8/12/2019 case 61-70

1/59

Case no. 61

G.R. No. 145169 May 13, 2004

SIENA REALTY CORPORATION, as rerese!"e# $y LY%IA CO &AO a!# LILI'ET&MANL(GON,petitioner,vs.&ON. LOLITA GAL)LANG, as Pres*#*!+ -#+e o "/e RTC o Ma!*a, 'ra!/ 44 ANITA CO NG *! "r-s"or ROCEELLER NG a!# "/e CO(RT O APPEALS, SPECIAL 13"/ %IISION,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.

Challenged via petition for review on certiorari under Rule ! of the 1""# Revised Rules of Court is theSepte$%er 1&, '((( Resolution of the Court of )ppeals in C.).*+.R. S No. !"("6, Siena Realty Corporation,as represented by Lydia Co Hao and Lilibeth Manlugon v. Hon. Lolita O. Gal-lang, as Presiding Judge o !r."" o the R#C o Manila, and $nita Co %g in trust or Ro&'eeller %g.

Since the petition attri%utes grave a%use of discretion on the part of the Court of )ppeals in the issuance of

su%-ect resolution, what should have %een filed was one for certiorari under Rule 6!. On this score alone, thepetition $ust %e denied due course.

ut even if technicalit/ were set aside, -ust the sa$e the petition fails.

etitioners filed a petition for certiorari %efore the Court of )ppeals on 0une #, '((( or allegedl/ on the 6(thda/ fro$ their receipt of the arch '&, '((( Order of ranch of the anila Regional 2rial Court den/ingtheir $otion for Reconsideration of said court3s Order #*s7*ss*!+, on $otion of private respondent, "/e*ro7a*!".

2he Court of )ppeals, %/ Resolution1of 0une '(, '(((, dis$issed petitioner3s petition for certiorari, however,for %eing filed out of ti$e, it holding that4

er records, it appears that petitioners had onl/ until a/ '", '((( within which to file the etition forCertiorari considering the following4

1. etitioners received a cop/ of the Octo%er '(, 1""" Order den/ing their 5counsel3s Notice of7ithdrawal 5and li8ewise den/ing petitioners3 otion for Reconsideration of the Orderdis$issing their co$plaint on Nove$%er 9, 1""":

'. etitioners filed a $otion for reconsideration of the Octo%er '(, 1""" Order on Nove$%er 1#,1""": and that

&. etitioners received a cop/ of the arch '&, '((( Order den/ing their $otion forreconsideration on )pril 9, '(((.

2he instant petition was filed on 0une #, '((( or nine ;"< da/s late.

2hus, for %eing %elatedl/ filed, the instant petition is here%/ DISISSED.

etitioners thereupon filed ;on 0ul/ 1(, '(((< a $otion for reconsideration'of the a%ove*said 0une '(, '(((Order of the appellate court.In the $eanti$e, this Court issued in ).. No. ((*'*(&*SC ;Regla(entary Period to )ile Petitions or Certiorariand Petition or Revie* on Certiorari< a Resolution dated )ugust 1, '((( approving the a$end$ent to thefollowing provision of Section , Rule 6! of the 1""# Rules of Civil rocedure4

8/12/2019 case 61-70

2/59

SEC2ION . 7here petition filed. = T/e e"*"*o! 7ay $e *e# !o" a"er "/a! s*8"y 60: #ays ro7!o"*e o "/e ;-#+7e!", or#er, reso-"*o! so-+/" "o $e assa*e# *! "/e S-re7e Co-r" or, if itrelates to the acts or o$issions of a lower court or of a corporation, %oard, officer or person, in theRegional 2rial Courte>ercising -urisdiction over the territorial area as defined %/ the Supre$e Court. It$a/ also %e filed in the Court of )ppeals whether or not the sa$e is in aid of its -urisdiction. If itinvolves the acts or o$issions of a ?uasi*-udicial agenc/, and unless otherwise provided %/ law orthese Rules, the petition shall %e filed in and cogni@a%le onl/ %/ the Court of )ppeals.

I "/e e"*"*o!er /a# *e# a 7o"*o! or !e< "r*a or reo!s*#era"*o! a"er !o"*e o sa*# ;-#+7e!",or#er or reso-"*o!, "/e er*o# /ere*! *8e# s/a $e *!"err-"e#. I "/e 7o"*o! *s #e!*e#, "/ea++r*e=e# ar"y 7ay *e "/e e"*"*o! o!e# ro7 !o"*e o s-/ #e!*a. No e8"e!s*o! o "*7e s/a$e +ra!"e# e8e" or "/e 7os" o7e*!+ reaso! a!# *! !o ase "o e8ee# *"ee! 15: #ays.;E$phasis and underscoring supplied > >

Aro$ the argu$ent espoused %/ petitioners3 counsel, it appears that he overloo8ed the provision ofsecond paragraph of Sec. , Rule 6! of the 1""# Rules of Civil rocedure as a$ended per Supre$eCourt Circular dated 0ul/ '1, 1""9, which provides as follows4

BIf the petitioner had filed a $otion for new trial or reconsideration after notice of said -udg$ent,order or resolution, the period herein fi>ed shall %e interrupted. If the $otion is denied, theaggrieved part/ $a/ file the petition within the re$aining period, %ut which shall not %e less than

five ;!< da/s in an/ event, rec8oned fro$ notice of such denial. No e>tension of ti$e shall %egranted e>cept for the $ost co$pelling reason and in no case to e>ceed fifteen ;1!< da/s.B

eril/, the si>t/ ;6(< da/ period within which to file a etition for Certiorari is not counted fro$ the dateof the receipt of the denial of otion for Reconsideration, %ut fro$ the date of the receipt of the?uestioned order or decision, e>cept that such 6(*da/ period is interrupted upon the filing of a otionfor Reconsideration.

7EREAORE, for reason a%ove*stated, the instant $otion is DENIED. Conse?uentl/, the presentetition for Certiorari is DISISSED with finalit/. ;nderscoring supplied

8/12/2019 case 61-70

3/59

ence, the petition at %ar, petitioners challenging the Septe$%er 1&, '((( Resolution of the appellant court ashaving %een

. . . ISSED 7I2 +R)E )SE OA DISCRE2ION )S I2 7)S )DE 7I2O2 2)FIN+ RIOR0DICI)G NO2ICE OA SREE COR2 ).. NO. ((*' * (& SC 7IC RESOG2ION 2OOFEAAEC2 ON SE2EER 1, '(((, )ND 7IC )ENDED 2E SECOND )R)+R) OASEC2ION , RGE 6! OA 2E 1""# RGES OA CIIG ROCEDRE.;nderscoring suppliedecutor/ after the 1!th da/ following petitioners3 receipt thereof.

@&EREORE, the instant petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, here%/ %ENIE%.

SO OR%ERE%.

8/12/2019 case 61-70

4/59

Case no 6'

AIRS2 DIISION

G.R. No. 149B24. A-+-s" 19, 2003

DE)R2EN2 OA ENIRONEN2 AN% NAT(RAL RESO(RCES,rerese!"e# /ere*! $y *"sSere"ary,&E&ERSON T. ALARED,petitioner, vs. %ENR REGION 12 EMPLOYEES,rerese!"e#$y 'AG(I%ALI ARIM,A"*!+ Pres*#e!" o CO(RAGE %ENR Re+*o! 12 C/a"er:,respondents.

% E C I S I O N

YNARES)SANTIAGO, J.

2his is a petition for review assailing the Resolutions dated a/ &1, '((( 51of the Court of )ppeals whichdis$issed the petition for &ertiorari in C)*+.R. S No. !99"6, and its Resolution dated )ugust '(, '((1 5'

which denied the $otion for reconsideration.

2he facts are as follows4

On Nove$%er 1!, 1""", Regional E>ecutive Director of the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and NaturaResources for Region HII, Israel C. +addi, issued a e$orandu$ 5&directing the i$$ediate transfer of theDENR HII Regional Offices fro$ Cota%ato Cit/ to Foronadal ;for$erl/ ar%el

8/12/2019 case 61-70

5/59

Respondents, e$plo/ees of the DENR Region HII who are $e$%ers of the e$plo/ees associationJCOR)+EK, represented %/ their )cting resident, aguindanai ). Fari$, filed with the Regional 2rial Courtof Cota%ato, a petition for nullit/ of orders with pra/er for preli$inar/ in-unction.

On Dece$%er 9, 1""", the trial court issued a te$porar/ restraining order en-oining petitioner fro$i$ple$enting the assailed e$orandu$. 2he dispositive portion of the Order reads4

7EREAORE, defendants DENR Secretar/ )ntonio . Cerilles and Regional E>ecutive Director Israel C.+addi are here%/ ordered to cease and desist fro$ doing the act co$plained of, na$el/, to stop the transfer of

DENR 5Region 1' offices fro$ Cota%ato Cit/ to Forandal ;ar%el>> >>> >>>.

SO ORDERED.5!

etitioner filed a otion for Reconsideration with otion to Dis$iss, raising the following grounds4

I.

2he power to transfer the Regional Office of the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and Natural Resources ;DENR< ise>ecutive in nature.

II.

2he decision to transfer the Regional Office is %ased on E>ecutive Order No. '", which reorgani@ed RegionHII.

III.

2he validit/ of EO '" has %een affir$ed %/ the onora%le Supre$e Court in the Case of Chiong%ian vs.Or%os ;1""!< '! SCR) '!!.

I.

Since the power to reorgani@e the )d$inistrative Regions is E>ecutive in Nature citing Chiong%ian, theonora%le Court has no -urisdiction to entertain this petition.56

On 0anuar/ 1, '(((, the trial court rendered -udg$ent, the dispositive portion of which reads4

CONSE(ENTLY,order is here%/ issued ordering the respondents herein to cease and desist fro$ enforcingtheir e$orandu$ Order dated Nove$%er 1!, 1""" relative to the transfer of the DENR Regional Offices fro$Region 1' to Region 11 at Foronadal, South Cota%ato for %eing %ereft of legal %asis and issued with gravea%use of discretion a$ounting to lac8 or e>cess of -urisdiction on their part, and the/ are further ordered toreturn %ac8 the seat of the DENR Regional Offices 1' to Cota%ato Cit/.

SO OR%ERE%.

5#

etitioner3s $otion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated )pril 1(, '(((. ) petitionfor &ertiorariunder Rule 6! was filed %efore the Court of )ppeals, doc8eted as C)*+.R. S No. !99"6. 2hepetition was dis$issed outright for4 ;1< failure to su%$it a written e>planation wh/ personal service was notdone on the adverse part/: ;'< failure to attach affidavit of service: ;&< failure to indicate the $aterial dateswhen copies of the orders of the lower court were received: ;< failure to attach certified true cop/ of the ordeden/ing petitioner3s $otion for reconsideration: ;!< for i$proper verification, the sa$e %eing %ased onpetitioner3s J8nowledge and %elief,K and ;6< wrong re$ed/ of certiorari under Rule 6! to su%stitute a lostappeal.59

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn8

8/12/2019 case 61-70

6/59

2he $otion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated )ugust '(, '((1. 5"ence, this petition%ased on the following assign$ent of errors4

I

RGES OA ROCEDRE C)N NO2 E SED 2O DEAE)2 2E ENDS OA SS2)N2I)G 0S2ICE

II

2E DECISION OA 2E GO7ER COR2 D)2ED 1 0)N)RL '((( 7IC 7)S )AAIRED IN 2EMES2IONED RESOG2IONS OA 2E COR2 OA )E)GS D)2ED &1 )L '((( )ND '( )+S2 '((1IS )2EN2GL IGGE+)G )ND SOGD E NGGIAIED, CONSIDERIN+ 2)24

). RESONDEN2S )E NO C)SE OA )C2ION )+)INS2 E2I2IONER )S 2EL)E NO RI+2 2O C)SE 2E DENR RE+ION 1' OAAICE 2O RE)IN INCO2))2O CI2L.

. 2E S2)2E DID NO2 +IE I2S CONSEN2 2O E SED.

C. 2E DECISION OA 2E GO7ER COR2 D)2ED 1 0)N)RL '((( IS CON2R)RL2O 2E RGE OA RES2ION OA RE+G)RI2L IN 2E ERAOR)NCE OAOAAICI)G ANC2IONS.

D. IN )NL EEN2, 2E DECISION OA 2E GO7ER COR2 D)2ED 1 0)N)RL '(((IS CON2R)RL 2O 2E GE22ER )ND IN2EN2 OA EHEC2IE ORDER NO. '" )NDREGIC )C2 NO. 6#&.

E. 2E DE2ERIN)2ION OA 2E RORIE2L )ND R)C2IC)GI2L OA 2E2R)NSAER OA RE+ION)G OAAICES IS INEREN2GL EHEC2IE, )ND2EREAORE, NON*0S2ICI)GE.51(

In essence, petitioner argues that the trial court erred in en-oining it fro$ causing the transfer of the DENR

HII Regional Offices, considering that it was done pursuant to DENR )d$inistrative Order ""*1.2he issues to %e resolved in this petition are4 ;1< 7hether D)O*""*1 and the e$orandu$ i$ple$enting

the sa$e were valid: and ;'< 7hether the DENR Secretar/ has the authorit/ to reorgani@e the DENR.

refatoril/, petitioner pra/s for a li%eral application of procedural rules considering the greater interest o-ustice.

2his Court is full/ aware that procedural rules are not to %e si$pl/ disregarded for these prescri%edprocedures ensure an orderl/ and speed/ ad$inistration of -ustice. owever, it is e?uall/ true that litigation isnot $erel/ a ga$e of technicalities. 2i$e and again, courts have %een guided %/ the principle that the rules oprocedure are not to %e applied in a ver/ rigid and technical $anner, as rules of procedure are used onl/ tohelp secure and not to override su%stantial -ustice. 5112hus, if the application of the Rules would tend tofrustrate rather than pro$ote -ustice, it is alwa/s within the power of this Court to suspend the rules, or e>cept

a particular case fro$ its operation. 51'

Despite the presence of procedural flaws, we find it necessar/ to address the issues %ecause of thede$ands of pu%lic interest, including the need for sta%ilit/ in the pu%lic service and the serious i$plications thiscase $a/ cause on the effective ad$inistration of the e>ecutive depart$ent. )lthough no appeal was $adewithin the regle$entar/ period to appeal, nevertheless, the departure fro$ the general rule that thee>traordinar/ writ of certiorari cannot %e a su%stitute for the lost re$ed/ of appeal is -ustified %ecause thee>ecution of the assailed decision would a$ount to an oppressive e>ercise of -udicial authorit/.51&

etitioner $aintains that the assailed D)O*""*1 and the i$ple$enting $e$orandu$ were valid and thathe trial court should have ta8en -udicial notice of Repu%lic )ct No. 6#&, otherwise 8nown as J)n Organic )ctfor the )utono$ous Region in usli$ indanao,K and its i$ple$enting E>ecutive Order '", 51as the lega

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn14

8/12/2019 case 61-70

7/59

%ases for the issuance of the assailed D)O*""*1. oreover, the validit/ of R.). No. 6#& and E.O. '" wereupheld in the case of Chiongbian v. Orbos.51! 2hus, the respondents cannot, %/ $eans of an in-unction, forcethe DENR HII Regional Offices to re$ain in Cota%ato Cit/, as the e>ercise of the authorit/ to transfer the sa$eis e>ecutive in nature.

It is aproposto reiterate the ele$entar/ doctrine of ?ualified political agenc/, thus4

nder this doctrine, which recogni@es the esta%lish$ent of a single e>ecutive, all e>ecutive and ad$inistrativeorgani@ations are ad-uncts of the E>ecutive Depart$ent, the heads of the various e>ecutive depart$ents are

assistants and agents of the Chief E>ecutive, and, e>cept in cases where the Chief E>ecutive is re?uired %/the Constitution or law to act in person or the e>igencies of the situation de$and that he act personall/, the$ultifarious e>ecutive and ad$inistrative functions of the Chief E>ecutive are perfor$ed %/ and through thee>ecutive depart$ents, and the acts of the Secretaries of such depart$ents, perfor$ed and pro$ulgated inthe regular course of %usiness, are, unless disapproved or repro%ated %/ the Chief E>ecutive, presu$ptivel/the acts of the Chief E>ecutive.516

2his doctrine is corollar/ to the control power of the resident as provided for under )rticle II, Section 1#of the 1"9# Constitution, which reads4

Sec. 1#. 2he resident shall have control of all the e>ecutive depart$ents, %ureaus, and offices. e shallensure that the laws %e faithfull/ e>ecuted.

owever, as head of the E>ecutive Depart$ent, the resident cannot %e e>pected to e>ercise his contro;and supervisor/< powers personall/ all the ti$e. e $a/ delegate so$e of his powers to the Ca%ine$e$%ers e>cept when he is re?uired %/ the Constitution to act in person or the e>igencies of the situationde$and that he acts personall/.51#

In !u'lod ng a*aning ! v. /a(ora,519this Court upheld the continuing authorit/ of the resident tocarr/ out the reorgani@ation in an/ %ranch or agenc/ of the e>ecutive depart$ent. Such authorit/ includes thecreation, alteration or a%olition of pu%lic offices.51" 2he Chief E>ecutive3s authorit/ to reorgani@e the Nationa+overn$ent finds %asis in oo8 III, Section '( of E.O. No. '"', otherwise 8nown as the )d$inistrative Code of1"9#, vi04

Section '(. Residual Po*ers. = nless Congress provides otherwise, the resident shall e>ercise such otherpowers and functions vested in the resident which are provided for under the laws and which are notspecificall/ enu$erated a%ove or which are not delegated %/ the resident in accordance with law.

Aurther, in Larin v. 1e&utive Se&retary,5'(this Court had occasion to rule4

2his provision spea8s of such other powers vested in the resident under the law. 7hat law then gives hi$ thepower to reorgani@e It is residential Decree No. 1##' which a$ended residential Decree No. 116. 2hesedecrees e>pressl/ grant the resident of the hilippines the continuing authorit/ to reorgani@e the nationalgovern$ent, which includes the power to group, consolidate %ureaus and agencies, to a%olish offices, totransfer functions, to create and classif/ functions, services and activities and to standardi@e salaries and$aterials. 2he validit/ of these two decrees is un?uestiona%le. 2he 1"9# Constitution clearl/ provides that Jall

laws, decrees, e>ecutive orders, procla$ations, letters of instructions and other e>ecutive issuances notinconsistent with this Constitution shall re$ain operative until a$ended, repealed or revo8ed.K So far, there is/et no law a$ending or repealing said decrees.

)ppl/ing the doctrine of ?ualified political agenc/, the power of the resident to reorgani@e the Nationa+overn$ent $a/ validl/ %e delegated to his ca%inet $e$%ers e>ercising control over a particular e>ecutivedepart$ent. 2hus, in 2O#C Se&retary v. Mabalot,5'1we held that the resident = through his dul/ constitutedpolitical agent and alter ego, the DO2C Secretar/ = $a/ legall/ and validl/ decree the reorgani@ation of theDepart$ent, particularl/ the esta%lish$ent of DO2C*C)R as the G2AR Regional Office at the Cordillera

)d$inistrative Region, with the conco$itant transfer and perfor$ance of pu%lic functions and responsi%ilitiesappurtenant to a regional office of the G2AR.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn21

8/12/2019 case 61-70

8/59

8/12/2019 case 61-70

9/59

It $a/ %e true that the transfer of the offices $a/ not %e ti$el/ considering that4 ;1< there are no %uildings/et to house the regional offices in Foronadal, ;'< the transfer falls on the $onth of Ra$adan, ;&< the childrenof the affected e$plo/ees are alread/ enrolled in schools in Cota%ato Cit/, ;< the Regional Develop$entCouncil was not consulted, and ;!< the Sangguniang anglungsond, through a resolution, re?uested the DENRSecretar/ to reconsider the orders. owever, these concern issues addressed to the wisdo$ of the transferather than to its legalit/. It is %asic in our for$ of govern$ent that the -udiciar/ cannot in?uire into the wisdo$or e>pedienc/ of the acts of the e>ecutive or the legislative depart$ent, 5'for each depart$ent is supre$e andindependent of the others, and each is devoid of authorit/ not onl/ to encroach upon the powers or field ofaction assigned to an/ of the other depart$ent, %ut also to in?uire into or pass upon the advisa%ilit/ or wisdo$

of the acts perfor$ed, $easures ta8en or decisions $ade %/ the other depart$ents. 5'!

2he Supre$e Court should not %e thought of as having %een tas8ed with the aweso$e responsi%ilit/ ofoverseeing the entire %ureaucrac/. nless there is a clear showing of constitutional infir$it/ or grave a%use odiscretion a$ounting to lac8 or e>cess of -urisdiction, the Court3s e>ercise of the -udicial power, pervasive andli$itless it $a/ see$ to %e, still $ust succu$% to the para$ount doctrine of separation of powers. 5'6)fter acareful review of the records of the case, we find that this -urisprudential ele$ent of a%use of discretion has not%een shown to e>ist.

@&EREORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is +R)N2ED. 2he resolutions of the Courof )ppeals in C)*+.R. S No. !99"6 dated a/ &1, '((( and )ugust '(, '((1, as well as the decision dated0anuar/ 1, '((( of the Regional 2rial Court of Cota%ato Cit/, ranch 1!, in Civil Case No &9", areREERSED and SE2 )SIDE. 2he per$anent in-unction, which en-oined the petitioner fro$ enforcing thee$orandu$ Order of the DENR HII Regional E>ecutive Director, is GIA2ED.

SO OR%ERE%.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/149724.htm#_ftn26

8/12/2019 case 61-70

10/59

Case no. 6&

T&IR% %IISION

MACTAN)CE'( INTERNATIONAL +.R. No. 1#6#'AIRPORT A(T&ORITY MCIAA:,

etitioner, resent4

Lnares*Santiago, J. ;Chairpersonpropriation proceedings for the e>pansion and i$prove$ent of the Gahug )irport,5&which wasgranted %/ the Court of Airst Instance ;CAI< of Ce%u Cit/, ranch &, in Civil Case No. R*1991, on Dece$%er

'", 1"61. Su%se?uentl/, however, Gahug airport was ordered closed on Nove$%er '", 1"9",

5

and all itsfunctions and operations were transferred to petitioner CI))5!after its creation in 1""( pursuant to Repu%lic)ct ;R.).< No. 6"!9, otherwise 8nown as the Charter o the Ma&tan-Cebu nternational $irport $uthority.

In its )nswer, petitioner denied the allegations in the co$plaint and %/ wa/ of special and affir$ative

defenses $oved for the dis$issal of the co$plaint. Gi8ewise, defendants Ricardo Inocian, aide Sun andspouses ictor )rcinas and aril/n Dueas filed their separate $otions to dis$iss.

On 0une 1, '((1, the R2C dis$issed the co$plaint on the grounds that the respondents had no cause

of action, and that the action was %arred %/ prescription and laches.56 Respondents filed a $otion foreconsideration which was denied: hence, the/ filed an appeal with the Court of )ppeals which reversed theOrders of the R2C. 2he appellate court held that the co$plaint alleged Julti$ate factsK constituting

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn6

8/12/2019 case 61-70

11/59

respondents3 cause of action: that the respondents cannot %e faulted for not including therein Jevidentiar/facts,K thus causing confusion or dou%t as to the e>istence of a cause of action: and assu$ing the co$plainlac8ed so$e definitive state$ents, the proper re$ed/ for the petitioner and other defendants should have%een a $otion for %ill of particulars, not a $otion to dis$iss. Aurther, the deter$ination of whetherespondents have a right to recover the ownership of the su%-ect properties, or whether their action is %arred%/ prescription or la&hesre?uires evidentiar/ proof which can %e threshed out, not in a $otion to dis$iss, %ut ina full*%lown trial.5# 2he dispositive portion of the Decision reads4

7EREAORE, the assailed orders dated 1 0une '((1 and 1( )ugust '((1, %oth

issued %/ the Regional 2rial Court of Ce%u Cit/, ranch 9 in Civil Case No. CE*'(1', arehere%/ REERSED and SE2 )SIDE. )ccordingl/, we RE)ND the case to the court a ?uo forfurther proceedings. 7e are also directing the R2C of Ce%u Cit/, ranch 9 to REINS2)2E thecase, and to conduct a 2RI)G ON 2E ERI2S and thereafter render a decision.

SO ORDERED.59

etitioner $oved for reconsideration, however, it was denied in a Resolution dated Septe$%er 1'

'((6.5" ence, this petition for review %ased on the following grounds4

2E COR2 OA )E)GS +R)EGL ERRED IN OGDIN+ 2)2 RESONDEN2S )E )C)SE OA )C2ION )+)INS2 E2I2IONER IN CIIG C)SE NO. CE*'(1'.

2E COR2 OA )E)GS +R)EGL ERRED IN NO2 )AAIRIN+ 2E GO7ER COR23SAINDIN+ 2)2 RESONDEN2S )RE +IG2L OA G)CES )ND 2)2 2EIR C)SE OA

)C2ION, IA )NL, )S RESCRIED.51(

Respondents argue that the properties which were e>propriated in connection with the operation ofthe Gahug )irport should %e reconve/ed to the real owners considering that the purpose for which theproperties were e>propriated is no longer relevant in view of the closure of the Gahug )irport.511

) cause of action is an act or o$ission of one part/ in violation of the legal right of the other. Its

ele$ents are the following4 ;1< the legal right of plaintiff: ;'< the correlative o%ligation of the defendant, and ;&propriated in the -udg$entin Civil Case No. R*1991, %ut were ordered %/ the Court to %e reconve/ed to their previous owners %ecausethere was preponderant proof of the e>istence of the right of repurchase. owever, we ?ualified our Decisionin that case, thus4

@e a#/ere "o "/e r*!*es e!-!*a"e# *! !er"a!# *! #actan$Ce%u International&irport &uthorit", a!# #o !o" o=err-e "/e7. Nonetheless the weight of their i$port,particularl/ our ruling as regards the properties of respondent Chiong%ian in Ma&tan-Cebunternational $irport $uthority,$ust %e co$$ensurate to the facts that were esta%lished thereinas distinguished fro$ those e>tant in the case at %ar. Chiong%ian put forth inad$issi%le andinconclusive evidence, while in the instant case we have preponderant proof as found %/ thetrial court of the e>istence of the right of repurchase in favor of petitioners.5'(;E$phasisprovidedpropriated

%ut the pu%lic purpose for which e$inent do$ain was e>ercised no longer su%sist, $ust rest on the character%/ which the titles thereof were ac?uired %/ the govern$ent. If the land is e>propriated for a particular purpose

with the condition that it will %e returned to its for$er owner once that purpose is ended or a%andoned, then thepropert/ shall %e reconve/ed to its for$er owner when the purpose is ter$inated or a%andoned. If, on thecontrar/, the decree of e>propriation gives to the entit/ a fee si$ple title, as in this case, then the land%eco$es the a%solute propert/ of the e>propriator. Non*use of the propert/ for the purpose %/ which it wasac?uired does not have the effect of defeating the title ac?uired in the e>propriation proceedings.5'1

Even assu$ing that respondents have a right to the su%-ect properties %eing the heirs of the allegedreal owner Lsa%el Gi$%aga, the/ still do not have a cause of action against the petitioner %ecause such righthas %een foreclosed %/ prescription, if not %/ la&hes. Respondents failed to ta8e the necessar/ steps within areasona%le period to recover the properties fro$ the parties who caused the alleged fraudulent reconstitutionof titles.

Respondents3 action in the court %elow is one for reconve/ance %ased on fraud co$$itted %/ Isa%eGi$%aga in reconstituting the titles to her na$e. It was filed on 0ul/ 6, 1""", or 34/ears after the trial court inCivil Case No. R*1991 granted the e>propriation, or even longer if we rec8on fro$ the ti$e of the fraudulentreconstitution of titles, which date is not stated in the co$plaint %ut presu$a%l/ %efore the co$plaint fore>propriation was filed %/ C)) on )pril 16, 1"!'.5''

)n action for reconve/ance is a legal re$ed/ granted to a landowner whose propert/ has %eenwrongfull/ or erroneousl/ registered in another3s na$e. 5'&owever, such action $ust %e filed within 56/earsfro$ the issuance of the title since the issuance operates as a constructive notice. 5' 2hus, the cause oaction which respondents $a/ have against the petitioner is definitel/ %arred %/ prescription.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/174672.htm#_ftn24

8/12/2019 case 61-70

13/59

Rule ", Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that when it appears fro$ the pleadings or theevidence on record that the action is alread/ %arred %/ statute of li$itations, the court shall dis$iss theclai$. Aurther, contrar/ to respondents3 clai$ that a co$plaint $a/ not %e dis$issed %ased on prescriptionwithout trial, an allegation of prescription can effectivel/ %e used in a $otion to dis$iss when the co$plaint onits face shows that indeed the action has prescri%ed5'!at the ti$e it was filed.

2hus, in Gi&ano v. Gegato45'6

7e have ruled that trial courts have authorit/ and discretion to dis$iss an action on the ground

of prescription when the partiesQ pleadings or other facts on record show it to %e indeed ti$e*%arred: and it $a/ do so on the %asis of a $otion to dis$iss, or an answer which sets up suchground as an affir$ative defense: or even if the ground is alleged after -udg$ent on the $erits,as in a $otion for reconsideration: or even if the defense has not %een asserted at all, as whereno state$ent thereof is found in the pleadings, or where a defendant has %een declared indefault. 7hat is essential onl/, to repeat, is that the facts de$onstrating the lapse of theprescriptive period, %e otherwise sufficientl/ and satisfactoril/ apparent on the record4 either inthe aver$ents of the plaintiffs co$plaint, or otherwise esta%lished %/ the evidence. 5'#;Citationso$itteded %/ the D)R and allegedl/ %reached %/ appellee. Indeedneither appellant herself Natividad C. Candido nor appellants3 other witness en-a$in Santos ever $entioned

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/syllabus/feb/107493_syl.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/syllabus/feb/107493_syl.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn3

8/12/2019 case 61-70

15/59

in the course of their respective testi$onies the alleged provisional rates fi>ed %/ the D)R. Aor sure, going %/appellants3 evidence it would appear that no such rates were in fact fi>ed %/ the D)R.5

2he appellate court also found that no evidence was introduced to prove the e>penses incurred %/ theparties for planting and harvesting hence the a$ount of the net harvest was never deter$ined. Onl/ thetransfer certificate of title of the propert/ and its corresponding ta> declaration were offered in evidence.

2he $otion of petitioners for reconsideration 5!was $erel/ noted considering that under Sec. . par. ;da$ine thewitness called upon to prove or identif/ it.59) for$al offer is necessar/ since -udges are re?uired to %ase theirfindings of fact and -udg$ent onl/ *and strictl/ * upon the evidence offered %/ the parties at the trial. 5"2o allowa part/ to attach an/ docu$ent to his pleading and then e>pect the court to consider it as evidence $a/ drawunwarranted conse?uences. 2he opposing part/ will %e deprived of his chance to e>a$ine the docu$ent ando%-ect to its ad$issi%ilit/. 2he appellate court will have difficult/ reviewing docu$ents not previousl/scrutini@ed %/ the court %elow. 2he pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion onappeal of docu$entar/ evidence or e>hi%its in the records cannot %e stretched as to include such pleadings ordocu$ents not offered at the hearing of the case.51(

etitioners would insist that we ta8e -udicial notice of the affidavit of petitioner Natividad C. Candido

despite a%sence of an/ for$al offer during the proceedings in the trial court. 2his is futile since this is nota$ong the $atters which the law $andatoril/ re?uires to %e ta8en -udicial notice of:511neither can we consideit of pu%lic 8nowledge, or capa%le of un?uestiona%le de$onstration, or ought to %e 8nown to -udges %ecause oftheir -udicial functions.51'

2he testi$on/ of petitioner Natividad Candido cannot even %e relied upon, to sa/ the least. Muiteinterestingl/, she could not even recall when private respondent first failed to pa/ his rent, if indeed there wasan/ failure on his part to co$pl/ with his o%ligation. She onl/ said that it was so$eti$e in 1"9' or 1"9&, anddid not even 8now precisel/ how $an/ cavans of pala/ were %eing harvested per crop*/ear.

etitioners definitel/ failed to esta%lish their cause of action. 2he/ never proved that respondent Da%ufailed to pa/ his rentals starting 1"9'. Neither were the/ a%le to co$petentl/ confir$ the provisional rate ofrentals allegedl/ fi>ed %/ the tea$ of the inistr/ of )grarian Refor$.

@&EREORE, the petition is DENIED. 2he decision of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. No. S*'!'';C)R< confir$ing the order of the Regional 2rial Court of ataan in Civil Case No. !'" dis$issing theco$plaint is )AAIRED, with costs against petitioners.

SO OR%ERE%.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107493.htm#_edn12

8/12/2019 case 61-70

16/59

Case no. 6!

G.R. No. 1BFF30 -y 14, 200F

ROLE S(PLICO,etitioner,vs.NATIONAL ECONOMIC AN% %EELOPMENT A(T&ORITY, > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *>

R E S O G 2 I O N

REYES, R.T., J.'

nder consideration is the anifestation and otion1dated Octo%er '6, '((# of the Office of the Solicitor+eneral ;OS+< which states4

2he Office of the Solicitor +eneral ;OS+< respectfull/ avers that in an Indorse$ent dated Octo%er ', '((#,theGegal Service of the Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications ;DO2C< has infor$ed it of thehilippine +overn$ent3s decision not to continue with the 2E National road%and Networ8 ro-ect ;see

attach$ent

'

Suplico, petitioner in +.R. No. 1#99&(, filed his Consolidated Repl/ andOpposition,&opposing the afore?uoted OS+ anifestation and otion, arguing that4

66. )side fro$ the fact that the Notes of the eeting etween resident +loria acapagal*)rro/o andChinese resident u 0intao held ' Octo%er '((# were not attached to the '6 Octo%er '((#anifestation and otion = thus depriving petitioners of the opportunit/ to co$$ent thereon = a $ere

ver%all/ re?uested 1st Indorse$ent is not sufficient %asis for the conclusion that the 2E*DO2C NNdeal has %een per$anentl/ scrapped.

6#. Suffice to state, said 1st Indorse$ent is glaringl/ self*serving, especiall/ without the Notes of theeeting etween resident +loria acapagal*)rro/o and Chinese resident u 0intao to support itsallegations or other proof of the supposed decision to cancel the 2E*DO2C NN deal. u%licrespondents can certainl/ do %etter than that.

etitioner Suplico further argues that4

#". )ssu$ing arguendo that so$e aspects of the present etition have %een rendered $oot ;which isvehe$entl/ denied

8/12/2019 case 61-70

17/59

&. Airst of all, the present ad$inistration has never %een 8nown for candor. 2he present ad$inistrationhas a ver/ nast/ ha%it of not 8eeping its word. It sa/s one thing, %ut does another.

. 2his %eing the case, herein petitioners are una%le to %ring the$selves to feel even a %it reassuredthat the govern$ent, in the event that the a%ove*captioned cases are dis$issed, will not %ac8trac8, re*transact, or even resurrect the now infa$ous NN*2E transaction. 2his is especiall/ relevant sincewhat was attached to the OS+3s anifestation and otion was a $ere one ;1< page writtenco$$unication sent %/ the Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications ;DO2C< to the OS+,allegedl/ rela/ing that thehilippine +overn$ent has decided not to continue with the NN pro-ect B> >> due to several reasons and constraints.B

etitioners )I and Sau@ further contend that %ecause of the transcendental i$portance of the issues raised inthe petition, which a$ong others, included the resident3s use of the power to %orrow, i.e., to enter into foreignloan agree$ents, this Court should ta8e cogni@ance of this case despite its apparent $ootness.

On 0anuar/ 1!, '((9, the Court re?uired the OS+ to file respondents3 repl/ to petitioners3 co$$ents on its$anifestation and $otion.

On )pril 19, '((9, the OS+ filed respondents3 repl/, reiterating their position that for a court to e>ercise itspower of ad-udication, there $ust %e an actual case or controvers/ = one which involves a conflict of legal

rights, an assertion of opposite legal clai$s suscepti%le of -udicial resolution: the case $ust not %e $oot oracade$ic or %ased on e>tra*legal or other si$ilar considerations not cogni@a%le %/ a court of -ustice."

Respondents also insist that there is no perfected contract in this case that would pre-udice the govern$ent orpu%lic interest. E>plaining the nature of the NN ro-ect as an e>ecutive agree$ent, respondents stress that itre$ained in the negotiation stage. 2he conditions precedent1(for the agree$ent to %eco$e effective have not/et %een co$plied with.

Respondents further oppose petitioners3 clai$ of the right to infor$ation, which the/ contend is not an a%soluteright. 2he/ contend that the $atters raised concern e>ecutive polic/, a political ?uestion which the -udicial%ranch of govern$ent would generall/ hesitate to pass upon.

On 0ul/ ', '((9, the OS+ filed a Supple$ental anifestation and otion. )ppended to it is the ighlights fro$the Notes of eeting %etween resident +loria acapagal*)rro/o and Chinese resident u 0intao, held in HI0iao +uesthouse, Shanghai, China, on Octo%er ', '((#. In the Notes of eeting, the hilippine +overn$entconve/ed its decision not to continue with the 2E National road%and Networ8 ro-ect due to severalconstraints. 2he sa$e Notes li8ewise contained resident u 0intao3s e>pression of understanding of thehilippine +overn$ent decision.

7e resolve to grant the $otion.

Airstl/, the Court notes the triple petitions to %e for certiorari, prohi%ition and $anda$us, with application forthe issuance of a 2e$porar/ Restraining Order ;2RO< andor reli$inar/ In-unction. 2he individual pra/ers ineach of the three ;&< consolidated petitions are4

+.R. No. 1#99&(

7EREAORE, it is respectfull/ pra/ed of this onora%le Court4

1. pon the filing of this etition, pursuant to the second paragraph of Rule !9, Section ! of the Rulesof Court, issue forthwith an e> parte te$porar/ restraining order en-oining respondents, theirsu%ordinates, agents, representatives and an/ and all persons acting on their %ehalf fro$ pursuing,entering into inde%tedness, dis%ursing funds, and i$ple$enting the 2E*DO2C road%and Deal:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt10

8/12/2019 case 61-70

18/59

'. Co$pel respondents, upon 7rit of anda$us, to forthwith produce and furnish petitioner or hisundersigned counsel a certified true cop/ of the contract or agree$ent covering the NN pro-ect asagreed upon with 2E Corporation:

&. Schedule Oral )rgu$ents in the present case pursuant to Rule " in relation to Section ', Rule !6 ofthe revised Rules of Court: and,

. )nnul and set aside the award of the 2E*DO2C road%and Deal, and co$pel pu%lic respondents toforthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent IC2 contractsand pu%lic %idding for the NN contract.11;E$phasis suppliedecution thereof, is contrar/ to the Constitution, to law and to pu%lic polic/:

. Co$pel pu%lic respondent to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$entof govern$ent infrastructure pro-ects, including pu%lic %idding for said contract to underta8e theconstruction of the national %road%and networ8.1&;E$phasis supplied Suplico vs. National Econo$ic and Develop$ent )uthorit/, represented %/ NED)Secretar/ Ro$ulo G. Neri, and the NED) Invest$ent Coordination Co$$ittee, Depart$ent of 2ransportationand Co$$unications ;DO2C > >

;d< Issue a 2EOR)RL RES2R)ININ+ ORDER, effective i$$ediatel/ and continuing until further ordersfro$ this Court, en-oining the ;i< National Econo$ic and Develop$ent )uthorit/, ;ii< NED)*Invest$entCoordination Co$$ittee, ;iii< Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications, Co$$ission on Infor$ationand Co$$unications 2echnolog/, ;iv< 2eleco$$unications Office, ids and )wards for Infor$ation and

Co$$unications 2echnolog/ Co$$ittee ;IC2

8/12/2019 case 61-70

20/59

SEC2ION 1. 0udicial Notice, when $andator/. = ) court shall ta8e -udicial notice, without introduction ofevidence, of the e>istence and territorial e>tent of states, their political histor/, for$s of govern$ent ands/$%ols of nationalit/, the law of nations, the ad$iralt/ and $ariti$e courts of the world and their seals, thepolitical constitution and histor/ of the hilippines, the official acts of the legislative, e>ecutive and -udicialdepart$ents of the hilippines, the laws of nature, the $easure of ti$e, and the geographical divisions.;E$phasis suppliedecutive %ranch of our govern$ent. It is further provided inthe a%ove*?uoted rule that the court shall ta8e -udicial notice of the foregoing facts without introduction ofevidence. Since we consider the act of cancellation %/ resident acapagal*)rro/o of the proposed 2E*NNro-ect during the $eeting of Octo%er ', '((# with the Chinese resident in China as an official act of thee>ecutive depart$ent, the Court $ust ta8e -udicial notice of such official act without need of evidence.

In David v. acapagal*)rro/o,197e too8 -udicial notice of the announce$ent %/ the Office of the resident%anning all rallies and canceling all per$its for pu%lic asse$%lies following the issuance of residentialrocla$ation No. 1(1# and +eneral Order No. !.

In Estrada v. Desierto,1"the Court also resorted to -udicial notice in resolving the factual ingredient of thepetition.

oreover, under Section ', paragraph ;$< of Rule 1&1 of the Rules of Court, the official dut/ of the e>ecutiveofficials'(of infor$ing this Court of the govern$ent3s decision not to continue with the 2E*NN ro-ect is alsopresu$ed to have %een regularl/ perfor$ed, a%sent proof to the contrar/. Other than petitioner )I3s unsavor/insinuation in its co$$ent, the Court finds no factual or legal %asis to disregard this disputa%le presu$ption inthe present instance.

Conco$itant to its funda$ental tas8 as the ulti$ate citadel of -ustice and legiti$ac/ is the -udiciar/3s role ofstrengthening political sta%ilit/ indispensa%le to progress and national develop$ent. ontificating on issueswhich no longer legiti$atel/ constitute an actual case or controvers/ will do $ore har$ than good to the nationas a whole. 7ise e>ercise of -udicial discretion $ilitates against resolving the acade$ic issues, as petitionerswant this Court to do. 2his is especiall/ true where, as will %e further discussed, the legal issues raised cannot

%e resolved without previousl/ esta%lishing the factual %asis or antecedents.

0udicial power presupposes actual controversies, the ver/ antithesis of $ootness. In the a%sence of actual-usticia%le controversies or disputes, the Court generall/ opts to refrain fro$ deciding $oot issues. 7herethere is no $ore live su%-ect of controvers/, the Court ceases to have a reason to render an/ ruling or $a8ean/ pronounce$ent.

Fapag wala nang %uha/ na 8aso, wala nang dahilan para $agdesis/on ang usgado.

In Repu%lic 2eleco$$unications oldings, Inc. v. Santiago,'1the lone issue tac8led %/ the Court of )ppeals;C)< was whether the Securities Investigation and Clearing Depart$ent ;SICD< and Securities and E>changeCo$$ission ;SEC< en %anc co$$itted reversi%le error in issuing and upholding, respectivel/, the writ of

preli$inar/ in-unction. 2he writ en-oined the e>ecution of the ?uestioned agree$ents %etween Mualco$$, Inc.and Repu%lic 2eleco$$unications oldings, Inc. ;RE2EGCOecution andenforce$ent of the contracts. 2hus, the resolution of whether the i$ple$entation of said agree$ents should%e en-oined %eca$e no longer necessar/.

E?uall/ applica%le to the present case is the Court ruling in the a%ove*cited Repu%lic 2eleco$$unications.2here 7e held, thus4

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt21

8/12/2019 case 61-70

21/59

Indeed, the instant petition, insofar as it assails the Court of )ppeals3 Decision nullif/ing the orders of the SECen %anc and the SICD, has %een rendered $oot and acade$ic. 2o rule, one wa/ or the other, on thecorrectness of the ?uestioned orders of the SEC en %anc and the SICD will %e indulging in a theoreticale>ercise that has no practical worth in view of the supervening event.

2he rule is well*settled that for a court to e>ercise its power of ad-udication, there $ust %e an actual case orcontrovers/ = one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal clai$s suscepti%le of

-udicial resolution: the case $ust not %e $oot or acade$ic or %ased on e>tra*legal or other si$ilarconsiderations not cogni@a%le %/ a court of -ustice. 7here the issue has %eco$e $oot and acade$ic, there isno -usticia%le controvers/, and an ad-udication thereon would %e of no practical use or value as courts do notsit to ad-udicate $ere acade$ic ?uestions to satisf/ scholarl/ interest, however intellectuall/ challenging.

In the ulti$ate anal/sis, petitioners are see8ing the reinstate$ent of the writ of in-unction to prevent theconcerned parties fro$ pushing through with transactions with Mualco$$, Inc. +iven that Mualco$$, Inc. isno longer interested in pursuing the contracts, there is no actual su%stantial relief to which petitioners would %eentitled and which would %e negated %/ the dis$issal of the petition.

2he Court li8ewise finds it unnecessar/ to rule whether the assailed Court of )ppeals3 Decision had the effectof overruling the Court3s Resolution dated '" 0anuar/ 1""", which set aside the 2RO issued %/ the appellatecourt.

) ruling on the $atter practicall/ parta8es of a $ere advisor/ opinion, which falls %e/ond the real$ of -udicialreview. 2he e>ercise of the power of -udicial review is li$ited to actual cases and controversies. Courts haveno authorit/ to pass upon issues through advisor/ opinions or to resolve h/pothetical or feigned pro%le$s.

7hile there were occasions when the Court passed upon issues although supervening events had renderedthose petitions $oot and acade$ic, the instant case does not fall under the e>ceptional cases. In those cases,the Court was persuaded to resolve $oot and acade$ic issues to for$ulate guiding and controllingconstitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of %oth %ench and %ar.

In the case at %ar, the resolution of whether a writ of preli$inar/ in-unction $a/ %e issued to prevent thei$ple$entation of the assailed contracts calls for an appraisal of factual considerations which are peculiar onl/

to the transactions and parties involved in this controvers/. E>cept for the deter$ination of whether petitionersare entitled to a writ of preli$inar/ in-unction which is now $oot, the issues raised in this petition do not call fora clarification of an/ constitutional principle or the interpretation of an/ statutor/ provision.''

Secondl/, even assu$ing that the Court will choose to disregard the foregoing considerations and %rush aside$ootness, the Court cannot co$pletel/ rule on the $erits of the case %ecause the resolution of the threepetitions involves settling factual issues which definitel/ re?uires reception of evidence. 2here is not an iota ofdou%t that this $a/ not %e done %/ this Court in the first instance %ecause, as has %een stated often enough,this Court is not a trier of facts.

)ng pagpapasi/a sa tatlong petis/on a/ nangangailangan ng paglilitis na hindi gawain ng u8u$ang ito.

Respondent 2E, in its Co$$ent in +.R. No. 1#99&(,'&correctl/ pointed out that since petitioner Suplico filedhis petition directl/ with this Court, without prior factual findings $ade %/ an/ lower court, a deter$ination ofpertinent and relevant facts is needed. 2E enu$erated so$e of these factual issues, to wit4

;1< 7hether an e>ecutive agree$ent has %een reached %etween the hilippine and Chinesegovern$ents over the NN ro-ect:

;'< 7hether the 2E Suppl/ Contract was entered into %/ the Repu%lic of the hilippines, through theDO2C, and 2E International pursuant to, and as an integral part of, the e>ecutive agree$ent:

;&< 7hether a loan agree$ent for the NN ro-ect has actuall/ %een e>ecuted:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt23

8/12/2019 case 61-70

22/59

;< 7hether the hilippine govern$ent re?uired that the NN ro-ect %e co$pleted under a uild*Operate*and*2ransfer Sche$e:

;!< 7hether the )I proposal co$plied with the re?uire$ents for an unsolicited proposal under theO2 Gaw:

;6< 7hether the hilippine govern$ent has actuall/ ear$ar8ed pu%lic finds for dis%urse$ent under the2E Suppl/ Contract: and

;#< 7hether the coverage of the NN ro-ect to %e supplied under the 2E Suppl/ Contract is $oree>tensive than that under the )I proposal or such other proposal su%$itted therefor.'

Definitel/, so$e ver/ specific reliefs pra/ed for in %oth +.R. Nos. 1#99&( and 1#"61& re?uire priordeter$ination of facts %efore pertinent legal issues could %e resolved and specific reliefs granted.

In +.R. No. 1#99&(, petitioner see8s to annul and set aside the award of the 2E*DO2C road%and Deal andco$pel pu%lic respondents to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent ofgovern$ent IC2 contracts and pu%lic %idding for the NN contract.

In +.R. No. 1#"61&, petitioners also pra/ that the Court annul and set aside the award of the contract for the

national %road%and networ8 to respondent 2E Corporation, upon the ground that said contract, as well as theprocedures resorted to preparator/ to the e>ecution thereof, is contrar/ to the Constitution, to law and to pu%licpolic/. 2he/ also as8 the Court to co$pel pu%lic respondent to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of lawregarding procure$ent of govern$ent infrastructure pro-ects, including pu%lic %idding for said contract tounderta8e the construction of the national %road%and networ8.

It is si$pl/ i$possi%le for this Court Bto annul and set aside the award of the 2E*DO2C road%and DealBwithout an/ evidence to support a prior factual finding pointing to an/ violation of law that could lead to suchannul$ent order. Aor sure, the Supre$e Court is not the proper venue for this factual $atter to %e threshedout.

2hirdl/, petitioner Suplico in +.R. No. 1#99&( pra/ed that this Court order Bpu%lic respondents to forthwith

co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent IC2 contracts and pu%lic %iddingfor the NN contract.B'!It would %e too presu$ptuous on the part of the Court to su$$aril/ co$pel pu%licrespondents to co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent infrastructurepro-ects without an/ factual %asis or prior deter$ination of ver/ particular violations co$$itted %/ specificgovern$ent officials of the e>ecutive %ranch. Aor the Court to do so would a$ount to a %reach of the nor$s ofco$it/ a$ong co*e?ual %ranches of govern$ent. ) perceived error cannot %e corrected %/ co$$itting anothererror. 7ithout proper evidence, the Court cannot -ust presu$e that the e>ecutive did not co$pl/ withprocure$ent laws. Should the Court allow itself to fall into this trap, it would plainl/ co$$it grave error itself.

agiging 8apangahasan sa u8u$ang ito na pilitin ang $ga pinipetis/on na tu$ali$a sa %atas sapangongontrata ng pa$ahalaan 8ung wala pang pagtiti/a8 o ang8op na e%idensi/a ng nagawang pagla%agdito.

Get it %e clarified that the Senate investigation in aid of legislation cannot %e the %asis of Our decision whichre?uires a -udicial finding of facts.

0ustice )ntonio 2. Carpio ta8es the view that the National road%and Networ8 ro-ect should %e declared nulland void. 2he foregoing threefold reasons would suffice to address the concern of Our estee$ed colleague.

2he Court is, therefore, constrained to dis$iss the petitions and den/ the$ due course %ecause of $ootnessand %ecause their resolution re?uires reception of evidence which cannot %e done in an original petition%rought %efore the Supre$e Court.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_178830_2008.html#fnt25

8/12/2019 case 61-70

23/59

7EREAORE, the petitions are DISISSED. 2he 2e$porar/ Restraining Order issued on Septe$%er 11,'((# is DISSOGED.SO ORDERED.

Case no. 66

G.R. No. 152392 May 26, 2005

EPERTRAEL H TO(RS, INC.,petitioner,

vs.CO(RT O APPEALS a!# OREAN AIRLINES,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CALLEO, SR., J.

efore us is a petition for review on &ertiorari of the Decision1of the Court of )ppeals ;C)< in C)*+.R. S No.61((( dis$issing the petition for &ertiorariand (anda(usfiled %/ E>pertravel and 2ours, Inc. ;E2I

8/12/2019 case 61-70

24/59

E2I filed a $otion for the reconsideration of the Order, contending that it was inappropriate for the court to ta8e-udicial notice of the said teleconference without an/ prior hearing. 2he trial court denied the $otion in itsOrder!dated )ugust 9, '(((.

E2I then filed a petition for &ertiorariand (anda(us, assailing the orders of the R2C. In its co$$ent on thepetition, F)G appended a certificate signed %/ )tt/. )guinaldo dated 0anuar/ 1(, '(((, worded as follows4

SECRE2)RL3SRESIDEN2 )+EN23S CER2IAIC)2E

FNO7 )GG EN L 2ESE RESEN2S4

I, ario ). )guinaldo, of legal age, Ailipino, and dul/ elected and appointed Corporate Secretar/ andResident )gent of FORE)N )IRGINES, a foreign corporation dul/ organi@ed and e>isting under and %/virtue of the laws of the Repu%lic of Forea and also dul/ registered and authori@ed to do %usiness in thehilippines, with office address at +round Aloor, GG la@a uilding, 1' )lfaro St., Salcedo illage,a8ati Cit/, EREL CER2IAL that during a special $eeting of the oard of Directors of theCorporation held on 0une '!, 1""" at which a ?uoru$ was present, the said oard unani$ousl/passed, voted upon and approved the following resolution which is now in full force and effect, to wit4

RESOGED, that ario ). )guinaldo and his law fir$ .). )guinaldo U )ssociates or an/ of its

law/ers are here%/ appointed and authori@ed to ta8e with whatever legal action necessar/ toeffect the collection of the unpaid account of E>pert 2ravel U 2ours. 2he/ are here%/ specificall/authori@ed to prosecute, litigate, defend, sign and e>ecute an/ docu$ent or paper necessar/ tothe filing and prosecution of said clai$ in Court, attend the re*2rial roceedings and enter intoa co$pro$ise agree$ent relative to the a%ove*$entioned clai$.

IN 7I2NESS 7EREOA, I have hereunto affi>ed $/ signature this 1( thda/ of 0anuar/, 1""", in theCit/ of anila, hilippines.

;Sgd.cess of -urisdiction, and the C) erred in considering theaffidavit of the respondent3s general $anager, as well as the Secretar/3sResident )gent3s Certification and theresolution of the %oard of directors contained therein, as proof of co$pliance with the re?uire$ents of Section!, Rule # of the Rules of Court. 2he petitioner also $aintains that the R2C cannot ta8e -udicial notice of thesaid teleconferencewithout prior hearing, nor an/ $otion therefor. 2he petitioner reiterates its su%$ission thatthe teleconference and the resolution adverted to %/ the respondent was a $ere fa%rication.

2he respondent, for its part, avers that the issue of whether $odern technolog/ is used in the field of %usinessis a factual issue: hence, cannot %e raised in a petition for review on &ertiorari under Rule ! of the Rules ofCourt. On the $erits of the petition, it insists that )tt/. )guinaldo, as the resident agent and corporatesecretar/, is authori@ed to sign and e>ecute the certificate of non*foru$ shopping re?uired %/ Section !, Rule #of the Rules of Court, on top of the %oard resolution approved during the teleconference of 0une '!, 1""". 2herespondent insists that Btechnological advances in this ti$e and age are as co$$onplace as da/%rea8.Bence, the courts $a/ ta8e -udicial notice that the hilippine Gong Distance 2elephone Co$pan/, Inc. hadprovided a record of corporate conferences and $eetings through Ai%erNet using fi%er*optic trans$issiontechnolog/, and that such technolog/ facilitates voice and i$age trans$ission with ease: this $a8es constantco$$unication %etween a foreign*%ased office and its hilippine*%ased %ranches faster and easier, allowingfor cost*cutting in ter$s of travel concerns. It points out that even the E*Co$$erce Gaw has recogni@ed this$odern technolog/. 2he respondent posits that the courts are aware of this develop$ent in technolog/: hence,$a/ ta8e -udicial notice thereof without need of hearings. Even if such hearing is re?uired, the re?uire$ent isnevertheless satisfied if a part/ is allowed to file pleadings %/ wa/ of co$$ent or opposition thereto.

In its repl/, the petitioner pointed out that there are no rulings on the $atter of teleconferencing as a $eans ofconducting $eetings of %oard of directors for purposes of passing a resolution: until and after teleconferencingis recogni@ed as a legiti$ate $eans of gathering a ?uoru$ of %oard of directors, such cannot %e ta8en -udicialnotice of %/ the court. It asserts that safeguards $ust first %e set up to prevent an/ $ischief on the pu%lic or toprotect the general pu%lic fro$ an/ possi%le fraud. It further proposes possi%le a$end$ents to the CorporationCode to give recognition to such $anner of %oard $eetings to transact %usiness for the corporation, or otherrelated corporate $atters: until then, the petitioner asserts, teleconferencing cannot %e the su%-ect of -udicialnotice.

2he petitioner further avers that the supposed holding of a special $eeting on 0une '!, 1""" throughteleconferencing where )tt/. )guinaldo was supposedl/ given such an authorit/ is a farce, considering thatthere was no $ention of where it was held, whether in this countr/ or elsewhere. It insists that the CorporationCode re?uires %oard resolutions of corporations to %e su%$itted to the SEC. Even assu$ing that there wassuch a teleconference, it would %e against the provisions of the Corporation Code not to have an/ recordthereof.

2he petitioner insists that the teleconference and resolution adverted to %/ the respondent in its pleadings were

$ere fa%rications foisted %/ the respondent and its counsel on the R2C, the C) and this Court.

2he petition is $eritorious.

Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court provides4

SEC. !. Certii&ation against oru( shopping.; 2he plaintiff or principal part/ shall certif/ under oath inthe co$plaint or other initiator/ pleading asserting a clai$ for relief, or in a sworn certification anne>edthereto and si$ultaneousl/ filed therewith4 ;a< that he has not theretofore co$$enced an/ action orfiled an/ clai$ involving the sa$e issues in an/ court, tri%unal or ?uasi*-udicial agenc/ and, to the %estof his 8nowledge, no such other action or clai$ is pending therein: ;%< if there is such other pendingaction or clai$, a co$plete state$ent of the present status thereof: and ;c< if he should thereafter learn

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt7

8/12/2019 case 61-70

26/59

that the sa$e or si$ilar action or clai$ has %een filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five;!< da/s therefro$ to the court wherein his aforesaid co$plaint or initiator/ pleading has %een filed.

Aailure to co$pl/ with the foregoing re?uire$ents shall not %e cura%le %/ $ere a$end$ent of theco$plaint or other initiator/ pleading %ut shall %e cause for the dis$issal of the case without pre-udice,unless otherwise provided, upon $otion and after hearing. 2he su%$ission of a false certification ornon*co$pliance with an/ of the underta8ings therein shall constitute indirect conte$pt of court, withoutpre-udice to the corresponding ad$inistrative and cri$inal actions. If the acts of the part/ or his counselclearl/ constitute willful and deli%erate foru$ shopping, the sa$e shall %e ground for su$$ar/dis$issal with pre-udice and shall constitute direct conte$pt, as well as a cause for ad$inistrativesanctions.

It is settled that the re?uire$ent to file a certificate of non*foru$ shopping is $andator/9and that the failure toco$pl/ with this re?uire$ent cannot %e e>cused. 2he certification is a peculiar and personal responsi%ilit/ ofthe part/, an assurance given to the court or other tri%unal that there are no other pending cases involving%asicall/ the sa$e parties, issues and causes of action. ence, the certification $ust %e acco$plished %/ thepart/ hi$self %ecause he has actual 8nowledge of whether or not he has initiated si$ilar actions orproceedings in different courts or tri%unals. Even his counsel $a/ %e unaware of such facts."ence, there?uisite certification e>ecuted %/ the plaintiff3s counsel will not suffice.1(

In a case where the plaintiff is a private corporation, the certification $a/ %e signed, for and on %ehalf of thesaid corporation, %/ a specificall/ authori@ed person, including its retained counsel, who has personal8nowledge of the facts re?uired to %e esta%lished %/ the docu$ents. 2he reason was e>plained %/ the Courtin%ational Steel Corporation v. Court o $ppeals,11as follows4

nli8e natural persons, corporations $a/ perfor$ ph/sical actions onl/ through properl/ delegatedindividuals: na$el/, its officers andor agents.

W

2he corporation, such as the petitioner, has no powers e>cept those e>pressl/ conferred on it %/ theCorporation Code and those that are i$plied %/ or are incidental to its e>istence. In turn, a corporation

e>ercises said powers through its %oard of directors andor its dul/*authori@ed officers and agents.h/sical acts, li8e the signing of docu$ents, can %e perfor$ed onl/ %/ natural persons dul/*authori@edfor the purpose %/ corporate %/*laws or %/ specific act of the %oard of directors. B)ll acts within thepowers of a corporation $a/ %e perfor$ed %/ agents of its selection: and e>cept so far as li$itations orrestrictions which $a/ %e i$posed %/ special charter, %/*law, or statutor/ provisions, the sa$e generalprinciples of law which govern the relation of agenc/ for a natural person govern the officer or agent ofa corporation, of whatever status or ran8, in respect to his power to act for the corporation: and agentsonce appointed, or $e$%ers acting in their stead, are su%-ect to the sa$e rules, lia%ilities andincapacities as are agents of individuals and private persons.B

W

W Aor who else 8nows of the circu$stances re?uired in the Certificate %ut its own retained counsel. Itsregular officers, li8e its %oard chair$an and president, $a/ not even 8now the details re?uired therein.

Indeed, the certificate of non*foru$ shopping $a/ %e incorporated in the co$plaint or appended thereto as anintegral part of the co$plaint. 2he rule is that co$pliance with the rule after the filing of the co$plaint, or thedis$issal of a co$plaint %ased on its non*co$pliance with the rule, is i$per$issi%le. owever, in e>ceptionalcircu$stances, the court $a/ allow su%se?uent co$pliance with the rule.1'If the authorit/ of a part/3s counselto e>ecute a certificate of non*foru$ shopping is disputed %/ the adverse part/, the for$er is re?uired to showproof of such authorit/ or representation.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_134468_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_134468_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_134468_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_134468_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt12

8/12/2019 case 61-70

27/59

In this case, the petitioner, as the defendant in the R2C, assailed the authorit/ of )tt/. )guinaldo to e>ecutethe re?uisite verification and certificate of non*foru$ shopping as the resident agent and counsel of therespondent. It was, thus, incu$%ent upon the respondent, as the plaintiff, to allege and esta%lish that )tt/.

)guinaldo had such authorit/ to e>ecute the re?uisite verification and certification for and in its %ehalf. 2herespondent, however, failed to do so.

2he verification and certificate of non*foru$ shopping which was incorporated in the co$plaint and signed %/)tt/. )guinaldo reads4

I, ario ). )guinaldo of legal age, Ailipino, with office address at Suite '1( +edisco Centre, 1!6 ).a%ini cor. . +il Sts., Er$ita, anila, after having sworn to in accordance with law here%/ deposesand sa/4 2)2 *

1. I a$ the Resident )gent and Gegal Counsel of the plaintiff in the a%ove entitled case and havecaused the preparation of the a%ove co$plaint:

'. I have read the co$plaint and that all the allegations contained therein are true and correct %ased onthe records on files:

&. I here%/ further certif/ that I have not co$$enced an/ other action or proceeding involving the sa$e

issues in the Supre$e Court, the Court of )ppeals, or different divisions thereof, or an/ other tri%unal oragenc/. If I su%se?uentl/ learned that a si$ilar action or proceeding has %een filed or is pending %eforethe Supre$e Court, the Court of )ppeals, or different divisions thereof, or an/ tri%unal or agenc/, I willnotif/ the court, tri%unal or agenc/ within five ;!< da/s fro$ such notice8nowledge.

;Sgd.ecute the re?uisite certification against foru$ shopping. nder Section 1'#, in relation toSection 1'9 of the Corporation Code, the authorit/ of the resident agent of a foreign corporation with license todo %usiness in the hilippines is to receive, for and in %ehalf of the foreign corporation, services and other legaprocesses in all actions and other legal proceedings against such corporation, thus4

SEC. 1'#.

8/12/2019 case 61-70

28/59

SEC. 1'9. Resident agent> servi&e o pro&ess. = 2he Securities and E>change Co$$ission shallre?uire as a condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact %usiness in the hilippines %/an/ foreign corporation that such corporation file with the Securities and E>change Co$$ission awritten power of attorne/ designating so$e persons who $ust %e a resident of the hilippines, onwho$ an/ su$$ons and other legal processes $a/ %e served in all actions or other legal proceedingsagainst such corporation, and consenting that service upon such resident agent shall %e ad$itted andheld as valid as if served upon the dul/*authori@ed officers of the foreign corporation as its ho$eoffice.1

nder the law, )tt/. )guinaldo was not specificall/ authori@ed to e>ecute a certificate of non*foru$ shoppingas re?uired %/ Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court. 2his is %ecause while a resident agent $a/ %e aware ofactions filed against his principal ;a foreign corporation doing %usiness in the hilippinesecute the said certification. It atte$pted to show its co$pliance with the rule su%se?uent to the filing of itsco$plaint %/ su%$itting, on arch 6, '(((, a resolution purporting to have %een approved %/ its oard ofDirectors during a teleconference held on 0une '!, 1""", allegedl/ with )tt/. )guinaldo and Su8 F/oo Fi$ inattendance. owever, such atte$pt of the respondent casts verita%le dou%t not onl/ on its clai$ that such ateleconference was held, %ut also on the approval %/ the oard of Directors of the resolution authori@ing )tt/.

)guinaldo to e>ecute the certificate of non*foru$ shopping.

In its )pril 1', '((( Order, the R2C too8 -udicial notice that %ecause of the onset of $odern technolog/,persons in one location $a/ confer with other persons in other places, and, %ased on the said pre$ise,concluded that Su8 F/oo Fi$ and )tt/. )guinaldo had a teleconference with the respondent3s oard ofDirectors in South Forea on 0une '!, 1""". 2he C), li8ewise, gave credence to the respondent3s clai$ thatsuch a teleconference too8 place, as contained in the affidavit of Su8 F/oo Fi$, as well as )tt/. )guinaldo3scertification.

+enerall/ spea8ing, $atters of -udicial notice have three $aterial re?uisites4 ;1< the $atter $ust %e one of

co$$on and general 8nowledge: ;'< it $ust %e well and authoritativel/ settled and not dou%tful or uncertain:and ;&< it $ust %e 8nown to %e within the li$its of the -urisdiction of the court. 2he principal guide indeter$ining what facts $a/ %e assu$ed to %e -udiciall/ 8nown is that of notoriet/. ence, it can %e said that

-udicial notice is li$ited to facts evidenced %/ pu%lic records and facts of general notoriet/.51!oreover, a-udiciall/ noticed fact $ust %e one not su%-ect to a reasona%le dispute in that it is either4 ;1< generall/ 8nownwithin the territorial -urisdiction of the trial court: or ;'< capa%le of accurate and read/ deter$ination %/ resortingto sources whose accurac/ cannot reasona%l/ %e ?uestiona%le.16

2hings of Bco$$on 8nowledge,B of which courts ta8e -udicial $atters co$ing to the 8nowledge of $engenerall/ in the course of the ordinar/ e>periences of life, or the/ $a/ %e $atters which are generall/ accepted%/ $an8ind as true and are capa%le of read/ and un?uestioned de$onstration. 2hus, facts which areuniversall/ 8nown, and which $a/ %e found in enc/clopedias, dictionaries or other pu%lications, are -udiciall/

noticed, provided, the/ are of such universal notoriet/ and so generall/ understood that the/ $a/ %e regardedas for$ing part of the co$$on 8nowledge of ever/ person. )s the co$$on 8nowledge of $an ranges far andwide, a wide variet/ of particular facts have %een -udiciall/ noticed as %eing $atters of co$$on8nowledge. !ut a &ourt &annot ta'e ?udi&ial noti&e o any a&t *hi&h, in part, is dependent on the e1isten&e ornon-e1isten&e o a a&t o *hi&h the &ourt has no &onstru&tive 'no*ledge.1#

In this age of $odern technolog/, the courts $a/ ta8e -udicial notice that %usiness transactions $a/ %e $ade%/ individuals through teleconferencing. 2eleconferencing is interactive group co$$unication ;three or $orepeople in two or $ore locations< through an electronic $ediu$. In general ter$s, teleconferencing can %ringpeople together under one roof even though the/ are separated %/ hundreds of $iles.192his t/pe of groupco$$unication $a/ %e used in a nu$%er of wa/s, and have three %asic t/pes4 ;1< video conferencing *television*li8e co$$unication aug$ented with sound: ;'< co$puter conferencing * printed co$$unication

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt18

8/12/2019 case 61-70

29/59

through 8e/%oard ter$inals, and ;&< audio*conferencing*ver%al co$$unication viathe telephone with optionalcapacit/ for telewriting or telecop/ing.1"

) teleconference represents a uni?ue alternative to face*to*face ;A2A< $eetings. It was first introduced in the1"6(3s with )$erican 2elephone and 2elegraph3s icturephone. )t that ti$e, however, no de$and e>isted forthe new technolog/. 2ravel costs were reasona%le and consu$ers were unwilling to pa/ the $onthl/ servicecharge for using the picturephone, which was regarded as $ore of a novelt/ than as an actual $eans forever/da/ co$$unication.'(In ti$e, people found it advantageous to hold teleconferencing in the course of%usiness and corporate governance, %ecause of the $one/ saved, a$ong other advantages include4

1. eople ;including outside guest spea8ers< who wouldn3t nor$all/ attend a distant A2A $eeting canparticipate.

'. Aollow*up to earlier $eetings can %e done with relative ease and little e>pense.

&. Sociali@ing is $ini$al co$pared to an A2A $eeting: therefore, $eetings are shorter and $oreoriented to the pri$ar/ purpose of the $eeting.

. So$e routine $eetings are $ore effective since one can audio*conference fro$ an/ locatione?uipped with a telephone.

!. Co$$unication %etween the ho$e office and field staffs is $a>i$i@ed.

6. Severe cli$ate andor unrelia%le transportation $a/ necessitate teleconferencing.

#. articipants are generall/ %etter prepared than for A2A $eetings.

9. It is particularl/ satisfactor/ for si$ple pro%le$*solving, infor$ation e>change, and procedural tas8s.

". +roup $e$%ers participate $ore e?uall/ in well*$oderated teleconferences than an A2A $eeting.'1

On the other hand, other private corporations opt not to hold teleconferences %ecause of the followingdisadvantages4

1. 2echnical failures with e?uip$ent, including connections that aren3t $ade.

'. nsatisfactor/ for co$ple> interpersonal co$$unication, such as negotiation or %argaining.

&. I$personal, less eas/ to create an at$osphere of group rapport.

. Gac8 of participant fa$iliarit/ with the e?uip$ent, the $ediu$ itself, and $eeting s8ills.

!. )coustical pro%le$s within the teleconferencing roo$s.

6. Difficult/ in deter$ining participant spea8ing order: fre?uentl/ one person $onopoli@es the $eeting.

#. +reater participant preparation ti$e needed.

9. Infor$al, one*to*one, social interaction not possi%le.''

Indeed, teleconferencing can onl/ facilitate the lin8ing of people: it does not alter the co$ple>it/ of groupco$$unication. )lthough it $a/ %e easier to co$$unicate via teleconferencing, it $a/ also %e easier to$isco$$unicate. 2eleconferencing cannot satisf/ the individual needs of ever/ t/pe of $eeting.'&

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt23

8/12/2019 case 61-70

30/59

In the hilippines, teleconferencing and videoconferencing of $e$%ers of %oard of directors of privatecorporations is a realit/, in light of Repu%lic )ct No. 9#"'. 2he Securities and E>change Co$$ission issuedSEC e$orandu$ Circular No. 1!, on Nove$%er &(, '((1, providing the guidelines to %e co$plied withrelated to such conferences.'2hus, the Court agrees with the R2C that persons in the hilippines $a/ have ateleconference with a group of persons in South Forea relating to %usiness transactions or corporategovernance.

Even given the possi%ilit/ that )tt/. )guinaldo and Su8 F/oo Fi$ participated in a teleconference along withthe respondent3s oard of Directors, the Court is not convinced that one was conducted: even if there had%een one, the Court is not inclined to %elieve that a %oard resolution was dul/ passed specificall/ authori@ing

)tt/. )guinaldo to file the co$plaint and e>ecute the re?uired certification against foru$ shopping.

2he records show that the petitioner filed a $otion to dis$iss the co$plaint on the ground that the respondentfailed to co$pl/ with Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court. 2he respondent opposed the $otion onDece$%er 1, 1""", on its contention that )tt/. )guinaldo, its resident agent, was dul/ authori@ed to sue in its%ehalf. 2he respondent, however, failed to esta%lish its clai$ that )tt/. )guinaldo was its resident agent in thehilippines. Even the identification card'! of )tt/. )guinaldo which the respondent appended to its pleading$erel/ showed that he is the co$pan/ law/er of the respondent3s anila Regional Office.

2he respondent, through )tt/. )guinaldo, announced the holding of the teleconference onl/ during the hearing

of 0anuar/ '9, '(((: )tt/. )guinaldo then pra/ed for ten da/s, or until Ae%ruar/ 9, '(((, within which to su%$itthe %oard resolution purportedl/ authori@ing hi$ to file the co$plaint and e>ecute the re?uired certificationagainst foru$ shopping. 2he court granted the $otion.'62he respondent, however, failed to co$pl/, andinstead pra/ed for 1! $ore da/s to su%$it the said resolution, contending that it was with its $ain office inForea. 2he court granted the $otion per its Order'#dated Ae%ruar/ 11, '(((. 2he respondent again pra/ed foran e>tension within which to su%$it the said resolution, until arch 6, '(((.'9It was on the said date that therespondent su%$itted an affidavit of its general $anager Su8 F/oo Fi$, stating, inter alia, that he and )tt/.

)guinaldo attended the said teleconference on 0une '!, 1""", where the oard of Directors supposedl/approved the following resolution4

RESOGED, that ario ). )guinaldo and his law fir$ .). )guinaldo U )ssociates or an/ of itslaw/ers are here%/ appointed and authori@ed to ta8e with whatever legal action necessar/ to effect the

collection of the unpaid account of E>pert 2ravel U 2ours. 2he/ are here%/ specificall/ authori@ed toprosecute, litigate, defend, sign and e>ecute an/ docu$ent or paper necessar/ to the filing andprosecution of said clai$ in Court, attend the re*trial roceedings and enter into a co$pro$iseagree$ent relative to the a%ove*$entioned clai$.'"

ut then, in the sa$e affidavit, Su8 F/oo Fi$ declared that the respondent Bdo5es not 8eep a written cop/ ofthe aforesaid ResolutionB %ecause no records of %oard resolutions approved during teleconferences were 8ept2his %elied the respondent3s earlier allegation in its Ae%ruar/ 1(, '((( $otion for e>tension of ti$e to su%$itthe ?uestioned resolution that it was in the custod/ of its $ain office in Forea. 2he respondent gave the trialcourt the i$pression that it needed ti$e to secure a cop/ of the resolution 8ept in Forea, onl/ to allege later;viathe affidavit of Su8 F/oo Fi$< that it had no such written cop/. oreover, Su8 F/oo Fi$ stated in hisaffidavit that the resolution was e$%odied in the Secretar/3sResident )gent3s Certificate signed %/ )tt/.

)guinaldo. owever, no such resolution was appended to the said certificate.

2he respondent3s allegation that its %oard of directors conducted a teleconference on 0une '!, 1""" andapproved the said resolution ;with )tt/. )guinaldo in attendance< is incredi%le, given the additional fact that nosuch allegation was $ade in the co$plaint. If the resolution had indeed %een approved on 0une '!, 1""", long%efore the co$plaint was filed, the respondent should have incorporated it in its co$plaint, or at leastappended a cop/ thereof. 2he respondent failed to do so. It was onl/ on 0anuar/ '9, '((( that the respondentclai$ed, for the first ti$e, that there was such a $eeting of the oard of Directors held on 0une '!, 1""": iteven represented to the Court that a cop/ of its resolution was with its $ain office in Forea, onl/ to allege laterthat no written cop/ e>isted. It was onl/ on arch 6, '((( that the respondent alleged, for the first ti$e, thatthe $eeting of the oard of Directors where the resolution was approved was held via teleconference.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_152392_2005.html#fnt29

8/12/2019 case 61-70

31/59

7orse still, it appears that as early as January 56, 5@@@, )tt/. )guinaldo had signed a Secretar/3sResident)gent3s Certificate alleging that the %oard of directors held a tele&oneren&e on June A7, 5@@@. No suchcertificate was appended to the co$plaint, which was filed on Septe$%er 6, 1""". ore i$portantl/, therespondent did not e>plain wh/ the said certificate was signed %/ )