Prac 1 13 Jan 2014 Give ample time to conduct court visit.

Midterm Exam will be an actual simulation on Court earin!. "ir will !ive t e scenario. "ir will assi!n # or $ public readin!s about public spea%in!. &ress up in t e midterm' Part o( court visit) c ec% t e wor%in! attire o( t e law*ers.

+ at is our textual proo() (ound in t e ,-C) t at embodies t e .udicial policies enunciated wa* bac% in 1/10 in 0lon1o vs. 2illamor3 Answer: The litigation is not a game of practice. Alonzo vs. Villamor
Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, provides: SEC. 110. Amendments in general. The court shall, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms, if an , as ma !e proper, allow a part to amend an pleadin" or proceedin" and at an sta"e of the action, in either the Court of #irst $nstance or the Supreme Court, ! addin" or stri%in" out the name of an part , either plaintiff or defendant, or ! correctin" a mista%e in the name of a part , or a mista%en or inade&uate alle"ation or description in an other respect so that the actual merits of the controvers ma speedil !e determined, without re"ard to technicalities, and in the most e'peditious, and ine'pensive manner. The court ma also, upon li%e terms, allow an answer or other pleadin" to !e made after the time limited ! the rules of the court for filin" the same. (rders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall !e made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse part , and an opportunit to !e heard. Section )0* of the same code provides: SEC. )0*. Judgment not to be reversed on technical grounds . +o jud"ment shall !e reversed on formal or technical "rounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced the real ri"hts of the e'ceptin" part .

2aldecantos vs. People 4 200$ case. 5P 22. Me6C and ,6C a((irmed. C0 dismiss (or (ailure cop* (urnis ed ,6C. 7a!uas vs. C0 4 "entenced o( a omicide 8914 *ears. C0 dismissed on t e !round o( prescription. "C dismissed t e appeal. :ailure to submit 0ppellant;s 5rie(. <n one case)

"ame assi!nment (or next meetin!= actual cases decided b* t e "C re!ardin! procedural de(ects.

>ext wee%= court visits. 0c?uaint *oursel( o( usual case (low.

PRAC 1 RULE 1, SEC. 6 RULES OF COURT. This Rules shall be liberally construed in order to ro!ote their ob"ecti#e o$ "ust, s eedy and ine% ensi#e dis osition o$ e#ery action anald roceedin&.

Read Alon'o (s. (illa!or ) Party *n *nterest

G.R. No. L-2352 July 26, 1910

ELADIO ALONSO, plaintiff,appellee, vs. TOMAS VILLAMOR, ET AL., defendants,appellants. Ledesma, Sumulong and Quintos, for appellants. J. C. Knudson, for appellee. MORELAND, J.: This is an action !rou"ht to recover of the defendants the value of certain articles ta%en from a -oman Catholic Church located in the municipalit of Placer, and the rental value of the church and its appurtenances, includin" the church cemeter , from the 11th da of .ecem!er, 1/01, until the month of 0pril, 1/01. 0fter hearin" the evidence, the court !elow "ave jud"ment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P1,)21, with interest at 3 per cent from the date of the jud"ment. The said sum of P1,)21 was made up of two items, one of which, P411, was for the value of the articles ta%en from the church, and the other, P210, the rental value of the premises durin" the occupations ! defendants. #rom this jud"ment the defendants appealed to this court. $t appears that the defendants were on the 11th da of .ecem!er, 1/01, mem!ers of the municipal !oard of the municipalit of Placer, and that the on that date addressed to the plaintiff in this case, who was the priest in char"e of the church, its appurtenances and contents, the followin" letter: P50CE-, 11th December, 1 !1. -. P. E50.$( 05(+S(, 6enedicto, Suria"o. ESTEE7E. P0.-E: 0fter salutin" ou, we ta%e the li!ert of writin" ou that in the municipalit of which we have char"ed we have received an order from the provincial fiscal, dated the )th instant, which sa s: 8The cemeteries, convents, and the other !uildin"s erected on land !elon"in" to the town at the e'pense of the town and preserved ! it !elon" to the town, and for this reason the municipalit is under the o!li"ation of administerin" them and of collectin" the revenues therefrom, and for this reason we notif ou that from this date all of the revenues and products therefrom must !e turned into the treasur of the municipalit in order that the people ma properl preserve them. $n the same wa we notif ou that the ima"e of St. 9icente which is now in the church, as it is an ima"e donated to the people ! its owner, ! virtue of said order is also the propert of said people, and therefore the alms which are "iven it ! the devotees thereof must !e also turned into the municipal treasur for the proper preservation of the church and for other necessar purposes. :e hope that ou will view in the proper li"ht and that ou will deliver to the !earer of this letter the %e of the alms !o' of the said ima"e in order that we ma compl with our o!li"ation in conformit with the dispositions of said order. :e !e" to remain as alwa s ! our spiritual sons. ;. 6. S. 7.

<Si"ned= 0+.-ES (>E.0. T(70S 9$5507(-. 0+.-ES C05$+0?0+. 6E-+0-.$+( T0+.(@. E?SE6$( 5$-$(. E5E?TE-$( 7(+.0@0. 70A$7( .E5(50. SEB?+.( 6ECE--(. (+(#-E E5$70+CE. (n the 1*th of .ecem!er, 1/01, the defendants too% possession of the church and its appurtenances, and also of all of the personal propert contained therein. The plaintiff, as priest of the church and the person in char"e thereof, protested a"ainst the occupation thereof ! the defendants, !ut his protests received no consideration, and he was summaril removed from possession of the church, its appurtenances and contents. The onl defense presented ! the defendants, e'cept the one that the plaintiff was not the real part in interest, was that the church and other !uildin"s had !een erected ! funds voluntaril contri!uted ! the people of that municipalit , and that the articles within the church had !een purchased with funds raised in li%e manner, and that, therefore, the municipalit was the owner thereof. 43The &uestion as to the ownership of the church and its appurtenances, includin" the convent and cemeter , was !efore this court on the C*rd da of Septem!er, 1/02, in an action entitled 8The -oman Catholic 0postolic Church a"ainst the municipalit of Placer.8 1 Su!stantiall the same facts were presented on the part of the defendants in that case as are presented ! the defendants in this. The &uestion there liti"ated was the claim upon the part of the municipalit of ownership of said church and its appurtenances on the "round that accordin" to Spanish law the -oman Catholic 0postolic Church was not the owner of such propert , havin" onl the use thereof for ordinar ecclesiastical and reli"ious purposes, and that the true owner thereof was the municipalit or the State ! reason of the contri!utions ! them, or ! the people, of the land and of the funds with which the !uildin"s were constructed or repaired. The court decided in that case that the claim of the defendants was not well founded and that the propert !elon"ed to the -oman Catholic Church. The same &uestion was discussed and decided in the case of "arlin vs. #amire$ <4 Phil. -ep., 11=, and the case of %he &unicipalit' of (once vs. #oman Catholic Apostolic Church in (orto #ico <C2 Sup. Ct. -ep., 4*4, 3 (ff. BaD., 1C1*=. :e have made a careful e'amination of the record and the evidence in this case and we have no dou!t that the propert sued for was, at the time it was ta%en ! the defendants, the propert of the -oman Catholic Church, and that the seiDure of the same and occupation of the church and its appurtenances ! the defendants were wron"ful and ille"al. :e are also convinced, from such e'amination, that the conclusions of the court !elow as to the value of the articles ta%en ! the defendants and of the rent of the church for the time of its ille"al occupation ! the defendants were

correct and proper. :hile some o!jection was made on appeal ! counsel for the defendants that the value of the articles ta%en and of the rent of the church and its appurtenances had not !een proved ! competent evidence, no o!jection to the introduction of the evidence of value was made at the trial and we can not consider that &uestion raised for the first time here. :e have carefull e'amined the assi"nments of error made ! counsel for defendants on this appeal. :e find none of them well founded. The onl one which deserves especial attention at our hands is the one wherein the defendants assert that the court !elow erred in permittin" the action to !e !rou"ht and continued in the name of the plaintiff instead of in the name of the !ishop of the diocese within which the church was located, or in the name of the -oman Catholic 0postolic Church, as the real part in interest. $t is undou!ted the !ishop of the diocese or the -oman Catholic 0postic Church itself is the real part in interest. The plaintiff personall has no interest in the cause of action. Section 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure re&uires that ever action must !e prosecuted in the name of the real part in interest. The plaintiff is not such part . Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, provides: SEC. 110. Amendments in general. The court shall, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms, if an , as ma !e proper, allow a part to amend an pleadin" or proceedin" and at an sta"e of the action, in either the Court of #irst $nstance or the Supreme Court, ! addin" or stri%in" out the name of an part , either plaintiff or defendant, or ! correctin" a mista%e in the name of a part , or a mista%en or inade&uate alle"ation or description in an other respect so that the actual merits of the controvers ma speedil !e determined, without re"ard to technicalities, and in the most e'peditious, and ine'pensive manner. The court ma also, upon li%e terms, allow an answer or other pleadin" to !e made after the time limited ! the rules of the court for filin" the same. (rders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall !e made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse part , and an opportunit to !e heard. Section )0* of the same code provides: SEC. )0*. Judgment not to be reversed on technical grounds . +o jud"ment shall !e reversed on formal or technical "rounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced the real ri"hts of the e'ceptin" part . :e are confident under these provisions that this cour !"# $ull %o&'r, apart from that power and authorit which is inherent, to amend the process, pleadin"s, proceedin"s, and decision in this case ! #u(# ) u )*+, "# %"r y %l")* )$$, !' r'"l %"r y )* )* 'r'# . +ot onl are we confident that we ma' do so, !ut we are convinced that we should do so. Such an amendment does not constitute, reall a chan"e in the identit of the parties. The plaintiff asserts in his complaint, and maintains that assertion all throu"h the record, that he is en"a"ed in the prosecution of this case, not for himself, !ut for the !ishop of the diocesenot ! his own ri"ht, !ut ! ri"ht of another. Ee see%s merel to do for the !ishop what the !ishop mi"ht do for himself. Eis own personalit is not involved. Eis own ri"hts are not presented. Ee claims no interest whatever in the liti"ation. Ee see%s onl the welfare of the "reat church whose servant he is. Bladl permits his identit to !e wholl swallowed up in that of his superior. The su!stitution, then, of the name of the !ishop of the diocese, or the -oman Catholic 0postolic Church, for that of Padre 0lonso, as part plaintiff, is not in realit the su!stitution of one identit for another, of one part for another, !ut is simpl to ma%e the form e'press the su!stance. The su!stance is there. $t appears all throu"h the proceedin"s. +o one is deceived for an

instant as to whose interest are at sta%e. The form of its e'pression is alone defective. T!' #u(# ) u )o*, !'*, )# *o #u(# "* )"l (u $or,"l. D'$'c )* ,'r' $or, c"* *o %o##)(ly #o lo*+ "# !' #u(# "* )"l )# cl'"rly '-).'* . #orm is a method of speech used to e'press su!stance and ma%e it clearl appear. $t is the means ! which the su!stance reveals itself. $f the form !e fault and still the su!stance shows plainl throu"h no, harm can come ! ma%in" the form accuratel e'pressive of the su!stance. +o one has !een misled ! the error in the name of the part plaintiff. $f we should ! reason of this error send this !ac% for amendment and new trial, there would !e on the retrial the same complaint, the same answer, the same defense, the same interests, the same witnesses, and the same evidence. The name of the plaintiff would constitute the onl difference !etween the old trial and the new. $n our jud"ment there is not enou"h in a name to justif such action. There is nothin" sacred a!out processes or pleadin"s, their forms or contents. Their sole purpose is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contendin" parties. The were created, not to hinder and dela , !ut to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. The do not constitute the thin" itself, which courts are alwa s strivin" to secure to liti"ants. The are desi"ned as the means !est adapted to o!tain that thin". $n other words, the are a means to an end. :hen the lose the character of the one and !ecome the other, the administration of justice is at fault and courts are correspondin"l remiss in the performance of their o!vious dut . The error in this case is purel technical. To ta%e advanta"e of it for other purposes than to cure it, does not appeal to a fair sense of justice. $ts presentation as fatal to the plaintiffFs case smac%s of s%ill rather than ri"ht. A l) )+" )o* )# *o " +",' o$ 'c!*)c"l) )'# )* &!)c! o*', ,or' .''%ly #c!ool'. "*. #/)ll'. )* !' #u( l' "r o$ ,o-','* "*. %o#) )o*, '* r"%# "*. .'# roy# !' o !'r. I )#, r" !'r, " co* '# )* &!)c! '"c! co* '*.)*+ %"r y $ully "*. $")rly l"y# ('$or' !' cour !' $"c # )* )##u' "*. !'*, (ru#!)*+ "#).' "# &!olly r)-)"l "*. )*.'c)#)-' "ll ),%'r$'c )o*# o$ $or, "*. 'c!*)c"l) )'# o$ %roc'.ur', "#/# !" 0u# )c' (' .o*' u%o* !' ,'r) #. L"&#u) #, u*l)/' .u'l#, "r' *o o (' &o* (y " r"%)'r1# !ru# . T'c!*)c"l) y, &!'* ) .'##'r # ) # %ro%'r o$$)c' "# "* "). o 0u# )c' "*. ('co,'# ) # +r'" !)*.r"*c' "*. c!)'$ '*',y, .'#'r-'# #c"* co*#).'r" )o* $ro, cour #. T!'r' #!oul. (' *o -'# '. r)+! # )* 'c!*)c"l) )'#. No l) )+"* #!oul. (' %'r,) '. o c!"ll'*+' " r'cor. o$ " cour o$ !'#' I#l"*.# $or .'$'c o$ $or, &!'* !)# #u(# "* )"l r)+! # !"-' *o (''* %r'0u.)c'. !'r'(y. $n orderin" this su!stitution, we are in accord with the !est judicial thou"ht. <7cGei"han vs. Eop%ins, 1/ +e!., **H .i'on vs. .i'on, 1/ $a., )1CH Eod"es vs. Gim!all, 1/ $a., )44H San"er vs. +ewton, 1*1 7ass., *02H Beor"e vs. -eed, 101 7ass., *42H 6owden vs. 6urnham, )/ #ed. -ep., 4)CH Phipps and Co. vs. Eurl!urt, 40 #ed. -ep., C0CH 7c.onal vs. State, 101 #ed. -ep., 141H 7orford vs. .iffen!oc%er, C0 +. :., 300H Costelo vs. Costelo vs. Crowell, 1*1 7ass., C20H :hita%er vs. Pope, C :oods, 13*, #ed. Cas. no. 14)C2H 7iller vs. Polloc%, // Pa. St., C0CH :ilson vs. Pres! terian Church, )3 Ba., ))1H :ood vs. Circuit >ud"e, 21 7ich., )C1H $nsurance Co, vs. 7ueller, 44 $ll., CCH #arman vs. .o le, 1C2 7ich., 3/3H ?nion 6an% vs. 7ott, 1/ Eow. Pr., 111H -. -. Co. vs. Bi!son, 1 (hio St., 11)H Eume vs. Gell , C2 (re"., */2.= $t is therefore, ordered and decreed that the process, pleadin"s, proceedin"s and decision in this action !e, and the same are here! , amended ! su!stitutin" the -oman Catholic 0postolic Church in the place and stead of Eladio 0lonso as part plaintiff, that the complaint !e considered as thou"h ori"inall filed ! the Catholic Church, the answer thereto made, the decision rendered and all proceedin"s in this case had, as if the said institution which #ather Eladio 0lonso undertoo% to represent were the part plaintiff, and that said decision of the court !elow, so amended, is affirmed, without special findin" as to the costs.

ART. (***, Sec. +, 1,-. Consti. S'c )o* 5. The Supreme Court shall have the followin" powers: 1. E'ercise ori"inal jurisdiction over cases affectin" am!assadors, other pu!lic ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohi!ition, mandamus, &uo warranto, and ha!eas corpus. C. -eview, revise, reverse, modif , or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the -ules of Court ma provide, final jud"ments and orders of lower courts in: a. 0ll cases in which the constitutionalit or validit of an treat , international or e'ecutive a"reement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or re"ulation is in &uestion. !. 0ll cases involvin" the le"alit of an ta', impost, assessment, or toll, or an penalt imposed in relation thereto. c. 0ll cases in which the jurisdiction of an lower court is in issue. d. 0ll criminal cases in which the penalt imposed is reclusion perpetua or hi"her. e. 0ll cases in which onl an error or &uestion of law is involved. *. 0ssi"n temporaril jud"es of lower courts to other stations as pu!lic interest ma re&uire. Such temporar assi"nment shall not e'ceed si' months without the consent of the jud"e concerned. 1. (rder a chan"e of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarria"e of justice. ). Promul"ate rules concernin" the protection and enforcement of constitutional ri"hts, pleadin", practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the inte"rated !ar, and le"al assistance to the under,privile"ed. Such rules shall provide a simplified and ine'pensive procedure for the speed disposition of cases, shall !e uniform for all courts of the same "rade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modif su!stantive ri"hts. -ules of procedure of special courts and &uasi,judicial !odies shall remain effective unless disapproved ! the Supreme Court. 3. 0ppoint all officials and emplo ees of the >udiciar in accordance with the Civil Service 5aw.

P,0C6<CE C-@,6 1 A-ME+-,B 50G@07) 5E><6EC) C0>-C0) M<>0) ,E<C0

P,-CE&@,07 E,,-, <. D:ailure to attac document) veri(ication) (orum s oppin!E DC-@,6 &<",EG0,&E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E Dcerti(ication o( non (orum s oppin!E G.,. >o. 1488#2 "eptember 2F) 200$ M0,<7G> 207&EC0>6-") petitioner, vs. PE-P7E -: 6AE PA<7<PP<>E" and :E,>0>&- G-B<-C-) respondents. DECI I!"

0@"6,<09M0,6<>EC) J.= #ACT : $etitioner was charged in the %etropolitan Trial Co&rt '%TC( of Caloocan Cit), *ranch +,, with violation of BatasPambansaBilang --, doc.eted as Criminal Case "o. C/012342. The Information reads: That on or a5o&t the -2th da) of #e5r&ar), 0,,1 in Caloocan Cit), %etro %anila, $hilippines and within the 6&risdiction of this 7onora5le Co&rt, the a5ove/named acc&sed, did then and there willf&ll), &nlawf&ll) and felonio&sl) made and iss&e Chec. "o. 48338, dated #e5r&ar) -2, 0,,1 in the amo&nt of $08,044.44 drawn against 9"I!" *A":, to appl) for val&e in favor of #E;"A"D! <!:I!:!, well .nowing at the time of iss&e that she=he had no s&fficient f&nds in or credit with the drawee 5an. for the pa)ment of s&ch chec. in f&ll presentment, which chec. was s&5se>&entl) dishonored for ins&fficienc) of f&nds or credit, had not said acc&sed, witho&t an) valid reason, ordered the 5an. to stop the pa)ment of said chec., and with intent to defra&d,

failed and still fails to pa) said #E;"A"D! <!:I!:! the amo&nt of $08,044.44 despite receipt of notice from the drawee 5an. that said chec. had 5een dishonored and had not 5een paid. %TC finds acc&sed %aril)n Valdecantos ) Valmose?a, <9I@TA 5e)ond reasona5le do&5t of the offense of iss&ing a worthless chec. defined and penalized in BatasPambansaBlg. --. ;TC affirmed the decision of the %TC Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA on "ovem5er -2, -444, doc.eted as CA/<.;. C; "o. -+B+3. !n Decem5er 0, -444, petitioner filed a C &5mission of Verification and Certification Against #or&m hoppingC attaching thereto the Verification and Certification signed 5) petitioner on "ovem5er -1, -444. !n Decem5er 1, -444, the CA iss&ed the assailed ;esol&tion dismissing the petition on the following gro&nds: 'a( The ;egional Trial Co&rt was not f&rnished a cop) thereof as re>&ired 5) ection 0, ;&le +of the present ;&les of Co&rtD '5( It is not verified and failed to contain a non/for&m shopping certification as mandated 5) ection -, ;&le +-, s&pra, and 'c( !nl) the two '-( lower co&rtEs decision and order den)ing the motion for reconsideration are attached witho&t the other pleadings and material portion of the records as wo&ld s&pport the allegations of the petition, s&ch as, the information, position papers and appeal memoranda of the parties filed 5elow, as provided for in ection -, ;&le +-, s&pra. I 9E :

0( Fhether or not the Co&rt of Appeals erred in dismissing petitionerEs petition despite the fact that petitioner has s&5mitted all the re>&ired doc&ments, and instead ignored and disregarded the clear and manifest errors in the decisions of the %TC and ;TC in convicting the petitioner. -( Fhether or not, on the 5asis of the evidence presented in the %TC, the petitioner co&ld 5e convicted of having violated *$ --.

;9@I"<: The Co&rt grants the petition. The re>&irement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not 6&risdictional. &ch re>&irement is simpl) a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non/compliance of which does not necessaril) render the pleading fatall) defective. Verification is simpl) intended to sec&re an ass&rance that the allegations in the pleading are tr&e and correct and not the prod&ct of the imagination or a matter of spec&lation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The co&rt ma) order the correction of the pleading if verification is lac.ing or act on the pleading altho&gh it is not verified, if the attending circ&mstances are s&ch that strict compliance with the r&les ma) 5e dispensed with in order that the ends of 6&stice ma) there5) 5e served. Fhile the lac. of certification against for&m shopping is generall) not c&red 5) its s&5mission after the filing of the petition, and the s&5mission of a certificate against for&m shopping is deemed o5ligator), it is not 6&risdictional. "ot 5eing 6&risdictional, the re>&irement has 5een relaGed &nder 6&stifia5le circ&mstances &nder the r&le on s&5stantial compliance. In this case, on Decem5er 0, -444, three da)s after petitioner filed her petition for review on "ovem5er -2, -444, she immediatel) rectified her error 5) filing a C &5mission of Verification and Certification Against #or&m hoppingC attaching thereto her Verification and Certification. ignificantl), s&ch verification and certification was s&5mitted even 5efore the petition was dismissed 5) the CA on Decem5er 1, -444. In addition, the Co&rt notes that petitioner had appended a verification and certification against for&m shopping in her motion for eGtension of time to file petition for review with the CA which f&rther lends credence to her claim that indeed it was onl) d&e to inadvertence that she failed to s&5mit the certification in her petition for review. These circ&mstances mitigate the oversight. It is in the interest of s&5stantial 6&stice that the s&5se>&ent filing of the verification and certification of non/for&m shopping 5e considered as s&5stantial compliance of the r&le.

$etitioner li.ewise attached the missing pleadings and pertinent doc&ments of the case when she filed her motion for reconsideration. Jurisprudence dictates t at t e subse?uent and substantial compliance o( a petitioner ma* call (or t e relaxation o( t e rules o( procedure. The Co&rt also ta.es note of the fact that petitioner had f&rnished the ;TC with a cop) of the petition the following da) after her receipt of the CA ;esol&tion dismissing her petition. Th&s, petitionerEs s&5stantial compliance with ections 0 and -, ;&le +- of the ;&les of Co&rt sho&ld have prompted the CA to reconsider the dismissal of the petition for review on technical gro&nds. In dismissing the petition, the CA clearl) p&t a premi&m on technicalities at the eGpense of a 6&st resol&tion of the case which sho&ld 5e avoided. ;&les of proced&re are mere tools designed to eGpedite the decision or resol&tion of cases and other matters pending in co&rt. A strict and rigid application of r&les that wo&ld res&lt in technicalities that tend to fr&strate rather than promote s&5stantial 6&stice m&st 5e avoided.

DC-@,6 &<",EG0,&E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E Dcert. o( (orum s oppin!E G.,. >o. 148$3#. 0pril 1) 2003

C02<7E vs. C02<7E :0C6"= It appears that *ernardo Cavili contracted three marriages. The first marriage was with Ines D&mat/ol with whom he had one child, implicia. The second was with !rfia Colalho with whom he had two children: #ort&nato and Vevencia. And the third was with Tran>&ilina <alon with whom he had three children: Castor, &sana and *enedicta. Thro&gho&t his lifetime, *ernardo Cavili ac>&ired siG parcels of land which 5ecame the s&56ect of the instant case. In !cto5er 0,11, the descendants of *ernardoHs first and second marriage 'herein respondents( filed a complaint for partition against the descendants of his third marriage 'herein petitioners(. The complaint alleged, among others, that respondents and petitioners were co/owners of the properties in >&estion, having inherited the same from *ernardo Cavili. 9pon the death of *ernardo, his son 5) his third marriage, Castor Cavili, too. possession of the properties as administrator for and in 5ehalf of his co/owners. 7owever, when Castor died, his children too. possession of the parcels of land 5&t no longer as administrators. The) claimed the properties as well as their fr&its as their own and repeatedl) ref&sed respondentsH demand for partition. As petitioners failed to file an Answer within the reglementar) period, the) were declared in defa&lt and respondents were allowed to present evidence ex parte. The trial co&rt rendered a decision on !cto5er 3, 0,1, ordering the partition of the siG parcels of land.0I0J 7owever, &pon motion of $rimitivo Cavili and K&irino Cavili who were not properl) served with s&mmons, the trial co&rt held a new trial and allowed said parties to present evidence. Among the evidence the) proferred was a Deed of $artition which appeared to have 5een eGec&ted 5) the heirs of
1

*ernardo Cavili on April 3, 0,81.-I-J <iving weight to the doc&mentar) evidence presented 5) $rimitivo Cavili and K&irino Cavili, the trial co&rt rendered another decision on %a) 1, 0,,0 dismissing the complaint for partition. The appellate co&rt reversed the decision of the trial co&rt. It r&led that the trial co&rt erred in admitting the Deed of $artition as evidence witho&t proof of its a&thenticit) and d&e eGec&tion. It held that said Deed cannot 5e considered as an ancient doc&ment whose a&thenticit) and d&e eGec&tion need not 5e proved as the respondents have presented evidence that cast do&5t on its a&thenticit) and d&e eGec&tion. ;espondents, on the other hand, pra) for the denial of the petition on two gro&nds: first, it violates the r&le on the certification against for&m shopping re>&ired to 5e attached to petitions for review filed with this Co&rtD and second, the Co&rt of Appeals did not commit an) error in its assailed decision. ;espondents harp on the fact that onl) one of the twent)/two '--( petitioners, Thomas <eorge Cavili, r., eGec&ted and signed the certification against for&m shopping when the ;&les re>&ire that said certification m&st 5e signed 5) all the petitioners. I 9E: Fhether or not the certification against for&m shopping attached to the petition was

signed 5) onl) one of the petitioners is proper. ;&ling: The r&le is that the certificate of non/for&m shopping m&st 5e signed 5) all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing 5) onl) one of them is ins&fficient. 7owever, the Co&rt has also stressed that the r&les on for&m shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderl) administration of 6&stice, sho&ld not 5e interpreted with s&ch a5sol&te literalness as to s&5vert its own &ltimate and legitimate o56ective.8I1J The r&le of s&5stantial compliance ma) 5e availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is 5eca&se the re>&irement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non/for&m shopping merel) &nderscores its mandator) nat&re in that the certification cannot 5e altogether dispensed with or

/ 0

its re>&irements completel) disregarded. It does not there5) interdict s&5stantial compliance with its provisions &nder 6&stifia5le circ&mstances.+I2J Fe find that the eGec&tion 5) Thomas <eorge Cavile, r. in 5ehalf of all the other petitioners of the certificate of non/for&m shopping constit&tes s&5stantial compliance with the ;&les. All the petitioners, 5eing relatives and co/owners of the properties in disp&te, share a common interest thereon. The) also share a common defense in the complaint for partition filed 5) the respondents. Th&s, when the) filed the instant petition, the) filed it as a collective, raising onl) one arg&ment to defend their rights over the properties in >&estion. There is s&fficient 5asis, therefore, for Thomas <eorge Cavili, r. to spea. for and in 5ehalf of his co/petitioners that the) have not filed an) action or claim involving the same iss&es in another co&rt or tri5&nal, nor is there other pending action or claim in another co&rt or tri5&nal involving the same iss&es. %oreover, it has 5een held that the merits of the s&5stantive aspects of the case ma) 5e deemed as Lspecial circ&mstanceM for the Co&rt to ta.e cognizance of a petition for review altho&gh the certification against for&m shopping was eGec&ted and signed 5) onl) one of the petitioners.3I,J

1 +

DC-@,6 &<",EG0,&E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E Dcert. o( (orum s oppin!E

ME&<0> C->60<>E, C-,P-,06<-> v. ME6,-P-7<60> 50>B 0>& 6,@"6 C-MP0>G #acts: A complaint for s&m of mone) was filed 5efore the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of %a.ati 5) the respondent %etropolitan *an. and Tr&st Compan) '%etro5an.( against petitioner %edian Container Corporation '%CC( and po&ses Carlos and #el) @e), Vice $resident=Treas&rer of %%C, for fail&re to settle the o&tstanding 5alance of loan contracted 5) %CC which was represented 5) #el) @e). %CC filed a %otion to Dismiss on the gro&nd that the verification on certificate against non/ for&m shopping was defective. %CC >&estioned the a&thorit) of Att). AleGander $. %endoza to sign the same on 5ehalf of %etro5an.. %CC contends that the a&thorization was given onl) to Att). %endoza on N&ne 48, -448 and the verification and certification against non/for&m shopping, which was verified and signed 5) the said co&nsel, was dated on %a) -2, -448. In effect, the verification and certification 5) the %etro5an. has no valid effect. The ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of %a.ati denied %CCOs %otion to Dismiss. The matter was elevated to the Co&rt of Appeals which denied the appeal. <ssue= Fhether there was defective verification and certificate against non/for&m shopping on %etro5an.Os part Aeld= As for the re>&ired certification against for&m shopping, fail&re to compl) therewith is generall) not c&ra5le 5) its s&5mission s&5se>&ent to the filing of the petition or 5) amendment. 7owever,

the Co&rt relaGed the application of these re>&irements &pon appreciation of attendant special circ&mstances or compelling reasons. In the case at 5ar, sim&ltaneo&s with the filing of the complaint, %etro5an. s&5mitted 5oth a certification of non/for&m shopping and proof that Att). %endoza who signed it on its 5ehalf was a&thorized to do so. The proof of a&thorization of Att). %endoza was dated later than the date of his signing of the certification of non/for&m shopping, however, th&s giving the impression that he, at the time he affiGed his signat&re, was not a&thorized to do so. The passing on N&ne 8, -44+ of a *oard ;esol&tion of a&thorization 5efore the act&al filing on N&ne -8, -44+ of the complaint, however, is deemed a ratification of Att). %endozaOs prior eGec&tion on %a) -2, -44+ of the verification and certificate of non/for&m shopping, th&s c&ring an) defects thereof.

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,ED(orum s oppin!E G.,. >o. 1$8313 -ctober $) 2010 50>B -: 6AE PA<7<PP<>E <"70>&") $etitioner, vs. A->. C-@,6 -: 0PPE07") A->. ,-ME- 50,C0) in is capacit* as t e Presidin! Jud!e o( t e ,e!ional 6rial Court o( Ma%ati Cit*) 5r. $1) :<,"6 @><-> G,-@P E>6E,P,<"E" and 7<>&0 +@ A@) ;espondents. T7E #ACT9A@ A"TECEDE"T #irst 9nion 5orrowed from *$I the s&ms of #ive %illion $esos '$h$3,444,444.44( and !ne 7&ndred Twent) Tho&sand 9. . Dollars and 8- cents '9 D0-8,-02.8-(, evidenced 5) separate promissor) notes. As partial sec&rit) for the loan o5ligations of #irst 9nion, defendant @inda and her spo&se eGec&ted a ;eal Estate %ortgage Agreement dated A&g&st -,, 0,,1, covering two '-( condomini&m &nits. @inda eGec&ted a Comprehensive &ret) Agreement dated April 0+, 0,,1where she agreed to 5e solidaril) lia5le with #irst 9nion for its o5ligations to *$I. Despite repeated demands to satisf) the loan o5ligations &pon mat&rit), #irst 9nion failed to pa) *$I the amo&nts d&e. !n !cto5er 0B, -444, *$I initiated with the !ffice of the heriff of the ;TC of $asig eGtra/ 6&dicial foreclos&re proceedings against the two '-( mortgaged condomini&m &nits to satisf) #irst 9nion and @indaHs solidar) o5ligations. After d&e notice and p&5lication, the properties were sold at p&5lic a&ction on N&ne -,, -440.*$I was the highest 5idder. #irst 9nionHs and @indaHs contin&ed fail&re to settle their o&tstanding o5ligations prompted *$I to file, on Nan&ar) 8, -44-, a complaint for collection of s&m of mone) with the ;TC of %a.ati Cit), *ranch B0. The complaintHs verification and certificate of non/ for&m shopping were signed 5) %a. Cristina #. Asis 'Asis( and :ristine @. !ng '!ng(. 7owever, no "ecretar*;s Certi(icate or 5oard ,esolution was attached to evidence AsisH and !ngHs a&thorit) to file the complaint.

!n April 0, -44-, #irst 9nion and @inda filed a motion to dismiss on the gro&nd that *$I violated ;&le 1, ection 3 of the ;&les of Civil $roced&re ';&les(D *$I failed to attach to the complaint the necessar) 5oard resol&tion a&thorizing Asis and !ng to instit&te the collection action against #irst 9nion and @inda. Instead of s&5mitting a 5oard resol&tion, *$I attached a C pecial $ower of Attorne)C ' $A( dated Decem5er -4, -440 eGec&ted 5) Posimo A. :a5igting 'Posimo(, Vice/$resident of *$I.The $A a&thorized Asis and !ng or an) law)er from the *enedictoVersoza<ealogo and *&r.le) @aw !ffices to initiate an) legal action against #irst 9nion and @inda. !n A&g&st --, -44-, the ;TC iss&ed its assailed !rder granting #irst 9nionHs and @indaHs %otion to Dismiss. The trial co&rt denied *$IHs %otion for ;econsideration The C0 lastl* re(used to accord merit to *$IHs arg&ment that it s&5stantiall) complied with the re>&irements of verification and certificationD *$I onl) s&5mitted the $A and the *oard ;esol&tion after it had filed the complaint. I 9E:

Fhether or not the case 5e dismissed for fail&re of *$I to s&5mit $A and *oard of ;esol&tion. T7E C!9;TH ;9@I"< Fe r&le in the respondentsH favor. This Co&rt has repeatedl) emphasized the need to a5ide 5) the ;&les of Co&rt and the proced&ral re>&irements it imposes. The verification of a complaint and the attachment of a certificate of non/for&m shopping are re>&irements that Q as pointed o&t 5) the Co&rt, time and again Q are 5asic, necessar) and mandator) for proced&ral orderliness. Th&s, we cannot simpl) and in a general wa) appl) Q given the fact&al circ&mstances of this case Q the li5eral 6&rispr&dential eGception in hipside and its line of cases to eGc&se *$IHs fail&re to s&5mit a 5oard resol&tion. Fhile we ma) have eGc&sed strict compliance in the past, we did so onl* on su((icient and .usti(iable !rounds t at compelled a liberal approac w ile avoidin! t e e((ective ne!ation o( t e intent o( t e rule on non9(orum s oppin! . In other words, the r&le for the s&5mission of a certificate of non/for&m shopping, proper in form and s&5stance,

remains to 5e a strict and mandator) r&leD an) li5eral application has to 5e 6&stified 5) ample and s&fficient reasons that maintain the integrit) of, and do not detract from, the mandator) character of the r&le. The r&le, its relaGation and their rationale were disc&ssed 5) the Co&rt at length in Ti5leRTi5le Compan), Inc. v. ;o)al avings and @oan Association30 where we said: %&ch reliance is placed on the r&le that CCourts are not slaves or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around.C This r&le m&st alwa)s 5e &sed in the right conteGt, lest in6&stice, rather than 6&stice wo&ld 5e its end res&lt. It m&st never 5e forgotten that) !enerall*) t e application o( t e rules must be up eld) and t e suspension or even mere relaxation o( its application) is t e exception. This Co&rt previo&sl) eGplained: The Co&rt is not impervio&s to the fr&stration that litigants and law)ers ali.e wo&ld at times enco&nter in proced&ral 5&rea&crac) 5&t imperative 6&stice re>&ires correct observance of indispensable technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper dispensation. It has long 5een recognized that strict compliance with the ;&les of Co&rt is indispensa5le for the prevention of needless dela)s and for the orderl) and eGpeditio&s dispatch of 6&dicial 5&siness. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Ad6ective law is important in ens&ring the effective enforcement of s&5stantive rights thro&gh the orderl) and speed) administration of 6&stice. These r&les are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation 5&t, indeed to provide for a s)stem &nder which a s&itor ma) 5e heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescri5ed time in a peacef&l confrontation 5efore a 6&dge whose a&thorit) the) ac.nowledge. This same r&le was echoed in %ediserv v. Co&rt of Appeals where we said in the co&rse of allowing a li5eral 6&stification: It is settled that li5eral constr&ction of the r&les ma) 5e invo.ed in sit&ations where there ma) 5e some eGc&sa5le formal deficienc) or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not s&5vert

the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasona5le attempt at compliance with the r&les. After all, r&les of proced&re are not to 5e applied in a ver) rigid, technical senseD the) are &sed onl) to help sec&re s&5stantial 6&stice. 9nder the circ&mstances, what applies to the present case is the second paragraph of ection 3, ;&le 1 of the ;&les of Co&rt which states: #ail&re to compl) with the foregoing re>&irements shall not 5e c&ra5le 5) mere amendment of the complaint or other initiator) pleading 5&t shall 5e ca&se for the dismissal of the case witho&t pre6&dice, &nless otherwise provided, &pon motion and after hearing. Fe th&s hold that the dismissal of the case is the appropriate r&ling from this Co&rt, witho&t pre6&dice to its refiling as the ;&les allow.

P,-CE&@,07 E,,-, << DCompliance in ,e!lementar* PeriodsEH

ec. 2. ismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Q The appellate co&rt ma), &pon motion of the appellee or on its own motion and notice to the appellant, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his 5rief within the time prescri5ed 5) this r&le, eGcept in case the appellant is represented 5) a co&nsel de oficio. 4# da*s I 4# da*s D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E DP,E"C,<P6<->E G.,. >o. 1F33/0 June 2F) 2012 ME7CA-, 7. 70G@0) $etitioner, vs. 6AE A->. C-@,6 -: 0PPE07" and PE-P7E -: 6AE PA<7<PP<>E") ;espondent. !n 00 April -448, the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of $asig rendered a Decision in Criminal Case "os. 00248-/7 and 002488/7 finding the acc&sed petitioner g&ilt) of homicide and sentencing him to 8 *ears o( prision ma*or as minimum to 14 *ears o( reclusion temporal as maximum in eac case. !n 0, %a) -448, petitioner filed a "otice of Appeal with the CA, doc.eted as CA/<.;. C; "o. -1+-8. !n 02 N&ne -448, he filed a Ver) 9rgent $etition for *ail $ending Appeal, which the CA granted witho&t o56ection from the !ffice of the olicitor <eneral. !n B "ovem5er -448, an !rder of release &pon 5ond was iss&ed in his favor 5) the Division Cler. of Co&rt of the CA. !n 0+ !cto5er -448, petitioner received the !rder from the CA re>&iring, within +3 da)s from receipt thereof, or &ntil -2 "ovem5er -448, the filing of his AppellantHs *rief. 7e filed a %otion for EGtension of another +3 da)s from -2 "ovem5er -448, or &ntil 0- Nan&ar) -44+, within which to file the said 5rief. !n 2 Nan&ar) -44+, he filed a econd %otion for EGtension as.ing for an additional +3 da)s, which the CA granted with a warning that no f&rther eGtension shall 5e allowed.Th&s, petitioner had +3 da)s from 0- Nan&ar) -44+ or &ntil -B #e5r&ar) -44+.

&espite t e two extensions, petitioner @ag&a still failed to file his appellant;s brie(. !n 3 %a) -44+, the CA ordered him thro&gh co&nsel to show ca&se, within five da)s from receipt, wh) the appeal sho&ld not 5e dismissed p&rs&ant to ection 2, ;&le 0-+ of the ;&les of Co&rt. 7e again failed to s&5mit his 5rief within the reglementar) period and to compl) with the Co&rtHs 3 %a) -44+ ;esol&tion. Th&s, on 0 eptem5er -44+, the CA iss&ed a ;esol&tion declaring the appeal. In its second assailed ;esol&tion iss&ed on 01 %a) -44B, the CA denied petitionerHs %otion for ;econsideration and ordered the AppellantHs *rief to 5e eGp&nged from the records, viz: Indeed the present appeal has 5een dismissed twice 5) the Co&rt 5eca&se of acc&sed/appellantHs fail&re to file his 5rief. $etitioner comes to this Co&rt alleging grave a5&se of discretion on the part of the lower co&rt in declaring the appeal a5andoned, pointing to the negligence and errors of his co&nsel as the ca&se of the two/)ear dela) in coming &p with the 5rief I 9E:

Fhether or not there is grave a5&se of discretion on the part of CA in declaring the appeal a5andoned. ,ulin!= Fe dismiss the $etition. The certiorari 6&risdiction of the &preme Co&rt is rigoro&sl) streamlined, s&ch that ;&le B3 onl) admits cases 5ased on the specific gro&nds provided therein. The ;&le applies if there is no appeal or an) other plain, speed), and ade>&ate remed) in the ordinar) co&rse of law. The independent action for certiorari will lie onl) if grave a5&se of discretion is alleged and proven to eGist. <rave a5&se of discretion is the ar5itrar) or despotic eGercise of power d&e to passion, pre6&dice or personal hostilit)D or the whimsical, ar5itrar), or a capricio&s eGercise of power that amo&nts to an evasion or a ref&sal to perform a positive d&t) en6oined 5) law or to act at all in contemplation of law. #or an act to 5e str&c. down as having 5een done with grave a5&se of discretion, the a5&se of discretion m&st 5e patent and gross.

In the present case, petitioner wo&ld have &s stri.e down the ;esol&tions of the CA declaring his appeal as a5andoned for p&rportedl) 5eing iss&ed in grave a5&se of discretion. Aet, far from committing the grievo&s error petitioner presents it to 5e, the CA merel) eGercised the a&thorit) eGpressl) granted to it &nder ;&le 0-+, which we >&ote 5elow: ec. 2. ismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. Q The appellate co&rt ma), &pon motion of the appellee or on its own motion and notice to the appellant, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his 5rief within the time prescri5ed 5) this r&le, eGcept in case the appellant is represented 5) a co&nsel de oficio. In his $etition, @ag&a 5ewails the negligence and mishandling 5) his two previo&s co&nsels as the reason for the dela), which has lasted for more than two )ears. 7owever, it is clear from the facts that despite the li5eralit) and consideration afforded to him 5) the CA, he is 5) no means 5lameless. %ore importantl), his eGc&se cannot serve as a s&5stit&te for the 6&risdictional re>&irements &nder ;&le B3. It does not amo&nt to an) grave a5&se of discretion tantamo&nt to lac. or eGcess of discretion that ma) 5e attri5&ta5le to the appellate co&rt. 9nder the circ&mstances, the CA was well within the a&thorit) granted to it &nder the cited r&le. "othing is more settled than the r&le that the negligence and mista.es of co&nsel are 5inding on the client. !therwise, there wo&ld never 5e an end to a s&it, so long as co&nsel co&ld allege its own fa&lt or negligence to s&pport the clientHs case and o5tain remedies and reliefs alread) lost 5) the operation of law. The Co&rt cannot tolerate ha5it&al fail&re to follow the proced&ral r&les, which are indispensa5le for the orderl) and speed) disposition of 6&stice. !therwise these r&les wo&ld 5e rendered &seless. In $olintan v. $eople, the Co&rt of Appeals gave the petitioner therein a total of 13 da)s to s&5mit his AppellantHs *rief, 5&t he failed to do so. In that case, the acc&sed $olintan filed a CVer) 9rgent EG/$arte %otion to Admit AppellantHs *rief.C This Co&rt affirmed the CA ;esol&tion declaring his appeal a5andoned, after finding his eGc&ses too flims) to warrant reversal.

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E D7ate submission o( appellant;s brie(E G.,. >o. 1$182F 0pril 21) 200/

P-7<>60> vs. PE-P7E :0C6"= Assistant Cit) $rosec&tor ;alph . @ee filed two informations8 dated -, N&ne 0,,8 with the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC(, "ational Capital N&dicial ;egion, *ranch --+, K&ezon Cit), charging $olintan with violation of *atas $am5ansa *ilang --. The two cases were doc.eted as Criminal Case "os. K/,8/+B0,, and K/,8/+B-44. D&ring his arraignment on -2 A&g&st 0,,8, $olintan pleaded not g&ilt) to 5oth charges. !n 0+ eptem5er 0,,8, the ;TC provisionall) dismissed the two cases 5eca&se $olintan agreed to settle the civil aspect of the cases. !n 84 A&g&st 0,,+, the ;TC granted the motion to revive the two cases. $olintan filed an omni5&s motionB for new trial and reconsideration of the 01 Nan&ar) 0,,B Decision. In an !rder1 dated -+ %a) -44-, the ;TC denied the omni5&s motion. !n 8 N&l) -44-, $olintan filed a notice2 of appeal. In an !rder, dated 0+ A&g&st -44-, the ;TC denied the notice of appeal for 5eing filed o&t of time. $olintan filed a motion04 for reconsideration of the 0+ A&g&st -44- !rder. In an !rder00 dated 02 "ovem5er -44-, the ;TC, CIiJn the higher interest of 6&stice,C granted the motion for reconsideration. Iss&e:

Fhether or not the co&rt ma) grant the appeal even if there was late s&5mission of the 5rief. ;&ling: In the present case, '0( the Co&rt of Appeals, motu proprio, dismissed the appealD '-( the Co&rt of Appeals f&rnished $olintan with notice to show ca&se wh) his appeal sho&ld not 5e dismissedD '8( $olintan failed to file his 5rief within the time prescri5edD and '+( $olintan was not represented 5) a co&nsel de oficio. The right to appeal is not a nat&ral right and is not part of d&e process. It is merel) a stat&tor) privilege and m&st 5e eGercised in accordance with the law. In !pouses "rti# v. Court of $ppeals,0B the Co&rt held that: ITJhe right to appeal is not a nat&ral right or a part of d&e processD it is merel) a stat&tor) privilege, and ma) 5e eGercised onl) in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The part) who see.s to avail of the same m&st compl) with the re>&irements of the ;&les, #ailing IsicJ to do so, the right to appeal is lost. ;&les of $roced&re are re>&ired to 5e followed. trict compliance with the ;&les of Co&rt is indispensa5le for the orderl) and speed) disposition of 6&stice.02 The ;&les m&st 5e followed, otherwise, the) will 5ecome meaningless and &seless.

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E D7ate submission o( appellant;s brie(E G.,. >o. 1F33/0 70G@0 vs. C0

#ACT : In dismissing the present $etition filed &nder ;&le B3 of the ;&les of Co&rt, we find no valid, 6&stifia5le reason for petitionerHs fail&re to file his appellantHs 5rief with the Co&rt of Appeals 'CA( that wo&ld warrant a reversal of the CA ;esol&tions dated -3 "ovem5er -443and 01 %a) -44B. To r&le otherwise wo&ld ma.e light of this Co&rtHs eGtraordinar) certiorari 6&risdiction, which operates onl) &pon a clear showing of grave a5&se of discretion tantamo&nt to lac. or eGcess of 6&risdiction on the part of the appellate tri5&nal. !n 00 April -448, the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of $asig rendered a Decision in Criminal Case "os. 00248-/7 and 002488/7 finding the acc&sed petitioner g&ilt) of homicide and sentencing him to 2 )ears of prision mayor as minim&m to 0+ )ears of reclusion temporal as maGim&m in each case. !n 0, %a) -448, petitioner filed a "otice of Appeal with the CA, doc.eted as CA/<.;. C; "o. -1+-8. Despite the two eGtensions, petitioner @ag&a still failed to file his appellantHs 5rief. !n 3 %a) -44+, the CA ordered him thro&gh co&nsel to show ca&se, within five da)s from receipt, wh) the appeal sho&ld not 5e dismissed p&rs&ant to ection 2, ;&le 0-+ of the ;&les of Co&rt. 7e again failed to s&5mit his 5rief within the reglementar) period and to compl) with the Co&rtHs 3 %a)

-44+ ;esol&tion. Th&s, on 0 eptem5er -44+, the CA iss&ed a ;esol&tion declaring the appeal a5andoned and accordingl) dismissed p&rs&ant to the ;&les. I 9E:

Fhether or not the dismissal of the case is proper on the gor&nd of fail&re to file the 5rief on time. ;&ling:

$etitioner was represented 5) private co&nsel 'and not counsel de oficio( to whom the CA had granted m&ltiple eGtensions: two for Att). K&impoD and two for Att). *arrientos, whose "otice of Appearance was s&5mitted a month after the how Ca&se !rder of 2 N&l) -443. As for Att). K&impo, he filed his %anifestation more than a month after the CA had first iss&ed the dismissal. It was onl) 5eca&se of the plea for compassion in petitionerHs %otion for ;econsideration that the CA granted him another 84 da)s in order to sec&re the services of another law)er. Again, petitioner failed to compl). *oth he and the new co&nsel, Att). *arrientos, also failed to compl) with the second how Ca&se !rder. Aet again, the CA allowed Att). *arrientosH "otice of Appearance and considered it s&5stantial compliance with the second how Ca&se !rder. !&t of the CAHs li5eralit), petitioner was given another 84 da)s to come &p with the AppellantHs *rief. This he failed to s&5mit, prompting the CA, for the second and final time, to declare his appeal as a5andoned. Even then, his %otion for ;econsideration with %otion to Admit AppellantHs *rief was filed %& days after his counsel received the C$ 'esolution. @astl), it is erroneo&s for petitioner to declare that there wo&ld 5e no pre6&dice to the $eople if his appeal is reinstated. The 6&dgment of conviction having attained finalit), respondent is now entitled to eGec&tion as a matter of right.

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E Dnotice o( appeal (iled out o( timeE G.,. >o. 12/84$ Januar* 18) 2000

,EP@57<C vs. C-@,6 -: 0PPE07" 0>& 6,0&E," ,-G07 50>B)

:0C6"= !n two occasions in Nan&ar) 0,2B, the !ffice of the $resident iss&ed fo&r t)pe C*C Treas&r) Farrants drawn against the *&rea& of Treas&r) in the aggregate amo&nt of $030,B+3,444.44. The treas&r) warrants were deposited in private respondent Traders ;o)al *an. for collection.cralaw !n Nan&ar) 1, 0,2B, private respondent presented the warrants to the *&rea& of Treas&r) for clearing. The warrants were cleared and private respondent credited the amo&nts to the designated pa)eesH acco&nts. $etitioner s&5se>&entl) discovered on April 8, 0,2B that the pa)eesH indorsements on the warrants had 5een forged. It demanded reim5&rsement from private respondent of the amo&nts paid on the warrants 5&t the latter ref&sed to pa).cralaw !n !cto5er 08, 0,21, petitioner, thro&gh the *&rea& of Treas&r), filed Civil Case "o. 21/+-13for collection against private respondent 5efore the ;egional Trial Co&rt, *ranch 0,, %anila. Trial then ens&ed. After petitioner had rested its case, private respondent, with prior leave of co&rt, filed a Dem&rrer to Evidence on Nan&ar) 0-, 0,,+. Among others, it was contended: The plaintiff does not claim nor alleged that 5eca&se of the alleged forger) of the indorsements of the pa)ees, it 'the plaintiff( had to replace the treas&r) warrants in >&estion and th&s pa) the

pa)ees all over again. Does not the ca&se of action or right to relief, then, if an), properl) pertain to the pa)ees whose endorsements were allegedl) forgedS And is not s&ch a ca&se of action or right to relief properl) against the forger=s or perpetrator of the forger)S In an order dated eptem5er 84, 0,,+, the trial co&rt denied the dem&rrer to evidence. 7owever, on motion of private respondent, the trial co&rt, on Nan&ar) 84, 0,,3, reconsidered its order and dismissed petitionerHs complaint. $etitioner received the order of dismissal on #e5r&ar) 1, 0,,3. 7ence, it had &p to #e5r&ar) --, 0,,3 within which to appeal. !n %a) -8, 0,,3, the trial co&rt denied petitionerHs motion for reconsideration. The order was received 5) petitioner on N&ne -, 0,,3, so that it had &ntil N&ne +, 0,,3 within which to file the notice of appeal. 7owever, petitioner filed its notice of appeal onl) on N&ne 0B, 0,,3, 0- da)s 5e)ond the 03/da) reglementar) period. As a conse>&ence, the dismissal 5ecame final. #or some reason, this fact was not immediatel) noticed, so that the records of the case were elevated to the Co&rt of Appeals and petitioner was re>&ired to file its appellantHs 5rief. Fhen it came to its t&rn to file its 5rief as an appellee, private respondent as.ed for an eGtension of time. Its motion was granted, 5&t instead of filing its 5rief, private respondent as.ed the appellate co&rt to dismiss petitionerHs appeal on the gro&nd that it was filed o&t of time. Its motion was granted and petitionerHs appeal was dismissed. $etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, 5&t its motion was denied. $etitioner received the appellate co&rtHs resol&tion den)ing its motion on N&ne 3, 0,,1, so that it had &ntil N&ne -4, 0,,1 within which to appeal to this Co&rt 5) filing a petition for review on certiorari &nder ;&le +3. Instead, petitioner filed on A&g&st +, 0,,1, +3 da)s after the last da) to file an appeal, the present petition for certiorari &nder ;&le B3, contending that the Co&rt of Appeals gravel) a5&sed its discretion in dismissing its appeal from the order of the ;TC which dismissed its complaint against private respondent. I 9E: Fhether or not the r&les of proced&re sho&ld 5e relaGed to allow the appeal of the case.

,ulin!= As earlier stated, this petition sho&ld 5e dismissed.cr

econd. Even on the gro&nds invo.ed 5) petitioner, we thin. the present petition sho&ld 5e dismissed. Time and again, we have emphasized that the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted 5) law is not onl) mandator) 5&t 6&risdictional, and that the fail&re to perfect an appeal renders the decision of the trial co&rt final and eGec&tor). IBJ This r&le is fo&nded &pon the principle that the right to appeal is not part of d&e process of law 5&t is a mere stat&tor) privilege to 5e eGercised onl) in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. I1J In this case, we find no reason to depart from this r&le.cralaw The case at 5ench, given its own settings, can not come close to those eGtraordinar) circ&mstances that have indeed 6&stified a deviation from an otherwise stringent r&le. @et it not 5e overloo.ed that the timeliness of an appeal is a 6&risdictional caveat that not even this Co&rt can trifle with. I04J chan ro5les virt&al law li5rar) As in *an. of America, there is no showing in this case of a fact&al setting which approGimates an) of the eGtraordinar) circ&mstances which ma) 6&stif) a deviation from the r&le on timel) filing of appeals. An)one see.ing eGemption from the application of this r&le has the 5&rden of proving that eGceptionall) meritorio&s instances eGist which warrant s&ch depart&re. In this case, petitioner failed to discharge this 5&rden. It offered no eGplanation at all for the 0-/da) dela) in filing its notice of appeal. Fhat was said in Videogram ;eg&lator) *oard v. Co&rt of Appeals I00J applies with e>&al force to this case, as petitioner is li.ewise represented 5) the !ffice of the olicitor <eneral, viz.: And, while we &nderstand the ! <Hs predicament, its oft/repeated eGc&se of 5eing saddled with a h&ge caseload, which is resorted to almost ever)time it applies for eGtension of time for appeal and filing of comments=replies=5riefs, has alread) lost its flavor, if not gone stale entirel). Certainl), 5) this time the ! < m&st have alread) developed a s)stem for .eeping trac. of all its deadlines and monitoring the progress of wor. 5eing done on the cases it is handling. After all, government service reall) entails hard wor. and perennial &nceasing press&re to meet deadlines. %ost ass&redl), this is not a gro&nd for the li5eral interpretation of the r&les. !nl) in eGceptionall) meritorio&s cases sho&ld the r&les 5e relaGed. &ch has not 5een shown to 5e the sit&ation in this case.cralaw

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E P,@&E>6<07 G@0,0>6EE 0>& 0""@,0>CE) <>C. v. C-@,6 -: 0PPE07" #acts: A;%C! Ind&strial Corporation filed a 5ond with respect to the writ of attachment iss&ed 5) the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( against %ariano !ng and several defendants in another case. In the said 5ond, A;%C! and petitioner $r&dential <&arantee and Ass&rance Inc. '$r&dential(, solidaril) 5o&nd themselves to pa) all the costs and all damages, which ma) 5e ad6&dged to !ng. 7owever, d&e to fail&re of A;%C! to pa) the corresponding premi&ms to the $r&dential on the s&cceeding )ears, the latter filed an 9rgent EG/$arte %otion for Cancellation of *ond and ;elease of &ret), which the ;TC denied. $r&dential s&5se>&entl) filed a %otion for ;econsideration 5&t was also denied. !n appeal, the Co&rt of Appeals 'CA( dismissed the petition for certiorari, finding that thepetition was filed three '8( da)s late. The CA also denied the %otion for ;econsideration holding that fail&re to file the petition within the reglementar) period re>&ired 5) law will ma.e the order final and eGec&tor). 7ence, this petition. Iss&e: Fhether or not dela) in filing of $etition for Certiorari ma) 5e set aside as a mere technicalit) 7eld:

9nder ection + of ;&le B3 of the 0,,1 ;evised ;&les of Co&rt, certiorari sho&ld 5e instit&ted within a period of siGt) 'B4( da)s from notice of the 6&dgment, order or resol&tion so&ght to 5e assailed. The B4/da) period is deemed reasona5le and s&fficient time for a part) to m&ll over and to prepare a petition asserting grave a5&se of discretion 5) a lower co&rt. The period was specificall) set to avoid an) &nreasona5le dela) that wo&ld violate the constit&tional rights of the parties to a speed) disposition of their case. #or these reasons, the B4/da) period o&ght to 5e considered ineGtendi5le. #&rther, ;&les of proced&re prescri5ing the time within which certain acts m&st 5e done or certain proceedings ta.en, are a5sol&tel) indispensa5le to the prevention of needless dela)s and the orderl) and speed) discharge of 6&dicial 5&siness. trict compliance therewith is th&s mandator) and imperative. 7owever, the ;&les of $roced&re ma) 5e relaGed Lfor the most pers&asive of reasons.M Concomitant to a li5eral application of s&ch r&les sho&ld 5e an effort on the part of the part) invo.ing li5eralit) to at least proffer a reason for its fail&re to compl) therewith. $r&dential however failed to pers&ade the Co&rt to allow eGtension of time to appeal.

D6AE C-@,6 &<",EG0,&E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E 2 da*s late (ilin! o( appeal @><6E& 0<,7<>E") petitioner, vs. +<77<E J. @G) respondent) JG.,. >o. 12FF$8. >ovember 1/) 1///K #acts: ;espondent Fillie 9) is a passenger of petitioner 9nited Airlines, 5o&nd from an #rancisco to %anila. Fhile in an #rancisco, it was fo&nd that one piece of his l&ggage was over the maGim&m weight allowance of 14 .g. per 5ag. A 9nited Airlines emplo)ee re5&.ed him and in a lo&d voice, in front of the milling crowd, ordered him to repac. his things accordingl). Fishing not to create a scene, Fillie did as as.ed. 9nfort&natel), his l&ggage was still overweight so the airline 5illed him overweight charges. Fillie offered to pa) the charges with a %iscellaneo&s Charge !rder '%C!( or an airline pre/paid credit 5&t the same emplo)ee, and an airline s&pervisor, ref&sed to honor it, contending that there were discrepancies in the fig&res. Th&s, Fillie was forced to pa) the charges with his American EGpress credit card. 9pon arrival in %anila, Fillie discovered that one of his 5ags had 5een slashed and its contents, amo&nting to 9 T3,804.44, stolen. !cto5er 0B, 0,2, Q he sent his first letter of demand to 9nited Airlines. The airline did not ref&te FillieHs allegations and mailed a chec. representing pa)ment of his loss 5ased on the maGim&m lia5ilit) of 9 T,.14 per po&nd. Fillie, thin.ing the amo&nt to 5e grossl) inade>&ate to compensate him for his losses as well as for the indignities he was s&56ected to, sent two more letters to petitioner airline, one dated Nan&ar) +, 0,,4 and the other dated !cto5er -2, 0,,0,

demanding o&t/of/co&rt settlement of $0,444,444.44. N&ne ,, 0,,- Q Fillie filed a complaint for damages 5efore the $hilippine co&rts. 7e had two ca&ses of action: '0( the sha55) and h&miliating treatment he received from petitionerHs emplo)ees at the an #rancisco Airport which ca&sed him eGtreme em5arrassment and social h&miliationD and '-( the slashing of his l&ggage and the loss of personal effects amo&nting to 9 T3,804.44. #or its part, 9nited Airlines moved to dismiss the complaint on the gro&nd that it was filed o&t of time. 9nder Art. -, of the Farsaw Convention, the right to damages shall 5e eGting&ished if an action is not 5ro&ght within - )ears. 7owever, the second paragraph of the said provision stated that the method of calc&lating the period of limitation shall 5e determined 5) the law of the co&rt to which the case is s&5mitted. It is FillieHs position that o&r r&les on interr&ption of prescriptive period sho&ld appl). Fhen he sent his letters of demand, the -/)ear period was tolled, giving him ample time to file his complaint. The trial co&rt ordered the dismissal of the case, holding that Art. -,'-( refers not to the local for&mHs r&les in interr&pting the prescriptive period 5&t onl) to the r&les of determining the time in which the action was deemed commenced 'meaning LfiledM(. Fillie filed his motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal onl) on the 0+th da). The trial co&rt denied his motion and - da)s later Fillie filed his notice of appeal. 9nited Airlines this time contended that the notice of appeal was filed 5e)ond the 03/da) reglementar) period and sho&ld therefore 5e dismissed. The CA, however, too. cognizance of the case in the interest of 6&stice and r&led in favo&r of respondent. 7ence, this petition for certiorari. 7eld: ection 0 of ;&le +3 of the %(() 'ules of Civil Procedure provides that Ca part) ma) appeal 5) certiorari, from a 6&dgment of the Co&rt of Appeals, 5) filing with the &preme Co&rt a petition for certiorari, within fifteen '03( da)s from notice of 6&dgment or of the denial of his motion for reconsideration filed in d&e time G G G GC This ;&le however sho&ld not 5e interpreted as Cto sacrifice the s&5stantial right of the appellant in the sophisticated altar of technicalities with

impairment of the sacred principles of 6&stice.C1 I$an American Forld Airwa)s, Inc. v. Espirit&, "o. @/83+40, -4 Nan&ar) 0,1B, B, C;A 8B.J It sho&ld 5e 5orne in mind that t e real purpose be ind t e limitation o( t e period o( appeal is to (orestall or avoid an unreasonable dela* in t e administration o( .ustice. Th&s, we have r&led that dela) in the filing of a notice of appeal does not 6&stif) the dismissal of the appeal where the circ&mstances of the case show that there is no intent to dela* t e administration o( .ustice on t e part o( appellantLs counsel) 2 IDe las Alas v. Co&rt of Appeals, "o. @/8244B, 0B %a) 0,12, 28 C;A -44D American 7ome Ass&rance Compan) v. Co&rt of Appeals, "o. @/+34-B, 0- "ovem5er 0,20, 04, C;A 024.J or when there are no s&5stantial rights affected,, I%argate v. Co&rt of Appeals, "o. @/+-8BB, 03 Decem5er 0,2-, 00, C;A -3,.J or when appellantEs co&nsel committed a mista.e in the comp&tation of the period of appeal, an error not attri5&ta5le to negligence or 5ad faith.04 IIbid.JUU In the instant case, respondent filed his notice of appeal two '-( da)s later than the prescri5ed period. Altho&gh his co&nsel failed to give the reason for the dela), we are inclined to give d&e co&rse to his appeal d&e to the &ni>&e and pec&liar facts of the case and the serio&s >&estion of law it poses. In the now almost trite 5&t still good principle, tec nicalit*) w en it deserts its proper o((ice as an aid to .ustice and becomes its !reat indrance and c ie( enem*) deserves scant consideration.

D6AE C-@,6 &<",EG0,&E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E Dnotice o( appeal (iled out o( timeE G.,. >o. 79#1##2 :ebruar* 28) 1/80 0"@>C<-> ,0M-") Petitioner, vs. 6AE A->. 0G@"6<> C. 50G0"0-) E6C.) E7E>0ME>&-CC0 0>& 6AE AE<," -: 6AE 706E E7<"E- 5. ,<G-,. respondents.

#ACT : As&ncion ;amos is the plaintiff in the a5ove/mentioned civil case where she s&ed Eliseo *. ;igor and Elena %endoza to ann&l Transfer Certificate of Title "o. "T/3++28 of the ;egister of Deeds of "&eva Eci6a. 7er attorne) of record was Alfonso <. Espinosa. Fhen the respondent 6&dge decided the case against the plaintiff, the decision was served personall) on her on %arch 0,, 0,1,, for the reason that, according to Dep&t) Cler. of Co&rt $r&dencio $. Ciriaco: C... Att). Espinosa died 5efore the prom&lgation of the decision, and since his death was of p&5lic .nowledge in Ca5anat&an Cit) and $rovince of "&eva Eci6a, speciall) among legal and Co&rt circles, the decision was served directl) &pon the plaintiff, As&ncion ;amos, instead of Att). Espinosa, who was alread) dead.C In a pleading dated April 0+, 0,1,, 5&t posted onl) on April 01, 0,1,, Att). ;a)m&ndo P. Annang as the new co&nsel for As&ncion ;amos as.ed that the decision of %arch 0,, 0,1,, 5e reconsidered and that a new trial 5e granted for the reasons therein stated. This was denied 5) the

respondent 6&dge in an order dated N&l) -+, 0,1,, which was received 5) Att). Annang on N&l) -B, 0,1,. !n N&l) 80, 0,1,, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal together with the cash appeal 5ond and also a motion for eGtension of time to file a record on appeal. *oth were dated N&l) 84, 0,1,, and 5oth were denied 5) the respondent 6&dge on N&l) 80, 0,1,, for having 5een filed o&t of time. I 9E:

Fhether or not the appeal ma) 5e considered even if filed o&t of time. ;&ling: $etitioner contends that the personal service made &pon her on %arch 0,, 0,1,, was ineffect&al 5eca&se she had an attorne) of record and the respondent 6&dge did not order that the decision 5e served &pon the part) herself. ';&le 08, ec. 8, ;&les of Co&rtD $alad vs. C&i, -2 $hil. ++ I0,0+JD "otor vs. Daza, et al., 1B $hil. 234 I0,+BJD %ata vs. @egarda, @/02,+0, Nan. 80, 0,B8, 1 C;A --1.( $etitioner claimed d&ring the hearing that the time sho&ld 5e rec.oned from April 0+, 0,1,, when she gave a cop) of the decision to her new law)er, Att). Annang who s&5se>&entl) filed the pleading aforementioned on April 01, 0,1,. #rom this assertion it wo&ld logicall) follow that the notice of appeal as well as the motion for an eGtension of time to file a record of appeal which were filed on N&l) 80, 0,1,, were well within the reglementar) period. 9pon the other hand the respondents aver that the personal service of the decision on the petitioner on %arch 0,, 0,1,, was an effective service and therefore that date sho&ld 5e &sed for rec.oning the 84/da) period within which to perfect an appeal. 'iego vs. 'iego, @/--38 0, ept. -8, 0,BB, 02 C;A ,0 is invo.ed to s&pport this contention. 7owever, the ;iego case is not in point 5eca&se in that case it was Cclear that it was 5) the order of the trial co&rt that the notice of hearing of the motion to dismiss was served on the plaintiffs. C 'At p. ,+.( There is merit in petitionerEs contention that the 84/da) period within which to appeal sho&ld 5e co&nted, not from %arch 0,, 0,1,, 5&t from April 0+, 0,1,. 7owever, we do not have to decide the instant case on this point. #or even ass&ming that the 84/da) period sho&ld 5e co&nted from

%arch 0,, 0,1,, the dela) of fo&r da)s in filing a notice of appeal and a motion for an eGtension of time to file a record on appeal can 5e eGc&sed on the 5asis of e>&it) and considering that the record on appeal is now with the respondent 6&dge.

D6AE C-@,6 &<",EG0,& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E DP,E"C,<P6<o>E G.,. >o. 18344/ Marc 12) 2012 07:,E&- J0C0 M->60JE") $etitioner, vs. PE-P7E -: 6AE PA<7<PP<>E") ;espondent. That on or a5o&t the 2th da) of Decem5er, -44-, at 0:44 earl) morning, more or less, in $&ro. 04, *aranga) A5ilan, *&enavista, Ag&san del "orte, and within the 6&risdiction of this 7onora5le Co&rt, the a5ove/named acc&sed, did then and there willf&ll), &nlawf&ll) and felonio&sl) attac., assa&lt, and hac. one N! E *. ;E@@!", an elected $&nong *aranga), while in the performance of his d&ties, and acc&sed f&ll) .now that Nose *. ;ellon is a *aranga) !fficial, to the damage and pre6&dice of said Nose *. ;ellon. !n Decem5er -,, -443, the %TC iss&ed its N&dgment1 finding petitioner g&ilt) of the crime of direct assa&lt. The dispositive portion of the 6&dgment reads: !n appeal, the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC(, *ranch 8, *&t&an Cit), rendered its Decision, dated Nan&ar) -8, -441 affirming in toto the 6&dgment of the %TC. $etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the ;TC denied in an !rder04 dated %a) +, -441. $etitioner filed with the CA a petition 'sho&ld 5e motion( for eGtension of time to file petition for review &nder ;&le +- of the ;&les of Co&rt pra)ing for an eGtended period of 03 da)s from %a) -0, -441, or &ntil N&ne 3, -441, within which to file his petition. $etitioner s&5se>&entl) filed his petition for review on N&ne 3, -441. !n eptem5er -0, -441, the CA iss&ed its assailed ;esol&tion dismissin! the petition o&tright for 5eing filed o&t of time I 9E:

$etitioner is now 5efore &s on the iss&e of whether the CA erred in den)ing d&e co&rse to his petition for review for 5eing filed o&t of time.

;9@I"<: Fe grant the petition. ection 0, ;&le -- of the ;&les of Co&rt relied &pon 5) petitioner provides: ection 0.7ow to comp&te time. Q In comp&ting an) period of time prescri5ed or allowed 5) these ;&les, or 5) order of the co&rt, or 5) an) applica5le stat&te, the da) of the act or event from which the designated period of time 5egins to r&n is to 5e eGcl&ded and the date of performance incl&ded. If the last da) of the period, as th&s comp&ted, falls on a at&rda), a &nda), or a legal holida) in the place where the co&rt sits, the time shall not r&n &ntil the neGt wor.ing da). Fe then clarified the a5ove/>&oted provision when we iss&ed A.%. "o. 44/-/0+/ C dated #e5r&ar) -,, -444 ';e: Comp&tation of Time Fhen the @ast Da) #alls on a at&rda), &nda) or a @egal 7olida) and a %otion for EGtension on "eGt For.ing Da) is <ranted( which reads: Fhereas, the aforecited provision I ection 0, ;&le -- of the ;&les of Co&rtJ applies in the matter of filing of pleadings in co&rts when the d&e date falls on a at&rda), &nda) or legal holida), in which case, the filing of the said pleading on the neGt wor.ing da) is deemed on timeD Fhereas, the >&estion has 5een raised if the period is eGtended ipso 6&re to the neGt wor.ing da) immediatel) following where the last da) of the period is a at&rda), &nda) or a legal holida), so that when a motion for eGtension of time is filed, the period of eGtension is to 5e rec.oned from the neGt wor.ing da) and not from the original eGpiration of the period. "!F T7E;E#!;E, the Co&rt ;esolves, for the g&idance of the *ench and the *ar, to declare that ection 0, ;&le -- spea.s onl) of Cthe last da) of the periodC so that when a part) see.s an eGtension and the same is granted, the d&e date ceases to 5e the last da) and hence, the provision no longer applies. An) eGtension of time to file the re>&ired pleading s ould t ere(ore be counted (rom t e expiration o( t e period re!ardless o( t e (act t at said due date is a "aturda*) "unda* or le!al olida*. In the case at 5ar, altho&gh petitionerEs filing of the motion for extension was within the period provided 5) law, the filing of the petition itself was not on time. $etitioner was granted an additional period of 84 da)s within which to file the petition. ;ec.oned from the original period,

he sho&ld have filed it on %a) 2, -44B. Instead, he did so onl) on %a) 00, -44B, that is, 8 da)s late. Fe find that the CA correctl) r&led that the petition for review was filed o&t of time 5ased on o&r clarification in A.%. "o. 44/-/0+/ C that the 03/da) eGtension period pra)ed for sho&ld 5e tac.ed to the original period and commences immediatel) after the eGpiration of s&ch period.Th&s, co&nting 03 da)s from the eGpiration of the period which was on %a) 0,, -441, the petition filed on N&ne 3, -441 was alread) two da)s late. 7owever, we find the circ&mstances o5taining in this case to merit the li5eral application of the r&le in the interest of 6&stice and fair pla). "ota5l), the petition for review was alread) filed on N&ne 3, -441, which was long 5efore the CA iss&ed its ;esol&tion dated eptem5er -0, -441 dismissing the petition for review for 5eing filed o&t of time. There was no showing that respondent s&ffered an) material in6&r) or his ca&se was pre6&diced 5) reason of s&ch dela). %oreover, the ;TC decision which was so&ght to 5e reversed in the petition for review filed in the CA had affirmed the %TC 6&dgment convicting petitioner of direct assa&lt, hence, the petition involved no less than petitionerHs li5ert). Fe do not find an)thing on record that shows petitionerEs deli5erate intent to dela) the final disposition of the case as he had filed the petition for review within the eGtended period so&ght, altho&gh erroneo&sl) comp&ted. These circ&mstances sho&ld have 5een ta.en into consideration for the CA not to dismiss the petition o&tright. Fe have r&led that 5eing a few da)s late in the filing of the petition for review does not a&tomaticall) warrant the dismissal thereof. And even ass&ming that a petition for review is filed a few da)s late, where strong considerations of s&5stantial 6&stice are manifest in the petition, we ma* relax t e strin!ent application o( tec nical rules in t e exercise o( our e?uit* .urisdiction. Co&rts sho&ld not 5e so strict a5o&t proced&ral lapses that do not reall) impair the proper administration of 6&stice.After all, the higher o56ective of proced&ral r&le is to ins&re that the s&5stantive rights of the parties are protected.@itigations sho&ld, as m&ch as possi5le, 5e decided on the merits and not on technicalities. Ever) part)/litigant m&st 5e afforded ample opport&nit)

for the proper and 6&st determination of his case, free from the &naccepta5le plea of technicalities.

P,-CE&@,07 E,,-, <<< D:ailure to meet t e re?uisitesE D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E D7itisPendenciaE >o 7itis Pendencia3 G.,. >o. 1$F24$ Jul* 20) 2011 GE-,GE 7E->0,& ". @M07E) $etitioner, vs. C0>-G0 P0,B &E2E7-PME>6 C-,P-,06<->) ;espondent. 0>6ECE&E>6" !n Nan&ar) +, -444, the parties entered into a Contract of @ease where5) the petitioner agreed to lease, for a period of two '-( )ears starting from Nan&ar) 0B, -444, an eight h&ndred siGt) '2B4(/ s>&are/meter prime lot located in !rtigasCenter, $asig Cit) owned 5) the respondent. The respondent ac>&ired the s&56ect lot from !rtigasR Co. @td. $artnership thro&gh a Deed of A5sol&te ale, s&56ect to the following conditions: '0( that no shopping arcades or retail stores, resta&rants, etc. shall 5e allowed to 5e esta5lished on the propert), eGcept with the prior written consent from !rtigasR Co. @td. $artnership and '-( that the respondent and=or its s&ccessors/in/ interest shall 5ecome mem5er=s of the !rtigasCenter Association, Inc. '$ssociation(, and shall a5ide 5) its r&les and reg&lations. !n !cto5er 04, -444, 5efore the lease contract eGpired, the respondent filed an &nlawf&l detainer case against the petitioner 5efore the %etropolitan Trial Co&rt '*+C(/*ranch B2, $asig Cit), doc.eted as Civil Case "o. 242+. The respondent &sed as a gro&nd for e6ectment the petitionerHs violation of stip&lations in the lease contract regarding the &se of the propert). 9nder this

contract, the petitioner shall &se the leased lot as a par.ing space for light vehicles and as a site for a small driversH canteen,and ma) not &tilize the s&56ect premises for other p&rposes witho&t the respondentHs prior written consent. The petitioner, however, constr&cted resta&rant 5&ildings and other commercial esta5lishments on the lot, witho&t first sec&ring the re>&ired written consent from the respondent, and the necessar) permits from the Association and the !rtigasR Co. @td. $artnership. The petitioner also s&5leased the propert) to vario&s merchants/tenants in violation of the lease contract. The %TC/*ranch B2 decided the e6ectment case in favor of the respondent. The ;TC/*ranch -B1 granted the petitionerHs motion, there5) reversing and setting aside the %TC/*ranch B2 decision. &urin! t e pendenc* o( t e petition (or review) t e respondent (iled on Ma* 3) 2002 anot er case (or unlaw(ul detainer a!ainst t e petitioner be(ore t e M6C95ranc F1, $asig Cit). The case was doc.eted as Civil Case "o. ,-04.This time, the respondent &sed as a gro&nd for e6ectment the eGpiration of the partiesH lease contract. !n Decem5er +, -44-, the %TC/*ranch 10 rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. !n appeal, the ;TC/*ranch B2 reversed and set aside the decision of the %TC/*ranch 10, on t e !round o( litispendentia. Aggrieved 5) the reversal, the respondent filed a $etition for ;eview &nder ;&le +- of the ;&les of Co&rt with the CA. CA affirmed the decision of %TC/*ranch 10. I 9E:

Fhether or not the case 5e dismissed on the gro&nd of litispendentia. 6AE C-@,6;" ,@7<>G +e disa!ree wit t e petitioner and (ind t at t ere is no litispendentia. As a gro&nd for the dismissal of a civil action, litispendentia refers to a sit&ation where two actions are pending 5etween the same parties for the same ca&se of action, so that one of them 5ecomes &nnecessar) and veGatio&s. ,itispendentia eGists when the following re>&isites are present: identit) of the parties in the two actionsD s&5stantial identit) in the ca&ses of action and in the reliefs so&ght 5) the partiesD and

the identit) 5etween the two actions sho&ld 5e s&ch that an) 6&dgment that ma) 5e rendered in one case, regardless of which part) is s&ccessf&l, wo&ld amo&nt to res judicata in the other. In the present case, the partiesH 5one of contention is whether Civil Case "os. 242+ and ,-04 involve the same ca&se of action. The petitioner arg&es that the ca&ses of action are similar, while the respondent arg&es otherwise. If an identit), or s&5stantial identit), of the ca&ses of action in 5oth cases eGist, then the second complaint for &nlawf&l detainer ma) 5e dismissed on the gro&nd of litispendentia. +e rule t at Civil Case >os. 8084 and /210 involve di((erent causes o( action. <enerall), a s&it ma) onl) 5e instit&ted for a single ca&se of action. If two or more s&its are instit&ted on the 5asis of the same ca&se of action, the filing of one or a 6&dgment on the merits in an) one is gro&nd for the dismissal of the others. everal tests eGist to ascertain whether two s&its relate to a single or common ca&se of action, s&ch as whether the same evidence wo&ld s&pport and s&stain 5oth the first and second ca&ses of action 'also .nown as the Csame evidenceC test(, or whether the defenses in one case ma) 5e &sed to s&5stantiate the complaint in the other. Also f&ndamental is the test of determining w et er t e cause o( action in t e second case existed at t e time o( t e (ilin! o( t e (irst complaint. !f the three tests cited, the third one is especiall) applica5le to the present case, i.e., whether the ca&se of action in the second case eGisted at the time of the filing of the first complaint Q and to which we answer in the negative. Th&s, the ca&se of action in the second case was not )et in eGistence at the time of filing of the first e6ectment case.

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E D7itisPendenciaE G, 18$F30 Jesse Gap) petitioner vs. Court o( 0ppeals) respondent #acts: !n Nan&ar) ,, -44+, petitioner Nesse Aap 'Aap( filed a complaint against respondents Eliza Ch&a 'Ch&a( and Evel)n Te 'Te( with the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of %a.ati Cit) principall) pra)ing for the cancellation or discharge of several chec.s that he drew against his acco&nt with the *an. of the $hilippine Islands '*$I(. AapHs complaint was doc.eted as Civil Case "o. 4+/ 484 and raffled to *ranch BB. Aap alleged that he p&rchased several real properties thro&gh Te, a real estate 5ro.er, and as pa)ment, delivered to her a n&m5er of chec.s either pa)a5le to her, the propert) owners or to the vario&s individ&als who agreed to finance his ac>&isitions. 7e agreed to effect pa)ment in s&ch manner on TeHs claim that this will eGpedite the transfer of the titles in his favor. Armed with the foregoing narration, Ch&a moved for the dismissal of Civil Case "o. 4+/484 on the twin gro&nds of litis pendentia and for&m shopping. Ch&a averred that Aap violated the r&le against for&m shopping when he failed to inform the ;TC of %a.ati Cit) of Civil Case "o. B-8B and the pendenc) of his appeal of the decision rendered therein. The elements of litis pendentia

eGist, and for&m shopping as the logical conse>&ence thereof, considering that the two '-( cases arose from the same set of facts and involve the same parties. Aap &rges this Co&rt to reverse and set aside the CAHs dismissal of his complaint against Ch&a and Te, claiming that he is not g&ilt) of for&m shopping as the alleged eGistence of litis pendentia is 5elied 5) the incompara5le ca&ses of action he and Ch&a advanced in the separate complaints the) initiated against each other. Aap claimed that his pra)er for the cancellation or discharge of the s&56ect chec.s entails a determination of their validit) and on whether a valid consideration eGists for their iss&ance, which is immaterial or irrelevant in determining whether he sho&ld 5e lia5le for the amo&nts that Ch&a released to Te and Dimalanta. I 9E:

Fhether or not the dismissal of the case on the gro&nd of litis pendentia is proper. ;&ling: ,itis pendentia as a gro&nd for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that sit&ation wherein another action is pending 5etween the same parties for the same ca&se of action, s&ch that the second action 5ecomes &nnecessar) and veGatio&s. The &nderl)ing principle of litis pendentia is the theor) that a part) is not allowed to veG another more than once regarding the same s&56ect matter and for the same ca&se of action. This theor) is fo&nded on the p&5lic polic) that the same s&56ect matter sho&ld not 5e the s&56ect of controvers) in co&rts more than once, in order that possi5le conflicting 6&dgments ma) 5e avoided for the sa.e of the sta5ilit) of the rights and stat&s of persons.

The re>&isites of litis pendentia are: 'a( the identit) of parties, or at least s&ch as representing the same interests in 5oth actionsD '5( the identit) of rights asserted and relief pra)ed for, the relief 5eing fo&nded on the same factsD and 'c( the identit) of the two cases s&ch

that

6&dgment

in

one,

regardless of which part) is s&ccessf&l, wo&ld amo&nt to res judicata in the other.BI0BJ This Co&rt ta.es note of the fact that Aap filed his complaint for the ann&lment of the chec.s he iss&ed to Ch&a after he was ad6&dged 5) the ;TC of <eneral antos Cit) lia5le. This stri.es the Co&rt as indicative of his deli5erate and willf&l attempt to render n&gator) and defeat the adverse decision of the ;TC of <eneral antos Cit) and relieve himself of his o5ligation to pa) 5) having the chec.s he iss&ed ann&lled, al5eit the remed) of appeal was availa5le and which he, in fact, resorted to. Ch&aHs complaint is anchored on the amo&nts Aap received from her and the ;TC of <eneral antos Cit) decided in her favor on the strength of the chec.s that Aap iss&ed and endorsed to her. *) see.ing to cancel or discharge s&ch chec.s, Aap attempted to &se the ;TC of %a.ati Cit) to destro) the evidentiar) fo&ndation of the decision of the ;TC of <eneral antos Cit). In doing so, Aap trifled with co&rt processes and eGposed the co&rts to the possi5ilit) of rendering conflicting decisions. Forse, Aap so&ght to accomplish the prohi5ited / a co&rt reversing a decision rendered 5) a co&rt of co/e>&al ran.. Th&s, it matters not that the fact&al findings and concl&sions of law of the ;TC of <eneral antos Cit), the ;TC of %a.ati Cit), the CA and even of this Co&rt ma) conc&r. It is the fact that o&r 6&dicial s)stem is rendered v&lnera5le to s&ch &ncertainties and veGations that an) and all efforts to for&m shop sho&ld 5e treated with aversion.

D6AE C-@,6 &<",EG0,&E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E D7<6<" PE>&E>6<0E G.,. >o. 18401# :ebruar* 8) 2012 "P-@"E" M0,<0>- P. M0,0"<G0> and J-"E:<>0 7E07) $etitioners, vs. CAE2,-> PA<7".) <>C.) 0CC,0 <>2E"6ME>6") C-,P.) and 0>G0,0 05E77C->CEPC<-> ,EG070 I C,@C) ;espondents. 6 e :acts ;ecords disclose po&ses %arasigan were operators of a gasoline station in %ontal5an, ;izal, while Chevron is a corporation engaged in the 5&siness of refining, man&fact&ring, storing, distri5&ting, and mar.eting of f&els, l&5ricants and other petrole&m prod&cts. po&ses %arasigan and Chevron entered into a dealership and distri5&torship agreement wherein the former can p&rchase petrole&m prod&cts from the latter on credit. To complete said agreement, po&ses %arasigan eGec&ted deeds of real estate mortgage over their properties, as collateral, in favor of Chevron. po&ses %arasigan eGceeded their credit line and owed Chevron the amo&nt of $ 0-,413,-B0.4-. po&ses %arasigan failed to pa) the o5ligation despite oral and written demands from Chevron. Th&s, Chevron thro&gh its co&nsel, the Angara A5ello Concepcion ;egala and Cr&z 'ACC;A@AF(, initiated foreclos&re proceedings 5) filing a petition for eGtra6&dicial foreclos&re against the real estate mortgages eGec&ted 5) po&ses %arasigan in favor of Chevron. &5se>&entl), on "ovem5er 1, 0,,3, Chevron filed a complaint 'Civil Case "o. ,3/0B0, for "um o( Mone* entitled CCalteG $hilippines, Inc. v. ps. %ariano $. %arasigan and %areal CorporationC( against po&ses %arasigan 5efore the ;TC, *ranch 08B, %a.ati Cit) ';TCQ %a.ati( to recover the deficienc) in the amo&nt of $ 1,BB1,022.04. Chevron 5asicall) alleged

therein that po&ses %arasiganHs o&tstanding o5ligation as of !cto5er 03, 0,,3 was $ 1,BB1,022.04 and that said o5ligation remained &npaid. In their Answer, po&ses %arasigan mainl) alleged that the) were greatl) pre6&diced 5eca&se the foreclos&re sales on the s&56ect mortgaged properties were illegal and that the 5id price of the %&lana) propert) in partic&lar was shoc.ingl) low Chevron, ACC;AI" and ACC;A@AF then filed their Answer with Comp&lsor) Co&nterclaim alleging, among others, that the foreclos&re sale was cond&cted in accordance with law and that the complaint in Civil Case "o. -++2/< violated the r&le on for&m shopping and litispendentia. ;TC/<&maca rendered a decision in favor of po&ses %arasigan and against Chevron, ACC;AI" and ACC;A@AF. CA rendered a decision reversing and setting aside the ;TC decision. The CA r&led that po&ses %arasigan committed for&m shopping and that all the elements of litispendentia are present. Accordingl), Civil Case "o. -++2/<, filed 5) po&ses %arasigan in the ;TC/<&maca was dismissi5le on the gro&nds of for&m shopping and litispendentia. I 9E:

<;!9"D : T7E CA E;;ED I" ;9@I"< T7AT T7E ;TC/<9%ACA E;;ED F7E" IT DE"IED ;E $!"DE"T H %!TI!" T! DI %I @ITI $E"DE"TIA. !" T7E <;!9"D !# #!;9% 7!$$I"< A"D

;9@I"<: The petition cannot prosper. This Co&rt shall first tac.le the iss&e of whether or not the CA correctl) ordered the dismissal of the complaint in Civil Case "o. -++2/< filed 5) po&ses %arasigan 5efore the ;TC/<&maca on the gro&nds of for&m shopping and litispendentia. impl) p&t, the determinative >&estions in this petition are: '0( is litispendentia presentS and '-( did petitioners violate the r&les on for&m

shoppingS An affirmative answer to these partic&lar >&estions wo&ld necessaril) mean that there wo&ld 5e no need to disc&ss, m&ch less, resolve all the other iss&es raised in this petition. @itispendentia is a @atin term, which literall) means Ca pending s&itC and is vario&sl) referred to in some decisions as lispendens and a&ter action pendant. As a gro&nd for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to the sit&ation where two actions are pending 5etween the same parties for the same ca&se of action, so that one of them 5ecomes &nnecessar) and veGatio&s. It is 5ased on the polic) against m&ltiplicit) of s&its. @itispendentia re>&ires the conc&rrence of the following re>&isites: '0( identit) of parties, or at least s&ch parties as those representing the same interests in 5oth actionsD '-( identit) of rights asserted and reliefs pra)ed for, the reliefs 5eing fo&nded on the same factsD and '8( identit) with respect to the two preceding partic&lars in the two cases, s&ch that an) 6&dgment that ma) 5e rendered in the pending case, regardless of which part) is s&ccessf&l, wo&ld amo&nt to res 6&dicata in the other case. In the case at 5ench, all the re>&isites of litispendentia are present. The first element, identit) of parties, or at least representing the same interest in 5oth actions, eGists. The Co&rt agrees with the r&ling of the CA that Chevron and po&ses %arasigan are the same parties in the ;TC/ %a.ati Case and the ;TC/<&maca Case. 9n>&estiona5l), the plaintiff and the defendants in the ;TC/%a.ati Case are Chevron and po&ses %arasigan as well as %areal Co., Inc., respectivel). !n the other hand, the plaintiffs in the ;TC/<&maca Case are the po&ses %arasigan and the defendants therein are Chevron, ACC;AI" and ACC;A@AF. The a5sence of ACC;AI" and ACC;A@AF as part) plaintiffs in the ;TC/%a.ati case and their additional presence as part) defendants in the ;TC/<&maca case wo&ld not &nfavora5l) affect the respondents 5eca&se the r&le does not re>&ire a5sol&te identit) of parties. 0 substantial identit* o( parties is enou! to >&alif) &nder the first re>&isite. Fhat is important here is that the principal parties Q Chevron and po&ses %arasigan Q are the same in 5oth cases. The Co&rt held: In this case, the first re>&isite, identit) of parties or at least s&ch as represent the same interest in 5oth actions, is present. The Co&rt of Appeals correctl) r&led that the fact that there is no a5sol&te identit) of parties in 5oth cases will not precl&de the application of the r&le of

litispendentia, since onl) s&5stantial and not a5sol&te identit) of parties is re>&ired for litispendentia to lie.

P,-CE&@,07 E,,-, <2 D:ailure in Material &ataE DC-@,6 &<",EG0,&E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E D(ailure to implead proper part*E G.,. >o. 1$0$10 0u!ust 14) 200/ J@&E7<- C-50,,@5<0") $etitioner, vs. PE-P7E -: 6AE PA<7<PP<>E") 6AE A->-,057E C-@,6 -: 0PPE07" "PEC<07 :-,ME, "EC->& &<2<"<->) and A->. 5-><:0C<- "0>C M0CE&0) 0ctin! Jud!e o( t e ,e!ional 6rial Court o( 7as PiMas Cit*) 5ranc 2##) ;espondents. $etitionerHs fail&re to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent not so grave as to warrant dismissal of the petition petitioner rectified his error 5) moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended $etition, impleading the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent. 6 e Case This is a petition for review0 of the ;esol&tions dated 04 %arch -448 and , !cto5er -448 of the Co&rt of Appeals in CA/<.;. $ "o. 1-803. 6 e :acts In 0,,+, petitioner N&delio Co5arr&5ias was charged with #r&strated 7omicide 'Criminal Case "o. ,+/348B(, 7omicide 'Criminal Case "o. ,+/3482(, Violation of ection -B0'K( of the !mni5&s Election Code in relation to ection 8- of ;ep&5lic Act "o. 10BB 'Criminal Case "o. -+/8,-(, and Illegal $ossession of #irearms &nder $residential Decree "o. 02BB 'Criminal Case "o. ,+/3481(. $etitioner pleaded not g&ilt) to all the charges and trial followed. !n -4 %arch -440, $residing N&dge #lorentino %. Al&m5res of the ;egional Trial Co&rt of @as $i?as Cit), *ranch -33 'trial co&rt(, iss&ed an !rder, the dispositive portion of which reads:

F7E;E#!;E, in the light of the foregoing, the Co&rt r&les that the prosec&tion failed to esta5lish the g&ilt of the acc&sed 5e)ond reasona5le do&5t in Criminal Cases "os. ,+/348B and ,+/3481, and these cases are ordered DI %I ED.

Criminal Cases "os. ,+/3482 and -+8,- sho&ld 5e set for f&rther trial. ! !;DE;ED. The prosec&tion did not appeal the trial co&rtHs !rder. !n 3 N&l) -440, petitioner filed with the trial co&rt a %otion for Correction of Clerical Error,alleging that in the dispositive portion of the !rder, Criminal Case "o. ,+/3482 sho&ld have 5een dismissed instead of Criminal Case "o. ,+/ 3481, which sho&ld have 5een the case set for f&rther trial. $etitioner maintained that there was a t)pographical error in the dispositive portion considering that in the 5od) of the !rder, the trial co&rt r&led that the prosec&tion failed to prove 5e)ond reasona5le do&5t the g&ilt of petitioner in the charges for 7omicide and #r&strated 7omicide. !n -B #e5r&ar) -44-, respondent Acting N&dge *onifacio anz %aceda denied the motion, holding that the alleged error was s&5stantial in nat&re which affected the ver) merit of the case. $etitioner moved for reconsideration, which respondent N&dge denied on -8 N&l) -44-. !n -0 A&g&st -44-, petitioner filed with the Co&rt of Appeals a $etition for Certiorari and $rohi5ition with $ra)er for a Temporar) ;estraining !rder or Frit of $reliminar) In6&nction. $etitioner so&ght to set aside the !rders dated -B #e5r&ar) -44- and -8 N&l) -44- of respondent N&dge. !n -8 A&g&st -44-, the Co&rt of Appeals dismissed the petition for fail&re to s&5mit with the petition a clear d&plicate original or a certified tr&e cop) of the assailed !rder dated -8 N&l) -44-, and for fail&re of petitionerHs co&nsel to indicate his c&rrent official receipt n&m5er and date of pa)ment of the c&rrent Integrated *ar of the $hilippines mem5ership d&es, p&rs&ant to C *ar %atter "o. -21 $etitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Co&rt of Appeals granted. In a ;esol&tion dated 00 Decem5er -44-, the Co&rt of Appeals directed petitioner to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent. !n 04 %arch -448, the Co&rt of Appeals dismissed the petition for fail&re of petitioner to compl) with the resol&tion.1 !n 0, %arch -448, petitioner filed an

!mni5&s %otion for ;econsideration and %otion to Admit Amended $etition, which the Co&rt of Appeals dismissed. 7ence, this petition. 6 e <ssues $etitioner contends that: 0. T7E C!9;T !# A$$EA@ C!%%ITTED E;I!9 A"D ;EVE; I*@E E;;!; I" DI %I I"< T7E $ETITI!" !" T7E <;!9"D !# A TEC7"ICA@ITA, DE $ITE T7E $ETITI!"E;H C!%$@IA"CE FIT7 IT ;E !@9TI!" DATED 00 DECE%*E; -44-. -. T7E C!9;T !# A$$EA@ C!%%ITTED E;I!9 ;EVE; I*@E E;;!; I" "!T <IVI"< D9E C!9; E T! T7E $ETITI!" C!" IDE;I"< T7E %E;IT T7E;E!# A"D T7E 9* TA"TIVE ;I<7T !# T7E $ETITI!"E;.

6 e ,ulin! o( t e Court Fe find the petition meritorio&s. The Co&rt of Appeals dismissed the petition for fail&re of petitioner to compl) with the resol&tion directing him to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent .The Co&rt of Appeals held that the petition was prosec&ted manifestl) for dela), which is a gro&nd for dismissal &nder ection 2, ;&le B3 of the ;&les of Co&rt. 7owever, ection B, ;&le 0 of the ;&les of Co&rt also provides that r&les shall 5e li5erall) constr&ed in order to promote their o56ective of sec&ring a 6&st, speed) and ineGpensive disposition of ever) action and proceeding. Th&s, in several cases, the Co&rt has r&led against the dismissal of petitions or appeals 5ased solel) on technicalities especiall) when there was s&5se>&ent s&5stantial compliance with the formal re>&irements. In this case, the Co&rt finds the petitionerHs fail&re to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent not so grave as to warrant dismissal of the petition. After all, petitioner rectified his error 5) moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended $etition, impleading the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent.

In Vda.de%ang&erra v. ;isos, where the petition for certiorari filed with the Co&rt of Appeals failed to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as an indispensa5le part), the Co&rt held: It is &ndisp&ted that in their petition for certiorari 5efore the CA, respondents failed to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as a part) thereto. *eca&se of this, the petition was o5vio&sl) defective. As provided in ection 3, ;&le 004 of the ;evised ;&les of Criminal $roced&re, all criminal actions are prosec&ted &nder the direction and control of the p&5lic prosec&tor. Therefore, it 5ehooved the petitioners 'respondents herein( to implead the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent in the CA case to ena5le the olicitor <eneral to comment on the petition. 7owever, this Co&rt has repeatedl) declared that the fail&re to implead an indispensa5le part) is not a gro&nd for the dismissal of an action. In s&ch a case, the remed) is to implead the non/part) claimed to 5e indispensa5le. $arties ma) 5e added 5) order of the co&rt, on motion of the part) or on its own initiative at an) stage of the action and=or s&ch times as are 6&st. If the petitioner=plaintiff ref&ses to implead an indispensa5le part) despite the order of the co&rt, the latter ma) dismiss the complaint=petition for petitionerHs=plaintiffHs fail&re to compl). In this case, the Co&rt of Appeals sho&ld have granted petitionerHs motion for reconsideration and given d&e co&rse to the petition in view of petitionerHs s&5se>&ent compliance 5) filing an Amended $etition, impleading the $eople of the $hilippines as respondent. Technicalities ma) 5e set aside when the strict and rigid application of the r&les will fr&strate rather than promote 6&stice.

D6AE C-@,6 A->-,E& 6AE P,-CE&@,07 E,,-,E D<mpleadin! o( partiesE G.,. >o. 14$F44 Marc $) 200$ ,-5E,6 G. &E G07<C<0) $etitioner, vs. ME7G ME,C0&-) ;espondent. #ACT : $etitioner ;o5ert <. de <alicia was a 5&siness partner in ;C@ Enterprises. !n or a5o&t Decem5er 03, 0,,1, he was as.ed 5) his partner Carmen Arciaga to co/sign with her a $hil5an. chec. for $34,444 pa)a5le to cash. Allegedl) witho&t his .nowledge and consent, Arciaga redisco&nted the chec. with respondent %el) %ercado at 2V interest. ;espondent gave Arciaga the s&m of $+B,444, representing the val&e of the chec. less 2V as interest. @ater, respondent presented the chec. for pa)ment 5&t it was dishonored for ins&fficienc) of f&nds. he then filed a complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas PambansaBlg. '*$( --against petitioner and Carmen Arciaga. $etitioner co&ntered 5) filing in the ;egional Trial Co&rt ';TC( of %anila, *ranch 8-, a case for the declaration of n&llit) of the agreement to pa) interest 5etween respondent and his partner, Arciaga. 7e pra)ed that the agreement, together with the redisco&nted chec., 5e declared void for 5eing contrar) to p&5lic polic). After trial, the ;TC, in an order dated "ovem5er -0, -444, dismissed petitionerHs case for lac. of 6&risdiction. Even granting in arguendo, that the action see.s to have the agreement 5etween defendant %el) %ercado and one Carmen Arciaga with respect to the pa)ment of interest to 5e declared n&ll and void, this Co&rt is in a >&andar) 5eca&se one of the parties 'Carmen Arciaga( in the so/called agreement is not a part) to the present case. F7E;E#!;E, the assailed !rder 's&pra( IDJismissing this case, I Jtands. The %otion for ;econsideration, for lac. of merit, is here5) DE"IED. $etitioner insisted that the complaint for declaration of n&llit) of the agreement 5etween respondent and Arciaga was within the 6&risdiction of the ;TC. ;espondent, however, contends that the dismissal 5) the ;TC of the complaint was warranted since the action essentiall)

involved the n&llification of the chec. amo&nting to $34,444. he insisted that the amo&nt was o&tside the ;TCHs 6&risdiction, th&s, it co&ld not possi5l) ta.e cognizance of the case. ;espondent added that the ;TC did not err in dismissing the complaint because 0rcia!a) as an indispensable part*) was not impleaded. I 9E.

Fhether or not, the ;TC has 6&risdiction over the complaint filed 5) herein petitionerD and Fhether or not, the co&rt acted with grave a5&se of discretion in dismissing the case on the gro&nd of fail&re to implead an indispensa5le part). ;9@I"<: "evertheless, notwithstanding the ;TCHs 6&risdiction on the s&56ect case, this Co&rt s&stains the dismissal of the s&56ect complaint for its fail&re to implead an indispensa5le part). 9nder ;&le 8, ection 1 of the 0,,1 ;&les of Civil $roced&re, an indispensa5le part) is a part)/ in/interest witho&t whom there can 5e no final determination of an action. The interests of s&ch indispensa5le part) in the s&56ect matter of the s&it and the relief are so 5o&nd with those of the other parties that his legal presence as a part) to the proceeding is an a5sol&te necessit). As a r&le, an indispensa5le part)Hs interest in the s&56ect matter is s&ch that a complete and efficient determination of the e>&ities and rights of the parties is not possi5le if he is not 6oined. 7ere, we hold that Arciaga was an indispensa5le part) to the s&it filed 5) petitioner against respondent. 7er interest in the s&it was intertwined with the rights and interest of 5oth petitioner and respondent. he was as involved in the s&it as petitioner and respondent, 5eing a co/ signator) of the re/disco&nted chec. and 5eing priv) to the assailed agreement. 7ad the s&56ect complaint 5een resolved on the merits, an) 6&dgment made 5) the trial co&rt was going to affect not onl) respondent 5&t Arciaga as well. 9nfort&natel), d&e to the fail&re of petitioner to implead her in the complaint, an) 6&dgment therein co&ld not 5ind her. It was as if the complaint had not 5een filed at all. In $racelona v. Court of $ppeals, the Co&rt held that the 6oinder of all indispensa5le parties m&st 5e made &nder any and all conditions, their presence 5eing a sine -ua non for the eGercise of the

6&dicial power. There, we r&led that when an indispensa5le part) is not 5efore the co&rt, the action sho&ld 5e dismissed.