE, and this, she (Atty. Medina) claimed, create the big difference.

29

On the contrary, whatever kind of reasoning and explanation they give will never
justify their action of filing multiple complaints and submitting False Verification attached to
their complaint.
Thus, the malicious ACTS, deceitful means and fraudulent way employed by both
Respondent-Plaintiff CARMEN SALVADOR together with her dishonest and undeserving
Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA MEDINA, resulted into their initial success that only
require a little finishing touch from the hand of Caloocan City MeTC-51, Presiding Judge
Eleanor Kwong, hence, her ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, which is not only ridiculous and
preposterous, but a whopping INSULT and direct DISOBEDIENCE to the Administrative
Circular 28-91, dated February 08, 1994 issued by the Supreme Court, and Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 made effective 01 April 1994, which expands the CERTIFICATION
requirement to include cases filed in Court and quasi-judicial agencies below the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2) of said
Circular to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in order to deter
the EVILS of FORUM SHOPPING.
Forum Shopping is not comparable or similar to certain simple issues in which
technicality ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, for it might override
substantial justice, as claimed and referred to by Judge Kwong in her bias ruling.
On the contrary, FORUM SHOPPING is considered a PERNICIOUS EVIL. It
adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court
dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and
trifles with and mocks judicial processes. It has been held that forum shopping is
evident where the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are present. (United
Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No.
135945, March 7, 2001, 353 SCRA 782).
While Civil Case No. 03-27338, may be mistakenly considered as a PERSONAL
ACTION, based from its caption or title being a Collection of Sum of Money and Damages,
it is also an undeniable FACT that the amount being collected by the Plaintiff-Respondent
Salvador from Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez is the alleged UNPAID BALANCE from the
fictitious SALE OF A PROPERTY that is located in Quezon City, of which alleged unpaid
balance, the Petitioners family refused to pay because they found out that Respondent only
got her RIGHT on the subject property illegally, by forging the signature of the rightful owner
Wifredo Torres, on the alleged Deed of Assignment and by fabricating a falsified (FAKE)
Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie,
(Respondent Carmen Salvador).
Among the many issues that were raised and argued in the court a quo and in the
appellate courts, are the TWO (2) most significant of all, to wit;
1. Whether or not the Defendant has to pay the P220,000.00 remaining
balance of the purchase price; and,
30

2. Whether or not the Defendant is liable to pay plaintiff monthly rentals


of Php 1,500.00 (for the use and occupancy of an alleged HOUSE) until the
remaining balance is fully paid..
These were the amounts being collected by Plaintiff-Respondent

Salvador from

Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez, as allegedly arising from the fictitious deed of Sale,


denominated as Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Aria-arian which the latter allegedly entered into
with the former, of which kind of ACTION for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages
may be commenced and tried in the proper court where the Plaintiff resides (Sec. 2, Rule 4),
is somewhat correct.
However, it is also EQUALLY TRUE that the Plaintiffs ACTION affects the TITLE
to or POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY, or INTEREST therein, and as such, it
should have been commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the
area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4).
Therefore, the Plaintiff-Respondents ACTION is NOT purely a PERSONAL action. It
is a REAL ACTION, an accion en rem that affects TITLE to or POSSESSION of the
subject real property, or interest therein, which is located in Quezon City;
Relative thereat, is the Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which is based
on Supreme Court Circular No. 13-95, promulgated on June 20, 1995, providing a vividly
clear and well-defined guidelines that, ALL REAL ACTIONS (those affecting TITLE to,
or POSSESSION of the real property), should be COMMENCED and TRIED in the
PROPER COURT which has TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION over the AREA wherein the
real property involved or a portion thereof is situated.
It is very apparent from the very face of the Respondents Complaint, filed in and
brought before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, that the subject matter involved is an alleged
residential HOUSE supposedly erected on a parcel of land that is located in Quezon City. In
the Plaintiffs Complaint submitted and filed in Caloocan City, it reads;
Xxxxx
1. Plaintiff is the true and lawful owner of a residential HOUSE located at the

corner of Bonifacio Drive and Quezon St., Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City,
which is erected on a parcel of land consisting of One Hundred Twenty (120) square
meters, more or less. The right over the said parcel of land likewise belongs to the
plaintiff, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 29, 2000, executed in
her favor by the awardee of the said lot. (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
From its very face alone, the complaint is DISMISSIBLE and does not deserve to be
entertained by any other Courts outside Quezon City. Whether Plaintiff-Respondents action
is for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages, the FACT remains that she could not
have any amount collectible from the Defendant-Petitioner if not for the SALE of REAL
PROPERTY located in Quezon City which she fraudulently sold to Defendants wife LUZ

31

RAMIREZ and not to Defendant-Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, whom Plaintiff-Respondent had


never met nor talk with personally, since time immemorial.
Obviously, The Respondents action of filing her Complaint to collect money and
damages from the Petitioner depends from her rightful possession and proof of legal
ownership over the subject property, which she has the burden to prove first in court. Her
demand to collect money and damages can only be justified if she can prove that she has
the legal personality to sell the same, otherwise, if not, then she does not have any legal and
valid cause of action against the Petitioner. It would even further give rise to her being held
for a Criminal act of Swindling/ESTAFA thru fabrication and falsification of public documents.
Thus, the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, DOES NOT
HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE.
However, the trial court maliciously justified the Respondents ACTION to collect
money, when it ruled upon the OWNERSHIP and POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY
located in QUEZON CITY, BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION. The trial court ruled, thus;

The Plaintiffs right over the subject lot derived from a Deed of Absolute
Sale executed by Alexander A. Parco, an awardee-owner of the subject lot in favor
of plaintiff Carmen A. Salvador. Alexander Parco likewise, came into his
possession the subject lot through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 5, 1995,
executed by one Remigio Tamayo in his favor. This Remigio Tamayo acquired the
right over the subject lot from Wilfredo Torres through a Deed of Assignment
dated February 2, 1993. Wilfredo Torres was the registered owner of the subject
lot with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 118192, until the said title was declared
null and void by the Decision dated February 28, 2000 of Judge Demetrio B.
Macapagal Sr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City.
The Trial Court further ruled;

At the time the Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-Arian was executed, the


Plaintiff was still the lawful possessor of the right of the subject lot. It being so,
there is no fraud nor deceit made by the Plaintiff, as being claimed by the
defendant.
When the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 22, 2000 was executed
between Wilfredo Torres in favor of Romeo Ramirez, Wilfredo Torres was no
longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch
79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.
From the foregoing, it is apparently clear that the case brought before the Trial Court
was an accion en rem because it affected not only the POSSESSION but the TITLE of the
real property located in Quezon City. The trial court in Caloocan City did not have the
jurisdiction in ruling upon the issue of possession much more ownership of the subject
property in Quezon City.
It also bears stressing that while the Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule
upon the ownership of the subject LOT, it is likewise significant to point out what was stated
32

in the Plaintiffs instant complaint as well as what was claimed by her counsel in their
Comment to Defendants Motion to Dismiss due to forum shopping, that the subject matter
involved in the case they brought in Caloocan City is NOT a LOT but a HOUSE. It being
so, then, WHY DID CALOOCAN CITY, MeTC-51 JUDGE KWONG RULED OUT AND
DECIDED ON MATTER or ISSUE, NOT BEING BROUGHT BEFORE HER COURT?...by
way of coming out with a ruling as to who is the rightful owner of the LOT ??? instead of
deciding on whether there was really a HOUSE erected thereat, which Plaintiff-Respondent
alleged being rented by Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez.
IS

THIS

ANOTHER

CLEAR

MANIFESTATION

OF

JUDGE

KWONGs

EXCEPTIONAL IGNORANCE???
Furthermore, the trial courts ruling and insistence that

Wilfredo Torres was no

longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 79,
Quezon City, had already attained its finality was merely a courts wrongful presumption
which cannot be justified, as it is baseless and bereft of merit, not only because it is not
supported by any evidence extant in the record, but mainly because the Decision of Quezon
City, Regional Trial Court

Branch 79, was only declaring null and void the Transfer of

Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 118192 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of
Wilfredo Torres, but NOT the legality of Torres legal ownership to other portions of land
inside WilTor subdivision which include Lots No. 21 & 22, subject of the case, and are also
covered by TCT 118192.
Untenable also is the courts opinion that, When the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

December 22, 2000 was executed between Wilfredo Torres in favor of Romeo Ramirez,
Wilfredo Torres was no longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial
Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.
Common sense alone would suffice to say, that even if TCT No. 118192 in the name
of Wilfredo Torres was declared null and void, it does not necessarily mean that Torres is no
longer the legal owner of other lots covered by said TCT, and even assuming but not
admitting, but just for argument sake that the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79, has indeed,
already attained its finality, and that Torres was no longer the owner of the more than 40
hectares of land covered by TCT 118192, does it necessarily mean then that Respondent
Carmen Salvador automatically become its rightful owner? Where is the logic in that? This
does not make any sense at all, which again prove beyond reasonable doubt how
IGNORANT are the kind of Justices who have been appointed to preside and
administer Justice in this particular case!
By simply reading, even without scrutinizing the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79,
anyone can easily understand and figure out that TCT 118192 was only declared null and
void, it being a derivative Title from TCT No. 56809 issued by the Registry of Rizal on March
7, 1939, which was eventually reconstituted only by the Quezon City Register of Deeds by
way of Wilfredo Torres mother Dominga Sumulongs Petition on December 28, 1966.
33

The TCT No. 118192 containing an area of 416,533 square meters (41.65 hectares)
is covered by Lot 799 of Piedad Estate, of which portions are presumed to be legally owned
by the heirs of Kalaw family and other portions are also presumed to be absolutely owned by
the heirs of Torres-Sumulong family. This land dispute between Torres and Kalaw family is a
very complicated case for quieting of Title, which has long gone for a period of over 30 years
until it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in its Decision dated September 10, 2003,
G.R. No. 91486, declaring null and void all TCTs of Piedad Estate covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614, including Lot 799, from which TCT-118192 that covers
Lots 21 & 22 subject this case, emanated from.
Respondent submitted at the Trial court voluminous records of documents as their
evidence to support their claim that Wilfredo Torres is no longer the absolute owner of Lots
No. 21 and 22, inside his own Wiltor Subdivision.
The BLIND-folded Lady Judge KWONG, just admittedly placed all the Respondents
voluminous documents into her weighing scale without even looking at and scrutinizing the
contents of those documents whether they really support the claim and allegation of
Respondent Salvador as the rightful owner with absolute and legal personality to sell or
dispose the same.
However, by going over and scrutinizing the Plaintiff-Respondents evidences
submitted at the trial court, marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit K (K1-14), (K15 K16), K17, K18K19 and Exhibit L-L4, which Plaintiff presented in court as their documentary evidences to
prove that TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres was already null and void, would only
prove otherwise that Wilfredo Torres is indeed the legal owner of Lots No. 21 & 22 subject of
this case.
An evaluation of those documentary evidences presented and submitted by the
Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador, clearly shows that it was for an Action for quieting of
Title, filed way back on March 31, 1967 before branch V, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City, re-raffled
and transferred to branch 31, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City and branch 100 RTC Quezon City,
until it was unloaded to Branch 79 in 1987 as a new created sala of RTC Quezon City.
On June 11, 1988 all the records of the case were burned during the fire that razed
the Quezon city Hall Building where RTC 79 was then housed.
By way of Petition for Reconstitution of Judicial records, the records of the case were
reconstituted as per Order dated August 22, 1989 and January 16, 1990. The Court also
granted on MARCH 15, 1994 the Plaintiff-Intervenors Manifestation & Motion for the
reconstitution of additional documents. Kalaw is the plaintiff and Wilfredo Torres is one
among the Defendants in that case.
On May 26, 1993, while Wilfredo Torres was detained by then Pres. F.E. Marcos, as
a political prisoner at the new Bilibid prison (Plaintiffs Exhibit L), NAPLICO Officers led
34

by its President Leopoldo Zapi, offered to buy from Wilfredo Torres the 41.65 hectare land
covered by TCT No. 118192 in the amount of P16,288,400.00.
In behalf of NAPLICO (NCR Urban Poor Multi-purpose Cooperative) Zapi as
President, entered an agreement with Torres that the former shall pay a down payment of
Php 400,000.00 and the remaining balance of Php 15,888,400.00 will be amortized at
Php158,844.00 a month for a period of ten (10) years from June 15,1993 to June 15, 2003.
However, upon taking possession of the land (now popularly known and registered
as WilTor Heights Subdivision) in honor of its absolute owner Wilfredo Torres, Zapi in

conspiracy with NAPLICO Officers and Members, including Respondent Carmen Salvador,
sold, conveyed, disposed, occupied and appropriated for their own use and benefit, several
portions of said land, but failed or ignored to pay Torres the monthly amortization indicated in
their agreement. Despite verbal and written demands made, Zapi and his cohorts have failed
and refused to vacate, return or peacefully turn-over a total of thirty (30) lots to Torres, hence
the latter was compelled to file four (4) consolidated Estafa cases against Zapi and his
cohorts, at the Department of Justice, NCR, Quezon City with I.S.No. 98-24390; 98-24866;
98-26175 and 99-0942. These cases were however dismissed by a Resolution dated June
27, 2000, issued by Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Jocelyn A. Solis -Reyes, on the basis
that the acts committed by Zapi and his cohorts in selling lots owned by Torres does not
constitute Estafa, because there was no provision in the agreement that prohibits the sale or
disposition of said lots pending full payment of the purchase price. Their non-compliance in
turning over to Torres the thirty (30) lots only give rise to civil liability.
Therefore, it was only the Civil Case for Annulment of Contract and Damages, No. Q94-19204, at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, branch 101, filed by Torres through his
Atty-in-Fact, Cesar Serrano, against Zapi and NAPLICO officers (including REYNALDO
PONCE, who is the author of, and one of the witnesses in the Respondents fictitious
Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-arian), as the Civil Case that was won by Torres in a Decision

dated January 26, 1994, granting him to recover twenty-seven (27) out of the thirty (30) lots,
by virtue of a Writ of Execution dated April 6, 1995.
Included among those 27 lots were lots 21 & 22, having a combined area of 240
square meters, which was fraudulently sold by Remigio Tamayo in favor of Alexander Parco,
in the amount of Php 235,000.00, through a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 8,
1995 (while Torres was still detained in prison, and one month prior to the release of the April 6,
1995 Writ of Execution). In the said Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Tamayo in
favor of Alexander Parco (nephew of Respondent Carmen Salvador), was the forged signature
of Wilfredo Torres as if showing that he gave his conformity to the said sale.
In view of that forged signature of Torres, he (Torres) executed an AFFIDAVIT,
marked as Petitioner-Defendants Exhibit 8. Mr. Wilfredo Torres further personally testified
in court as witness for Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, to prove not only that his signature was
forged in the Deed of Absolute Sale between Tamayo and Parco, but also to prove his
35

ownership over the subject property and that all transfer of RIGHTS over it are null and
void.
The trial court however, willfully and deliberately IGNORED to consider the Affidavit
and Testimony of Torres, including the genuine December 22, 2000, Deed of Absolute Sale
duly executed by Torres in favor of Petitioner Ramirez. When Petitioner presented it in court,
Respondent objected for its admittance for simple reason, which according to Plaintiffs
consel (Atty. Medina), it was not and cannot be registered at the Registry of Deeds of
Quezon City. (p.9 of Plaintiffs Memorandum, dated August 23, 2005). Plaintiffs counsel Atty.
Dayang Preciosa Medina further contended in court that, since it cannot be registered with
the Registry of deeds, should create a doubt in the minds of every reasonable man to think that the
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 118192 is indeed spurious.
Thus, even in the January 10, 2007 Court of Appeals, 8 th Division DECISION in CAG.R. SP NO. 94866, dismissing the Petitioners appeal, the C.A. likewise, ruled out the same;
xxxthe purported certificate of title of Wilfredo Torres could be as

apparently it was a mere figment of petitioners imagination. In fact, what was


presented in evidence in court was a xerox or a photocopy of a supposed certificate of
title No. 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which was thus provisionally marked
in evidence. This explained why the alleged Deed of Sale executed on December 22,
2000 by this Wilfredo Torres in favor of the petitioner was refused or denied
registration by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, because it was not accompanied
by the owners copy of the authentic certificate of title. Xxx (underscoring and emphasis
supplied)
[ What an EXCELLENT, award-winning reasoning of an Associate Justice who was

conferred with a Presidential Award, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all over the
country, during the Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration, June 9, 1989;a summa
cum laude graduate at the Central Philippine university, Iloilo City and LL. M. with the highest
honors at the Manuel L. Quezon University; Outstanding State Prosecutor, Ministry of
Justice, 1978;.. Awardee, Best Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro
Memorabilia Commission, 1995;.. Winner of The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as
Outstanding RTC Judge, Foundation for Judicial Excellence, 1996; served as Judicial
Supervisor and State Prosecutor at the Department of Justice from 1972 to 1987;..
became a Regional Trial Court Judge in Cebu from 1988 to 1989;;;..promoted to the Court
of Appeals in 1998;.. just to betray the trust and confidence accorded to him, by
coming out on January 10, 2007, six months prior to his compulsory retirement on June
19, 2007, with a foolish, irrational, senseless and ridiculous ruling as stated above .]
Admittedly, YES. But what about the Deeds of Absolute Sale that were executed for
the conveyance of property from Remigio Tamayo (alleged awardee of Torres) to Alexander
Parco (alleged 1st buyer) and to Respondent Carmen Salvador (alleged 2nd buyer)? All their
Deeds of Sale were also XEROX or PHOTOCOPIES too, NOT registered and CANNOT
likewise be registered with the Register of Deeds, because both Deeds of Sale pertain to
Lots 21 & 22, which are also covered by TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which
Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador even supported with another documentary evidences, such as
the spurious Deed of Assignment, dated February 2, 1993, and the June 30, 1995, Affidavit
36

of Tamayo, which are all FAKE documents that were maliciously and unlawfully fabricated
by Respondent Salvador in connivance with her nephew

Parco and Torres caretaker

Remigio Tamayo, intentionally & purposely done to deceive the Ramirez family in buying the
property of which Respondent Salvador has no legal personality to dispose or sell.
While the Petitioners documentary evidence supported by testimonies and affidavits
were all denied consideration, the Respondents unsubstantiated documents were all
admitted by the trial court and placed into Judge Kwong weighing scale, and were all utilized
in the promulgation of judgment.
And so, after employing ALL forms of FRAUD and DECEIT, made by the Respondent
in bad faith and with intent to deceive, of which are hereunder summarized as follows;
1. Respondent

Carmen Salvadors deceitful and fraudulent way of filing an

Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case in Quezon City on June 16, 2003,
and then filing again another ACTION w ith SIMILAR CAUSE, SAME ESSENTIAL
FACTS, ISSUES and CIRCUMSTANCES, in Caloocan City on the following day,
June 17, 2003;
2. Respondent Carmen Salvadors deceitful and fraudulent way of submitting a
FALSE VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION by concealing the fact that she had
already commenced an ACTION of the same nature and issue in Quezon City,
and that she already filed a Motion to withdraw the case, but, of

which

resolution is still pending;


3. Respondent Carmen Salvadors deceitful and fraudulent way of conniving and
conspiring with her Counsel in willf ully, maliciously and abusive ly modifying
her COMPLAINT from cla iming to be the owner of a certa in portion of
undivide d Lot 799, Pieda d Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her
FIRST C OMPLAINT filed in Quezon C ity, thereafter, denied her ownership
to the subject LOT and simply claime d only

the

owne rship to a

reside ntial house which is ere cted over the said portion of la nd, where
in T RUTH and in FACT, the dilapidated shanty or (small structure as
described by Remigio Tamayo in his alleged AFFIDAVIT ), made up of scrap
materials, which Respondent Carmen Salvador had been referring to as being
rented from her by Eden Mostales way back in March 1999, was already
DEMOLISHED immediately after she fraudulently sold the LOT to Petitioners
wife, on May 15, 2000, in order to give way for the Petitioners family to
construct a NEW CONCRETE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE that was BUILT AND
CONSTRUCTED by Petitioner ROMEO RAMIREZ, and which is the one presently
erected thereat since June 2000.
And yet, Respondent Carmen Salvador is still f raudulently and fictitiously
insisting and continuously claiming to be her own, as evidenced by her
concocting and filing again recently,

another fallacious

and unfounded

COMPLAINT for EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Petitioner


Ramirez and his family, filed on September 26, 2013, before the Quezon City

37

Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 13-04180-CV,
by way of Respondent Salvador using the herein assailed DECISION, including
the RTC and Court of Appeals Decision, as her evidence to support her claim.
However, that EJECTMENT case had already been DISMISSED by an
ORDER dated June 30, 2014, of which the trial court of Quezon City MTC,
branch 32, had likewise furnished the Office of Supreme Court Administrator,
with a copy of the same.
4. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondents Counsel Atty. DAYANG
PRECIOSA M. MEDINA

in trying to justify that her clients action in filing the

case in Caloocan City involves a HOUSE while the first one filed in Quezon City
involved a LOT, which according to her creates the big difference;
5. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondents Counsel Atty. Dayang
Preciosa Medina in willf ully, maliciously and dishonestly submitting a belatedly filed COMMENT on the Petitioners Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping,
FIVE (5) days later after an ORDER has already been issued, with an ulterior
motive or hidden agenda to use it against the Petitioners appeal, w hich they
actually did.
6. The deceitful and fraudulent way of the Caloocan City MeTC-51, Clerks of
Courts in intentionally and maliciously admitting that belatedly-filed comment
and forwarding the same to Caloocan City, RTC-121..
7. The deceitful and fraudulent way of both Respondents other Counsel Atty.
JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO and Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Branch 121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES in willfully, maliciously
and unscrupulously utilizing the belatedly filed COMMENT of Atty. DAYANG
PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, in filing the formers MEMORANDUM and in the latters
ORDER dismissing the Defendant-Appellants appeal before Caloocan RTC-121.
8. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC)

Branch

51

Presiding

Judge

ELEANOR

R.

KWONG

in

w illfully,

erroneously, and knowingly;


8.1.

Intentionally and maliciously ACCEPTING the Petitioners belatedly-filed


Answer not to be cited in Default and then, subsequently used it as a
means to justify and to neutralize Respondents clear violatio n of the
rule on forum shopping, as clearly stated in her ruling, to wit;

If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had


long been considered submitted for decision, since the
defendant belatedly filed his Answer.
8.2.

Intentionally and deliberately DELAYING to resolve for almost a YEAR,


the Petitioners Motion to Dismiss due to Forum shopping, which she
only resolved after knowing the fact that the first case in Quezon City
had already been dismissed.

38

8.3.

Deliberately DENYING the Petitioners Motion to Dismiss due to forum


shopping by making a pronouncement of her OWN baseless ruling that
there was a substantial compliance of non-forum shopping, since
according to her, a Motion to withdraw the first case in Quezon City had
already been filed, prior to the filing of another case in Caloocan City;

8.4.

Tenaciously BRINGING the case into a full blow n trial as if granting


both parties fair play to ventilate their issues in a full-blown trial but
purposely meant to simply ACQUIRE JURISDICTION over the instant
case, in order for her to set her own rules of the game a nd to
eventually render kind judgment for the Respondent whom she favored
with.

8.5.

Rendering a DECISION that was primarily based on the purported, self styled and fictitious contract denominated as Katibayan sa Bilihan ng
Ari-Arian of which due execution a nd authenticity was not proven in
court, because the Respondent failed to identify the signature atop the
name of Petitioner ROMEO B. RAMIREZ and for the Respondent not
having a personal know ledge as far as the signature of Romeo Ramirez
in the Katibayan is concerned. (p 14, TSN, August 14, 2004);

8.6.

Rendering a DECISION on a subject matter that was NOT BROUGHT or


RAISED before her Court. Despite the Respondents claim in her
complaint and the insistence of her counsel that it was the HOUSE
being the subject matter brought before the Court a quo, and was the
one they alleged to as being rented by Petitioner Romeo Ramirez,
Judge Kwong rendered a DECISION ordering the Petitioner;
1. Xxx
2.

To pay the Plaintiff the amount of One thousand Five Hundred


(Php 1,500.00) Pesos a month, starting May 15, 2000, as rentals
for the use and occupancy of the subject LOT until the
defendant has fully paid the remaining balance for the purchase
price.

Hence, after employing all crafty means in the foregoing DECEITFUL

and

FRAUDULENT acts, thus, the baseless and unfounded Complaint of herein Respondent
CARMEN A. SALVADOR found its way to get a FAVORABLE JUDGMENT from a friendly
court in her place of residence in Caloocan City, which has NO JURISDICTION over it and
of which is exactly the GRAVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED OR AVOIDED BY THE
RULE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.
As previously mentioned, when the aforesaid Sheriffs Notice / Demand to Pay was
served to Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, his health started to deteriorate. His whole family, wife
and three children were all badly affected by the unfounded decision rendered against them.
Knowing fully-well that they were the real victims of Respondent Carmen Salvadors

39

fraudulent and deceitful acts, made it difficult for them to accept the injustices that were
deliberately inflicted upon them.
Hence, they were compelled to hire again another private & license professional
lawyer requiring them to pay another Php30,000.00 Acceptance fee and Php 3,000.00 per
court appearances thereafter. Unfortunately, as already said, ALL Manifestations, Motions and
Remedies available under the Rules of Court being submitted and filed by their 4 th Counsel
Atty. Oscar I. Mercado, were time and again being DENIED by the Caloocan City MeTC
Branch 51, until Atty. Mercado decided to finally withdraw his appearance in court.
THENCEFORTH, herein Petitioners representative & Atty-In-Fact, stepped-in and
took over, by submitting and filing before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, his Notice of Entry of
Appearance, dated April 10, 2012, which was noted and approved by the court in its Order
dated April 16, 2012. It was only then that undersigned Petitioners Legal Counsel found out
and discovered, not only the aforementioned ANOMALIES and IRREGULARITIES, but also
the fraudulently fabricated fictitious and falsified documents that were used by the Respondent
as her evidence to prove her alleged claim of ownership and alleged rightful possession of the
subject property.

Issue No. 3 : FRAUDULENTLY FABRICATED FICTITIOUS AND


FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
In an attempt to bolster the Plaintiffs Complaint and support her allegations,
Respondent submitted voluminous documentary exhibits that were ALL admitted by the Trial
Court and placed into Judge Kwongs weighing scale of Justice, while that of the Petitioners
meritorious documentary exhibits were ALL DENIED considerations and were NOT
ADMITTED to be placed into the weighing scale of the BLIND-FOLDED Lady Justice. Among
the Plaintiff-Respondents documentary exhibits being referred to, were the following;
1. The Respondents COMPLAINTS. The FIRST one filed in Quezon City on
October 30, 2002, and the SECOND one, filed in Caloocan City on June 17,
2003.
Evaluation: Both of these COMPLAINTS filed in Quezon City and in

Caloocan City are unfounded, baseless and fictitious. Plaintiff DO NOT EXACTLY
knew what she really own, whether a HOUSE or a LOT, because the TRUTH of the
matter is that at the back of her mind, she perfectly knew that she actually does
not OWN any property at all in Quezon City.
2. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, dated January 29, 2000, allegedly executed
by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie, Respondent Carmen A. Salvador;
(marked at the trial court as Plaintiffs Evidence, EXHIBIT A.)
Evaluation: In connivance and conspiracy with her nephew Alexander A.

Parco, Respondent Carmen A. Salvador fabricated this spurious Deed of Absolute


40

Sale to show that she allegedly bought the property, Lots No. 21 and 22, (OBJECT
of the SALE), with a combined area of Two Hundred Forty (240) sq. m. in the
amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 300,000.00) PESOS in order to
entice the Petitioners wife LUZ RAMIREZ to buy the SAME property (2 Lots) in
the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 400,000.00) PESOS. (But in
reality, Petitioner was able to occupy and is presently occupying only ONE (1)
Lot, No. 21 ( with an area of 120 sq. meters). The another adjacent Lot No. 22
(with the same area of 120 sq. meters), was sold by another person to different
buyer, which Petitioner was able to find out only after paying Respondent
Salvador the down payment of Php 180,000.00, which is another reason why
Petitioner refused to pay the remaining balance of P220,000.00)
In falsifying the said document, Respondent made it appear in the said
Deed of Absolute Sale that the property was allegedly owned by its AWARDEEOWNER, which is her nephew Alexander A. Parco.
While the subject document shows it was allegedly executed only on
January 29, 2000 or THREE (3) months before Petitioners wife paid the down
payment of One Hundred Eighty Thousand (Php 180,000.00) Pesos on May 15,
2000, Respondent Carmen Salvador had already been claiming ownership of the
subject properties way back in March 1999 when she had the squatters shanty
(barong-barong) erected thereat, rented in the amount of P500.00 per month, not
by Petitioner Ramirez but by Eden Mostales as evidenced by their mutually
agreed Contract of Lease and handwritten receipts of payments for house rent,
all dated in the year 1999, (Plaintiffs Exhibit E, E-1 to E-4)
If not for this fake Deed of Absolute Sale, showing TWO (2) Lots with a
combined area of 240 square meters, fabricated in her (Respondent Salvador)
favor, Petitioners wife would never be enticed to buy the subject property from
her in the amount of P400,000.00.
Another proof of falsification employed in this subject document aside from
it NOT being NOTARIZED, NOT REGISTERED and cannot be registered with
the Registry of Deeds, can also be gleaned easily from the paragraph;

by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale, made and executed by and


between Remigio Tamayo and Alexander A. Parco on 8 th day of
March 1995 (Vide Annex A as an integral part of this instrument.
The contents of the foregoing paragraph contained in this Deed of Absolute
Sale, purportedly executed by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie,
(Respondent Carmen Salvador), do not conform to the alleged sale transaction
STATUS of Alexander A. Parco reflected and shown at the bottom of the
document, in which he is being referred to as the V ENDOR and AWARDEE41

OWNER. For, if Alexander A. Parco is the true AWARDEE-OWNER, then what is

the sense of him buying it from Remigio Tamayo? He could not be an AwardeeOwner if he only acquired the property by allegedly purchasing it from the one
supposed to be the real awardee-owner, who is Remigio Tamayo.
3. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, dated March 08, 1995, allegedly executed by
Remigio Tamayo (already DE CEASED), in favor of Alexander A. Parco, as if
showing that the former being the AWARDEE/OWNER sold to the latter being the
BUYER, a consolidation of Lot Nos. 21 and 22, Block 1, with the total area of TWO
HUNDRED FORTY (240) square meters, in the sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P 235,000.00); (marked as Plaintiffs Ev idence,
EXHIBIT F).

Evaluation: Respondent Carmen A. Salvador together with her nephew


Alexander A. Parco and Remigio Tamayo, conniving and conspiring with one another,
fabricated and falsified this subject document by forging the signature of the TRUE and
LEGAL OWNER of the subject property, Wilfredo Torres, as if showing that Torres
gave his conformity to the sale transaction.
The CERTIFICATION and AFFIDAVIT of Wilfredo Torres together with his
personal TESTIMONY in the trial court that his signature was indeed forged and
falsified, were not given due consideration, not even looked upon and were totally
ignored and refused by Judge Kwong to be SEEN and placed into her weighing scale.
By merely examining the signatures atop the name REMIGIO TAMAYO and his
wife Rose Tamayo, will reveal that it was all handwriting signatures similar to
Respondent Carmen Salvador.

4. The DEED OF ASSIGNMENT, dated 2nd February 1993, allegedly executed in


Manila, as if showing that Wilfredo Torres, as the true and legal OWNER, executed
a Deed Of Assignment in favor of Remigio Tamayo as the alleged ASSIGNEE;
( marked as Plaintiffs EXHIBIT G.)
Evaluation: By merely looking and reading the contents of this document,
anybody who understands simple English words and grammar can easily figure out
that this is merely a FICTITIOUS and FALSIFIED document, to wit;

For and in consideration rendered to the OWNER by the said ASSIGNEE


as caretaker of the said property for a couple of years and yet services to be
rendered to the latter. A parcel of land located at the District of Pasong Tamo,
Quezon City, portion of undivided lot 799 with an area of 40 hectares more or
less. Now known as lot 21 and 22 of the subd. Plan of Block 1.
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 118192
A parcel of land ..xxxx
Xxxxxx
Xxxxxxx
42

xxxxxxxxx to pt of begining, containing an area of FOUR HUNDRED


SIXTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED FIFTY THREE ???(416, 533)sq. m. more or less. Do hereby
ASSIGN, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto said Remigio Tamayo his heirs
portion below described property more particularly Block 1 Lot No. 21 and
Lot No. 22. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(At the bottom of this ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT is just a blank space


WITHOUT ANY NAMES AND SIGNATURES of who is the supposed
OWNER/ASSIGNOR and who is the ASSIGNEE. There is even NO
SIGNATURE of ANYBODY. It was not registered and cannot be
registered with the Register of Deeds and it was not even notarized
nor acknowledged before any notary public.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The AFFIDAVIT OF REMIGIO TAMAYO, dated June 30, 1995, allegedly executed
by Remigio Tamayo at Kalookan City; (marked as Plaintiffs Evidence, EXHIBIT
D.)

Evaluation: This Affidavit allegedly executed by Remigio Tamayo is in total


contradiction with the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 8, 1995 which the
same Remigio Tamayo had purportedly executed in favor of Alexander A. Parco.
In the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed on March 8, 1995 by Remigio
Tamayo in favor of Alexander A. Parco, it shows that the OBJECTS of SALE sold by
the former to the latter in the full amount of Two Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Pesos
(Php 235,000.00) are just TWO (2) LOTS, Lot Nos. 21 and 22 with a combined area of
240 square meters, whereas, in this AFFIDAVIT allegedly executed also by the same
Remigio Tamayo, the OBJECT of SALE was changed from LOT to HOUSE, showing
that what he allegedly sold to Alexander Parco in the full amount of Php 235, 000.00
was just a HOUSE or small edifice which he claimed to have personally constructed by
him piece by piece for ten years since 1985.
For obvious reason, if this AFFIDAVIT of Remigio Tamayo was indeed genuinely
prepared by him, his only purpose of executing it is to deny selling the property (Lots
No. 21 & 22) to Alexander Parco, and utilize this document to prove his claim, in order
to avoid conflict with the real owner of the Lots who is Wilfredo Torres. (A perfect
clever technique in the modus operandi of professional squatters, who would
illegally squat in an open land, build a shanty therein and then sell it together
with an alleged RIGHT over the land. ).

On the other hand, herein Petitioner is more convinced that even this
AFFIDAVIT purportedly executed by Remigio Tamayo, is just another product of
Respondent Carmen Salvadors professionalism in fabricating FAKE documents, which
can easily be proven again by the handwritten SIGNAT URE atop the name REMIGIO
TAMAYO, which every single character, styles and strokes of every alphabet and word
thereat is not only similar but exactly the same with all the handwritings and signatures

43

of Respondent Carmen Salvador appearing on all the documents that bear her
signatures and handwritings.
Another significant FACT between these TWO documents, aside from the
FORGED SIGNAT URES and the OBJECTS of SALE being changed, is that both
documents were acknowledged before the same Notary Public of Caloocan City
VICENTE M. MALAPITAN, yet the SIGNAT URES atop the name of the alleged Notary
Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN are not identical with each other, which clearly
indicate that either one of the two is a genuine signature and the other one a forged
signature, or most probably none of the two is genuine and authentic.

In addition, Petitioner would like to raise a more glaring proof evidently showing
that these two documents were just fabricated and falsified, is the discrepancy on the
DATES and PLACES of issue of Remigio Tamayos Residence Certificate;
On page 2 of the alleged DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE purportedly
ACKNOWLEGED and NOTARIZED before Notary Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN
on the 8

th

day of March 1995 at Kalookan City, it shows Remigio Tamayos

Residence Certificate, being;

Res. Cert. No. 2911456


Issued at

Manila

Issued on

Feb. 13, 1995

While, on Remigio Tamayos Residence Certificate in his alleged


AFFIDAVIT, purportedly ACKNOWLEDGED and NOTARIZED also before
Notary Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN on the 30th day of June 1995 at
Kalookan City, Metro Manila, (or just THREE months later), it shows;

Res. Cert. No. 2911456


Issued on

5-25-95

Issued at

Kalookan City

6. The WAIVER or PATUNAY. Allegedly, this document was executed by Remigio


Tamayos wife ROSE TAMAYO as if showing that she and their children gave their
consent and conformity to the purported sale transaction allegedly entered into by
Remigio Tamayo

with Alexander A. Parco; (marked as Plaintiffs Ev idence,

EXHIBIT H.)

Evaluation: This WAIVER or PATUNAY allegedly executed by Rose Tamayo,


wife of Remigio Tamayo, ultimately proves without any single iota of doubt that
Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR is indeed NOT only a PROFESSIONAL
SQUATTER, but also an EXPERT SWINDLER who had mastered ALL forms and
means of falsification and forgery, as well as deceitful and fraudulent way of selling
something that does not belong to her.

44

Even without referring or subjecting this document to a hand-writing expert,


anybody can clearly see and safely say that, while in an instant look it would appear to
have been purportedly personally prepared, and written by Remigio Tamayos wife
ROSE TAMAYO, as if showing that it was personally written and signed by her,
together with her children and two (2) other witnesses, a scrutiny and close
examination on the penmanship and handwriting style of every single character of
words and alphabet thereat, will clearly reveal that it was all WRITTEN and SIGNED by
only ONE person, Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR herself, if compared to all other
documents that bear her handwritings and signatures.

7. The KATIBAYAN SA BILIHAN NG ARI-ARIAN, dated May 15, 2000, allegedly


executed by and between Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR and Petitioner
ROMEO B. RAMIREZ. (marked as Plaintiffs Evidence, EXHIBIT B.)
Evaluation: This alleged contract of sale denominated as Katibayan sa
Bilihan ng Ari-Arian which was used by herein Respondent CARMEN A.
SALVADOR in filing multiple complaints against herein Petitioner ROMEO B.
RAMIREZ, is NOT a MUT UALLY AGREED upon contract that employs consent of
TWO parties, but is just a mere fictitious document.
As can easily be gleaned from its contents, and literal meaning

having been

written in vernacular (Tagalog), said Katibayan sa Bilihan merely contains selfserving statements of ONLY ONE person, CARMEN SALVADOR alone, thus, in the
Katibayanit reads;

KATIBAYAN SA BILIHAN
NG ARI-ARIAN
SA MGA KINAUUKULAN:
Ako, si Carmen Salvador na may sapat na gulang, may asawa at
sa kasalukuyan ay naninirahan sa 83 Malolos Ave., Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City ay nagsasaad na:
1. Ako ay nagmamay-ari ng bahay sa panulukan ng Bonifacio Drive
at Quezon st., Bonifacio Drive, Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon city,
na nakatirik sa isang lote na may sukat na 120 sq. meters,
humigit kumulang.
2. Na sa katunayan ay pinauupahan ko ang naturang bahay sa
halagang P1,500.00 kada buwan kay Mr. & Mrs. Romeo B.
Ramirez.

45

3. At ang naturang ari-arian ay ipinagbibili ko kasama na ang


karapatan

ko

sa

lupa

kay

Mr.

Romeo

B.

Ramirez

sa

napagkasunduan naming halagang P400,000.00.


4. Ang naturang napagkasunduan naming kabayaran ay ibibigay
sa akin ng dalawang hulog.
5. Ang unang kabayaran na nagkakahalaga ng P180,000.00 ay
tinanggap ko ngayong araw na ito ( 15 May, 2000) at
napagkasunduan namin na ang natitirang balanseng halagang P
220,000.00 ay ibibigay sa akin sa buwan ng Disyembre 2000,
at kung natanggap ko na ang kabuuang kabayaran ng aking ariarian ay gagawa ako ng Deed of Absolute Sale, sa kapakanan ng
bumili, Mr. Romeo B. Ramirez.
6. Napagkasunduan din namin na kung sakaling hindi sila
makatupad sa aming usapan na babayaran nila ang balanse sa
Disyembre ng taong ito ay sisingilin ko sila ng kanilang
buwanang renta sa naturang bahay, simula ngayong buwan na
ito hanggang hindi sila makabayad ng kanilang balanseng
kabayaran. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
( end of page 1, without signature of any of the alleged parties)
------------------------------------------------------------------( on page 2 of the Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-arian, it reads,)
Bilang katunayan ay nilagdaan ko ang KATIBAYAN na ito
ngayong ika-15 ng Mayo, 2000, dito sa Bgy. Pasong Tamo,
Quezon City. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)
(SIGNED)
CARMEN A. SALVADOR
May-ari
CONFORME:
(Unidentified Signature)- NOT the signature of Romeo B. Ramirez
ROMEO B. RAMIREZ
Mga Saksi:
(Signed)
1. CAMILO B. AQUINO

(Signed)
2. REYNALDO A. PONCE

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
46

By merely reading the contents and understanding the meaning of the foregoing
Katibayan sa Bilihan anybody can easily comprehend and understand that it is NOT a
mutually agreed upon contract between two or more parties. It is a pure and simple
statement of a single party and is NOT binding with any other party.
A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself
with respect to the other, to give something or to render some services. (Art. 1305, Civil

Code of the Philippines).


In view of the Katibayan, there was no meeting of minds between Respondent
Carmen Salvador and the Petitioner. The trial court deliberately ignored and willfully failed
and refused to SEE the glaring FACTS, such as;
The Respondent miserably failed to prove the authenticity and the due execution of
the alleged Katibayan sa Bilihan. During the direct examination of the Respondent,
she failed to identify the signature above the name ROMEO B. RAMIREZ. On cross
examination, she admitted that she had no personal knowledge as far as the signature of
Romeo B. Ramirez in the Katibayan is concerned (p 14, TSN, August 14, 2004).
Obviously, for the failure of the Respondent to identify the signature of Romeo B.
Ramirez in the Katibayan and with her admission that it was the daughter of Romeo
Ramirez that handed her the document, it is evidently clear that she did not see Romeo
Ramirez sign the document.

Added to the FACT that Respondent Salvador and

Petitioner Ramirez had never ever meet and talk with each other since time immemorial,
therefore, it is evidently clear that there was no well-define contractual relationship that
existed between them.
Thus, the C.A. 8th Divisions DECISION through the ponencia of Associate Justice
Chairman Renato C. Dacudao (who retired from the Court of Appeals on June 19, 2007, A.
M. No. 07-8-27-SC, Oct 10, 2007), in likewise upholding the Katibayan sa Bilihan., is
another crystal clear indication of a VERY POOR Justice System in the Philippines. In the
aforesaid C.A. Decision, it says;
The Court also upholds the Bilihan betw een herein parties.
Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it
is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their rights and obligations
thereunder---obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between
the contracting parties and should be complied w ith in good faith. (Premier
Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA 686 ). Equity demands that a

party cannot disown its previous declaration to the prejudice of the other
party w ho relied reasonably and justifiably on such declaration. (Premier
Developm ent Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra ). Paragraph 5, page 7, CA-G.R. SP NO. 94866,
DECISION. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)

47

With due respect to that foregoing C.A. Decision, Petitioner is again of humble
submission to the Honorable Supreme Court on his view that the aforesaid CA opinion is
a baseless and unfounded which cannot in any way be applied to Salvador-Ramirez
case. As already mentioned above, there was NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP that
existed between Salvador and Ramirez and there was also NO EVIDENCE extant in the
record that Petitioner Ramirez made such declaration.
The Katibayan as exhibited by the Respondent does not even bear signatures
of any of the parties on its FIRST PAGE and it was also not acknowledged before a
notary public. Consequently, before the same may be received as evidence, its DUE
EXECUTION and AUTHENTICITY must first be proven. (Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Revised

Rules on Evidence). However, despite the fact that Respondent failed to prove its due
execution and authenticity, said Katibayan was willfully and maliciously admitted by
the Trial Court, placed by Judge ELEANOR KWONG in her weighing scale as the
heaviest evidence,and was ultimately utilized as the basis in the promulgation of
Judgment.

C O N C L U S I O N
After everything said and have been presented, with all the spirit of humbleness,
humility and respect, undersigned sincerely PETITIONS the Honorable Supreme Court of
our land to exercise its supervisory powers over the Court of Appeals Eighth Division,
which promulgated a questionable Resolution, dated 10 January 2007 in sustaining the
unfair decision of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121, which
likewise affirmed and upheld the unsubstantiated, baseless and unfounded Decision of
the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, whereby ALL three (3)
tribunals had acted with grave abuse of discretion, and had decided a question of
substance in a way not in accord with law, that law being the rule and jurisprudence; as
well as had sanctioned a substantial departure from the accepted and usual course of
judicial proceedings, hence, this instant Petition for the Honorable Supreme Court to note
and act upon accordingly.
Prescinding therefrom, the 25 October, 2005, DECISION of Caloocan City MeTC
branch 51 should be annulled.

P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing circumstances and all premises
considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that JUDGMENT be
rendered, 1) ANNULING the DECISION dated October 25, 2005, that was rendered by
the Caloocan City MeTC, branch 51, on Civil Case No. 03-27338, for Collection of Sum of
Money and Damages, Carmen Salvador vs. Romeo Ramirez; with, 2) Issuance of a Writ
of Prohibition, for the Respondent to desist from further causing the Petitioners family
other forms of harassment by using the Katibayan sa Bilihan; and, 3) Writ of

48

Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to jointly and severally pay the Petitioner the
damages sustained, in the amounts of;
1.

Php 1,440,000.00 (One Million Four Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos), representing the
down payment amount of P180,000.00 paid on May 15, 2000, by the Plaintiff to
Respondent, computed at standard banks compounded interest rate for 15 years
(2000 -2015), or in any amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the
law and justice may require.

2.

Php 1,000,000.00 (One Million Pesos) as EXEMPLARY damages, by way of example


or correction for the public good and to deter others from committing fraud and in
concocting and filing fallacious and unfounded complaints against unsuspecting
individuals, or in any amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the law
and justice may require.

3.

Php 1,500,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos) as MORAL damages, for
sleepless nights, moral shock, and wounded feeling that led to the Petitioners
untimely DEATH, as a result of the fraudulent and malicious actions of Respondent
Salvador and unfounded Decisions rendered by Judge Eleanor Kwong, or in any
amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the law and justice may
require.

4.

Php 300,000.00 as and for Attorneys fees, incurred by the Petitioner, that to defend
and protect his interest, engaged the services of three (3) Professional Lawyers,
namely; Atty. Regidor Pablo, Atty. Ricardo Barba, and Atty. Oscar Mercado.

5.

The cost of suit, plus

6.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are likewise, further
implored.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City for Manila, 01 May, 2015.

NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOA


Petitioners Representative/ Atty-In-Fact
Lot 2, Blk.15, C.P. Garcia St.
Wiltor Height Subdivision
Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City
Mobile No. 0946-276-4977

49

Republic of the Philippines)


Quezon City, Metro Manila) S.S.

VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATE


OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOA, a.k.a. Bro. Louie, Filipino, of legal age, married,
and with office address at Lot 2, Blk.15, C.P. Garcia St., Wiltor Height Subd., Bgy. Pasong
Tamo, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, after being duly sworn to in accordance with
Law hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the Petitioners Representative and Atty-In-Fact in the above entitled Petition.
2. That I personally caused the preparation of the above Petition.
3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof, for I am the one who personally
drafted and wrote it.
4. That each and every allegation contained therein is true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and based on the authentic records.
5. That I have not commenced any other action or proceedings of the same nature and issue in
any other tribunal or agency, except for the August 19, 2011, 45-pages Amended
Complaint which was subsequently given due course and eventually ripened into an
Administrative Matter for Agenda, with OCA -I.P.I. No. 11-3730-RTJ, as previously
mentioned above on pages 6 and 8 of this Petition and other than that, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or
agency; and that if I should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake
to inform the court promptly within five (5) days from receipt of knowledge t hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _____ day of__________
2015, in Quezon City.

NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOA

Affiant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACKNOWL EDGEMENT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this___day of ____________, 2015 at
Quezon City, Affiant, having exhibited his Postal I. D. No. 5417238 , issued at Quezon City Central
Post Office and valid until August 13, 2015.

Doc. No._____
Page No. _____
Book No._____
Series of 2015

50