1

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila FIRST DIVISION

ROMEO B. RAMIREZ, G.R. No. _______________ Represented by: Atty-In-Fact A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ

Narciso Luisto A. Ordoña; Petitioner, MeTC-51 Civil Case No. 03-27338 For: Collection of Money & Damages

-Versus –

1. Associate Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO

2. Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG

3. Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES

4. Judge ANGELENE MARY QUIMPO-SALE

5. Judge ALMA CRISPINA C. LACORTE 6. Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA

7. Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO 8. Sheriff III ARNIEL S. APOSTOL, and,

9. CARMEN A. SALVADOR,

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

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI, and

For ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT on the GROUNDS OF

LACK OF JURISDICTION & EXTRINSIC FRAUD

(As provided for under Rule 65 and Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

COMES NOW, PETITIONER’s Representative by himself, and hereby petitions this

Honorable Supreme Court to review on certiorari the October 25, 2005, DECISION,

rendered by the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, in Civil Case

No. 03-27338, for “Collection of Sum of Money & Damages”, (filed by therein Plaintiff, now

herein Respondent Carmen Salvador, vs. therein Defendant, now herein Petitioner

Romeo Ramirez), and likewise, seeks the Annulment of Judgment on further grounds of

Lack of Jurisdiction & Extrinsic fraud, as provided for under Rules 65 and 47 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure.

THE PARTIES

The Parties to this petition are:

PETITIONER’s representative Narciso Luisito A. Ordoña, of legal age, married,

Filipino, with residence at Lot 31, Blk.114, TowerVille 6B, NHA Relocation Site, Bgy. Gaya-

gaya, City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan; who, by virtue of the hereto attached August 8,

2011, Special Power of Attorney (SPA)[Annex-1] and Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court

(MeTC) April 16, 2012. ORDER,[Annex-2] is acting for and in behalf of his Uncle-In-Law,

Defendant-Petitioner Romeo B. Ramirez, who just DIED recently, on April 1, 2015, due to

sudden STROKE / Brain Attack;[Annex-3]

2

The NINE (9) RESPONDENTS are, (1) Retired Court of Appeals (C.A.) 8th Division,

Associate Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO; (2) Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG, Presiding

Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 128, and was formerly the

Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, who rendered

the herein DECISION being assailed; (3) Retired Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, former

Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121; (4) Judge

ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE, Presiding Judge of Quezon City, Regional Trial

Court (RTC) Branch 106, and was formerly the Presiding Judge of Quezon City Metropolitan

Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 32, who instantaneously dismissed the Plaintiff-Respondent’s first

Complaint despite vigorous objection of the Defendant-Petitioner; (5) Judge ALMA

CRISPINA C. LACORTE, Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)

Branch 51, who issued a Writ of Execution prior to an ORDER for the release of such; (6)

Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent, with office

address at Medina Law Office, 3rd

Floor Doña Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza Rizal cor. Gen Luna St.,

Caloocan City;(7) Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, with office address at Suite 402,

JR. Bldg., 1520 Quezon Avenue, South Triangle, Quezon City;(8) Sheriff III ARNIEL S.

APOSTOL, of Caloocan City, MeTC Branch 51; and (9) Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen A.

Salvador, of legal age, Filipino, married and resident of No. 83, Malolos Ave., Bagong Barrio,

Caloocan City, where summons and other court processes may be served upon their

respective addresses.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This Petition for Certiorari seeks a review and annulment of the October 25, 2005

DECISION [Annex-4] of Caloocan City MeTC-branch 51, rendered by its former Presiding

Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, the decreetal portion of which is quoted hereunder as follows;

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

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

follows:

1. To pay the plaintiff the remaining balance of the purchase price in the

amount of Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 220,000.00).

2. To pay the plaintiff the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred

(Php1,500.00) pesos a month, as rentals for the use and occupancy of the

subject lot until the Defendant has fully paid the remaining balance of the

purchase price.

3. To pay the Plaintiff the amount of Php 20,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and

4. To pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Caloocan City, Metro Manila, October 25, 2005.”

(sgd)ELEANOR R. KWONG

Presiding Judge

3

The aforesaid Decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City

and was raffled to Branch 121, presided by Judge Adoracion Angeles who affirmed the

MeTC Decision and dismissed the appeal in its March 30, 2006 Decision [Annex-5]. The

RTC decision was then elevated to the Court of Appeals which upheld and sustained the

same in its January 10, 2007 Decision [Annex-6], CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, through the

ponencia of Justice Renato Dacudao.

However, the Defendant as well as his 3rd Counsel Atty. Ricardo Barba, was not

furnished and did not receive any copy of the C.A.’s January 10, 2007 Decision/Resolution,

thus, neither Motion for Reconsideration was filed, nor elevated the case to the Supreme

Court. Consequently, the assailed Decision became final and executory and was eventually

recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment on February 01, 2007.[Annex-7]

Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan City MeTC-51, now presided by

Judge Alma Crispina Collado-Lacorte, who issued the June 20, 2008 “ORDER” [Annex-8],

granting plaintiff’s Motion for the Execution of judgment.

[In view of that June 20, 2008 “ORDER”, Petitioner would like to raise in

particular, a very significant issue, that PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that June 20,

2008 “ORDER”, granting Plaintiff’s Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution,

there was already a “WRIT OF EXECUTION” dated June 19, 2008 [Annex-9] that

HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???..., by the same trial court’s new Presiding

Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte, herself, ordering Sheriff III Arniel Apostol,

to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment penned by former MTC-51 presiding

Judge Eleanor R. Kwong.]

Thus, by virtue of that June 19, 2008 Writ of Execution, (issued in advance, ahead of

the “ORDER” for the issuance of such), Sheriff III Arniel Apostol, (without even carefully

analyzing and understanding the contents of the Writ of Execution, had even mistakenly

identified Judge Eleanor R. Kwong as the one who issued the Writ of Execution), then and

there, hurriedly prepared a “Sheriff’s Notice / Demand to Pay” [Annex-10] and immediately

served it to Romeo B. Ramirez, demanding the immediate payment of THREE HUNDRED

EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P382,000.00), of which the same is hereby (word for

word using exactly the same format) quoted hereunder for quick and easy reference;

“SHERIFF’S NOTICE/DEMAND TO PAY”

TO: ROMEO B. RAMIREZ Blk 15, Lot 3 C.P. Garcia St. Bonifacio Drive

Pasong Tamo, Quezon City

G R E E T I N G S:

You are hereby notified that by virtue of the Writ of

Execution dated June 19, 2008, issued by the Hon. ELEANOR R. KWONG, former Presiding Judge of this Court in the above- entitled case, copy of which is herewith attached and served

4

upon you, plaintiff thru this office hereby demands that payment of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS(P382,000.00) be made immediately upon receipt of this notice.

You are thereafter adviced to pay the said amount to the undersigned Sheriff so that we may apply the same to the full satisfaction of the Writ of Execution issued in the ins- tant case. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)

Please be guied accordingly.

Caloocan City, Metro Manila.

__________________, 2008

(SGD.) ARNIEL S. APOSTOL Sheriff III

attached: Writ of Execution x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Upon receipt of the Sheriff’s Notice, Petitioner hurriedly contacted his counsel Atty.

Ricardo Barba, just to find out that the latter was already suffering a seriously bad health

condition due to old age and that NO copy of CA Decision was also received by him.

Because of that development, Petitioner having a clear conscience and in good faith,

found it hard and difficult to accept the unfounded decision and injustices that were

deliberately inflicted upon him, thereafter sought again another legal assistance and hired the

services of his 4th Private Lawyer, Atty. Oscar I. Mercado who was recommended to him by

his relative as a more competent and efficient private lawyer who can best represent him in

court and help obtain the true justice the he deserves. Unfortunately, all Manifestations and

Motions for Reconsideration to stop and set aside the “Sheriff’s Notice/Demand to Pay”, and

other legal actions and remedies available under the rules of court, being submitted and filed

by his 4th counsel Atty. Mercado were time and again being “DENIED” by MeTC-51 of

Caloocan City.

Due to the seemingly hopeless and desperate situation and his inability to produce

the huge amount being demanded from him, Ramirez started to experience the feeling of

shyness and timidity not only among his friends, neighbors, and relatives, but more so to his

family particularly to his oldest daughter whose hard earned money from working as OFW in

Japan will be simply lost and gone. Petitioner Ramirez felt extreme embarrassment, deep

worry and fear leading to sleepless nights causing him to suffer serious anxiety and stress,

thus resulting for him to live a daily life suffering from severe headache, loss of appetite and

frequent rise of blood pressure, which extremely affected both of his eyes, thereby requiring

him to undergo series of eye treatment and surgery under Dr. Joel R. Castro, M.D. DBPO, of

Clinica Viras with clinic address at Rm. 201, Doña Consolacion Bldg., Gen. Santos Ave.,

Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City.(as already manifested on pages 5 & 6 of Petitioner’s

August 19, 2011, “Amended Complaint…” submitted and filed at the Office of the

Supreme Court Administrator.)

Left with no more recourse, being financially drained and nothing left except poor

health and deteriorating physical condition, his family brought him to their hometown in

November 14

5

Roxas, Oriental Mindoro to hide away from extreme humiliation and shame, and to hopefully

recuperate from his disconcertment. Unfortunately, the emotional feeling of having been

victimized by the unjust decisions rendered by all the Justices who ruled out against him and

in favor of the real culprit Respondent Carmen Salvador who victoriously emerged despite

deliberately committing the unlawful acts of fraud and deceit, turned out into a horrible

nightmare he couldn’t get through with, that ultimately dragged him into living an

immeasurable worst kind of life full of sorrow, agony and pain which nobody could possibly

imagine.

In the course of time, his hypertensive cardiovascular disease worsened even more

with frequent incidents of blood pressure rising higher. His family decided to bring him back

again here in Manila on the 2nd week of March 2015, but few days later, he suffered stroke

and sudden brain attack. Though he was immediately rushed and confined at the Intensive

Care Unit (ICU) of the New Era General Hospital, yet, Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan

result showed enormous damage in his brain which eventually caused his untimely death on

April 1, 2015, at the age of 69.

Fortunately, being a true Christian and devoted follower of our Lord and Savior Christ

Jesus, his sincere devotion and prayer without ceasing night and day (while still alive in Roxas,

Oriental Mindoro), was finally answered by the Almighty God, the Most High Judge who paved

His way to divinely intervene by anointing a “SERVANT” from this globally proclaimed

“Nation of Servants” as declared to the world on March 27, 2009, by Hong Kong’s author &

award-winning columnist Chip Tsao, which even caused furious anger and irritation not only

to millions of Filipinos around the world but also to Philippine government officials who

demanded public apology both from Hongkong online magazine and the Chinese

writer/journalist who himself remained defiant and unapologetic, thus made him the

Philippines’ public enemy No.1. In fairness to Tsao, perhaps his silence may probably

suggest that he was not aware with what he actually wrote, for being unconscious that it was

not actually his own doing but of an unseen force that only used him as an instrument to write

down a prophecy that has been fulfilled.

Thus, on October 29, 2010, while solitarily celebrating his 50th Golden Birthday, inside

his newly-constructed “room of worship” atop the roof of their rented 2-storey house located

in one of the biggest squatter’s area beside Manila Memorial Park in Sitio Target, Bgy. BF

Homes, Parañaque City, undersigned Petitioner’s representative, popularly known among his

friends and relatives as “Brother LOUIE” was finally blessed and gifted with divine

knowledge and wisdom, to be an instrument of Peace and ADVOCATE of Love, Obedience,

Unity, Integrity & Excellence, (LOUIE), and was subsequently anointed to be the

“SERVANT” tasked to defend and to fight for the constitutional rights of the numerous victims

of injustices, in order that TRUTH, JUSTICE and EQUITY may in the end prevail.

Hence, the hereto attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated August 8, 2011,

executed by Romeo Ramirez, appointing and constituting undersigned “Bro. LOUIE”, to be

6

the former’s legal counsel, representative & Attorney-in-fact, of which the same was officially

noted by the Caloocan City MeTC-51, on its April 16, 2012 “ORDER”.

By virtue of the aforesaid SPA, undersigned Petitioner’s representative, by himself

prepared, submitted and filed through the Office of Supreme Court Administrator, his August

19, 2011, 45-pages Verified “Amended Complaint Against the Unfounded Decision” of

Caloocan City MeTC-51”, which was subsequently given due course and eventually ripened

into an Administrative Matter for Agenda, with OCA -I.P.I. No. 11-3730-RTJ. (Narciso Luisito

A. Ordoña vs. 1) Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, Branch 128, Regional Trial Court [RTC],

Caloocan City; 2) Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale, Branch 106, RTC, Quezon City; 3) Judge

Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Branch 51, RTC, Caloocan City; and 4) Sheriff III Arniel S.

Apostol, Branch 51, Metropolitan Trial Court [MeTC], Caloocan City).

PETITIONER’S PERSONAL STATEMENT

First and foremost, herein Petitioner (Bro. Louie) desires to reiterate and to manifest

what he had previously stated on page 3, of his aforesaid August 19, 2011, AMENDED

COMPLAINT, that he is neither a lawyer nor had been a student of any law school, and

nobody has ever taught him regarding Philippine Laws, Jurisprudence, Statutes and Codes,

as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court.

He is just a 4th year High School graduate, without any formal College education, and

whose means of livelihood and employment to support his family’s (wife & 10 children) daily

financial need for over thirty (30) years is by working as Master CARPENTER, both local and

abroad. It being so, does not necessarily mean, however, that he is no longer capable of

preparing and filing this Petition, which is normally being done only by License Professional

Lawyers who have earned not only diploma, but also Title/Degree, after successfully

completing all academic requirements and subsequently passing the Bar Examination Tests.

His intense FAITH and BELIEF in the Most High Judge, and sincere devotion of

continuously “Seeking the Will of God above everything else”, might have found favor in

the eyes of God who blessed and gifted him with divine knowledge and wisdom from above,

… anointed by the power of the Holy Spirit, …appointed to be the “Servant of the Poor,” …

named as the Philippine “EAGLE King” of Mindanao [ https://youtu.be/hh4CjbSxvgE ],

and is given the task to DEFEND and to FIGHT for the Constitutional RIGHTS of ALL

VICTIMS of injustices, that made him competent (but not perfect), to effectively represent and

proficiently act as the representative, Legal Counsel and Atty-in-Fact of Petitioner Romeo

Ramirez for the preparation, submission and filing of this Petition.

On the other hand, while it may be true that herein Petitioner has been actually gifted

with a divine knowledge and wisdom, yet, his human nature, lack of formal education and

lack of legal practice and actual experiences in the courts of law, (with respect to Judicial

conduct and court processes), might limit his ability to fully comply with the prevailing

requirements set forth under the Rules of Court and Rules of Civil procedure made by men.

7

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

guiding and instructing him on any deficiencies and/or non-compliance whatsoever, that

require corrections, amendments and/or modifications for this instant Petition.

Petitioner, further respectfully seeks the kind indulgence of this Honorable Supreme

Court to bear with him in going over the records of the case for the LAST and FINAL TIME so

that truth and justice may in the end prevail.

With due respect and candor, Petitioner begs this Honorable Supreme Court to give a

final look and glimpse on the overlooked substantial FACTS, ISSUES and material

EVIDENCES that require utmost consideration, which if proven and given credit in the

appreciation and determination of the issue will surely alter the final outcome of the case.

It was just unfortunate that from the time the herein subject Decision became “Final &

Executory” and has been recorded in the “Book of Entries of Judgment,” no one among the

many Private Professional Lawyers who were consulted and offered to be hired (aside from

Atty. Oscar Mercado), became interested anymore to assist Romeo Ramirez in finding a

remedy on how to obtain the “TRUE JUSTICE” that he deserves. Everybody believed that the

case is already closed and nothing more can be done.

Even Lawyers at the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), at DOJ Agencies Bldg, NIA Road

cor., East Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, refused, ignored and failed to provide the needed

assistance being requested from them, despite the October 3, 2011, Indorsement letter of

Atty. Bobby V. Dumlao, CESO III at Malacañang Presidential Action Center[Annex-11], and

the November 22, 2011, Letter of PAO Chief Percida V. Rueda-Acosta [Annex-12], inviting

and promising the Petitioner to be given effective and speedy assistance, yet nothing

happened.

Petitioner was briskly “DENIED” any form of assistance at the PAO-Quezon City

District Office, particularly by PAO-NCR and PAO-Quezon City Officer-in-charge Atty.

EMMANUEL H. DIONES, who merely ignored and delayed the timely processing of his

request. Upon follow-up after months of waiting, Atty. Diones still remained unaware of the

issue, simply said; “ Ano ba kasi itong sinabmit nyo dito, ang kapal-kapal, na

Complaint? Kung ito ay reklamo nyo sa isang kaso na nadesisyonan na at gusto

nyo i-apela, doon kayo dapat pumunta sa Head office ng PAO, meron doon para

sa Special Appealed Cases…, sakop nila ito…, hindi dito!”

Contrary to what Atty. Diones said, Petitioner ended up again being ignored, blamed,

criticized and scolded like little kid by someone who attended to him at the PAO Special

Appealed Cases division, who explicitly said; “eh, wala na ito… , this case already

attain finality, patay na ang kaso nasa archive na kasi na-enter na sa Book of

Judgment. 2007 pa pala, PINAL na ang Desisyon ng KORTE at wala na sa

itinakdang panahon para mai-apela pa ito sa Supreme Court. Wala nang

magagawa pa ang sinuman tungkol diyan. Tanggapin nyo na lang ang pagkatalo

ninyo at huwag na kayo gumawa pa ng kung anu-ano, lalo ka na, (referring to

8

me), hindi ka naman pala abogado, nagmamagaling ka pa, gagastos lang kayo at

maaabala tayo pare-pareho,”

Left with no other choice, Petitioner again earnestly prayed and sought Divine

assistance and guidance from the Most High Judge to intervene and have his August 19,

2011 Amended Complaint, be given due course by the highest Tribunal of our land.

After THREE (3) years of waiting, finally on September 15, 2014, upon inquiry made

by the undersigned at the Office of Court Administrator’s Legal Office, regarding the

update/status of his self-initiated August 19, 2011 “Amended Complaint”, he was informed

and furnished with a “Notice of Resolution”, dated November 18, 2013, [Annex-13] which

is hereby reproduced hereunder, for quick and easy reference;

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

N O T I C E

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November

18, 2013 which reads as follows:

“OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ (Narciso Luisito A. Ordoña vs. Judge Eleanor R.

Kwong, Regional Trial Court, Branch 128, Caloocan City; Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale,

Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City; Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Regional

Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City; and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol, Metropolitan Trial

Court, Branch 51 Caloocan City).- Considering the “amended complaint against the alleged

unfounded decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City in Civil Case

No. 03-27338 ( Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez)” dated August 15, 2011 (with

Enclosures) of Narciso Luisito A. Ordoña against Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary

Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol relative to Civil Case

No. 03-27338, entitled “Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez,” the Court resolves to

NOTE:

(1) the aforesaid amended complaint; and

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

The Court further resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions

of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator in the attached Report

dated August 28, 2013 (Annex A). Accordingly, the instant administrative complaint against

Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte and Sheriff

III Arniel S. Apostol is DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for utter lack of merit.”

BERSAMIN, J., on leave; CARPIO, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1597 dated

November 12, 2013.

Very truly yours,

(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA

Division Clerk of Court

RESOLUTION OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ

November 18, 2013

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

9

With all due respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, but just for clarification and for

the record, Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, is NOT a Presiding Judge of Regional Trial

Court, (RTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City, as stated in the notice of resolution, but she is the new

Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, (MTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City;

In view of the aforesaid Notice of Resolution, Petitioner respectfully concurs with the

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court

Administrator in their August 28, 2013 “REPORT”, accordingly recommending that, “the

instant administrative complaint against the respondent Judges be DISMISSED, on the basis

that the Complaint is judicial in nature; and likewise, with their EVALUATION, that “…the

correctness of a decision cannot be challenged in an administrative complaint against

the judge who rendered it; and that, an administrative complaint is not the proper

remedy where judicial recourse is still available,” of which Evaluation and

Recommendation, was likewise, ADOPTED and APPROVED in the November 18, 2013,

Resolution of the Supreme Court’s First Division.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, as provided

for under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and, Petition for Annulment of

Judgment due to “Lack of Jurisdiction” and “Extrinsic Fraud” as provided for under Rule 47 of

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby submitted and filed as a judicial recourse to

rectify and correct the Judgment in the October 25, 2005 DECISION, that was rendered with

anomaly and partiality by Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51,

penned by its former Presiding Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION

While it may be argued that this Petition for Certiorari is dismissible for being filed out

of time, as provided for under Section 4, Rule 65, Petitioner humbly begs for this Honorable

Supreme Court to kindly consider and take into account the mitigating EVENTS, and

underlying CIRCUMSTANCES previously explained, as well as the vital ISSUES and

essential FACTS which shall be discussed henceforth. In the interest of substantial Justice,

let this Petition be given due course and be acted upon its merit. Furthermore, it has long

been settled already and was held in several cases, that;

“… the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid

technical sense. Rules on procedure are used only to secure, not

override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the

rules is made, then their aim would be defeated.” (Arsenio Reyes Jr.

vs. C.A. et al. G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000)

Howbeit, should this Petition for Review on Certiorari still be found dismissible

for being filed out of time, Petitioner invokes Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure and New Rules of Court, Revised and Approved on October 3, 2000,

which provides TWO (2) VALID GROUNDS for the ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT,

namely;

1.) LACK OF JURISDICTION; and 2.) EXTRINSIC FRAUD

10

It further states that if based on EXTRINSIC FRAUD, the period for filing such action,

is within FOUR (4) YEARS from its discovery (Sec. 3, Rule 47).

It bears stressing then, that this Petition is hinged not only for a review on Certiorari,

but also on the grounds of “Lack of Jurisdiction” and “Extrinsic Fraud”, which were the

primary reasons that prompted herein Petitioner to submit and file to the Office of Supreme

Court Administrator, his December 22, 2010, original “Complaint ….”, and his August 19,

2011 “Amended Complaint….” against the subject Unfounded Decision, henceforth assailed

by this Petition.

Herein Petitioner, barely DISCOVERED some of the numerous EXTRINSIC

FRAUDS that abound in this case while reviewing the voluminous (TWELVE) 12-year

records on file with this case (from year 2000 -2012), after his Entry of Appearance was noted

and approved by Caloocan City MeTC-Branch 51, on its April 16, 2012, “ORDER”.

Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, when herein Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN

SALVADOR concocted again and filed another fallacious and unfounded COMPLAINT for

EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez [Annex-14],

before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 13-

04180-CV, (Carmen A. Salvador, Plaintiff vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, et.,al., Defendants), more

EXTRINSIC FRAUDS were DISCOVERED again by herein Petitioner, which prompted him

to finally file Criminal Cases against Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, before the Quezon

City Prosecutor’s Office, namely;

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

Documents, (Luz G. Ramirez, represented by Atty-in-fact Narciso Luisito A.

Ordoña, Complainant vs. Carmen A. Salvador and Alexander A. Parco,

Respondents),with I.S. No. XV-03-INV-14A-00635.

2.) For the crimes of Falsification of Private Documents; SWINDLING /ESTAFA,

thru Falsification of Public Documents; PERJURY, Giving False Testimony

and Specific Performance with Damages, (Romeo B. Ramirez, Lilibeth R.

Ponce, and Eden G. Mostales, all represented by Atty-In-Fact Narciso Luisito A.

Ordoña, Complainant vs. Carmen A. Salvador, Respondent), submitted and filed

on October 01, 2014, with NPS Docket No. XV-03-INV-14J-9408.

WHEREFORE, from the first time the extrinsic frauds were discovered on April 16,

2012, the reglementary FOUR (4) year period (Sec. 3, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure) within which to file this Petition is up to April 16, 2016, hence, the filing of this

Petition for Annulment of Judgment, not only on the ground of “Lack of Jurisdiction” but also

on the ground of “EXTRINSIC FRAUD” is timely made.

PROPER VENUE OF ACTION

While the Rule on the Annulment of Judgment or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts

asserts that it has to be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former

11

(Sec. 10, Rule 47), and that the Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over

actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts ( Sec. 9(2) of BP 129, The

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980); however, if the ground for ANNULMENT is LACK

OF JURISDICTION, another remedy is CERTIORARI under RULE 65, in which case the

Court of Appeals does not have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction since the SUPREME

COURT also has JURISDICTION.

Be that as it may, and considering that the herein subject Decision, being sought to

be annulled by this instant Petition has already been affirmed, upheld and sustained by both

the appellate Court Caloocan City RTC-121, and the Court of Appeals (CA) Eighth Division,

hence, this Petition for Annulment of Judgment due to LACK OF JURISDICTION and

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI is now being filed at the proper venue, which is the Supreme

Court that holds the over-all jurisdiction above other courts and tribunals.

FACTS OF THE CASE

At the outset, it has to be emphasized that this Petition is predicated on the October

25, 2005 DECISION,rendered by the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch

51, on Civil Case No. 03-27338, for “Collection of Sum of Money and Damages”, filed by

therein Plaintiff, now herein Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, against therein

Defendant and now herein Petitioner ROMEO B. RAMIREZ, represented by his

undersigned Atty.-in-fact NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOÑA, a.k.a. “Bro. Louie”

That subject DECISION, penned by the trial court’s former Presiding Judge

ELEANOR R. KWONG, (now the Presiding Judge of Caloocan City, RTC, Branch-128), was

willfully and maliciously rendered with partiality in favor of RESPONDENT Carmen Salvador

and against PETITIONER Romeo B. Ramirez.

On March 30, 2006, Petitioner thru his 3rd Counsel Atty. Ricardo Barba, appealed the

aforementioned DECISION and was raffled to Regional Trial Court, (RTC) Br-121, Caloocan

City, in which Petitioner raised SIX (6) ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the MeTC erred in not dismissing the case due to forum

shopping.

2. Whether or not the MeTC had jurisdiction to try the case.

3. Whether or not the MeTC erred in holding that the Decision of Quezon

City, RTC-79, in Civil Case No. Q-11138 (penned by Judge Demetrio B.

Macapagal) had already attained finality.

4. Whether or not the MeTc erred in ordering the Plaintiff to pay the

remaining balance of the purchase price.

5. Whether or not the MeTC erred in holding that Defendant is liable to

pay plaintiff monthly rentals of Php 1,500.00 until Defendant has fully

paid the remaining balance of the purchase price.

6. Whether or not the MeTC erred in awarding the Plaintiff the amount of

Php 20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the cost of suit.

Addressing these issues, the Caloocan City RTC-121 ratiocinated, as follows;

12

“xxxxxxx

“After a judicious scrutiny of the evidence and arguments ventilated

by the parties, this Court accordingly rules in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.

“The Court could not sustain defendant-appellant’s theory

that there was forum shopping. While it may be true that at the time

of the filing of the instant case before the court a quo there was

still a similar pending case before the MTC of Quezon City, it is

equally true that plaintiff-appellee had already filed a motion to withdraw

the case before the MTC of Quezon City. The grave evil sought to be

avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two

competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.

(TF Ventures, Inc. vs. Matsura, 431 SCRA 526). Obviously, the rule

against forum shopping could not be applied to plaintiff-appellee

because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo was

not to shop for a favorable judgment.

“The Court also upholds the Bilihan between herein parties.

“Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual

relationship, it is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their

rights and obligations thereunder--- obligations arising from contracts have

the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied

with in good faith. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA

686). Equity demands that a party cannot disown its previous declaration

to the prejudice of the other party who relied reasonably and justifiably on

such declaration. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra).

“A scrutiny of the contract between the parties discloses that the

subject matter of the sale is not only the “HOUSE” but also the “RIGHTS”

over the lot where the house stands. Defendant-appellant could not

therefore claim that the consideration of Php 400,000.00 indicated therein

is absurd.

“The stipulations in the contract relative to the payment of the

consideration are likewise crystal-clear. Defendant-appellant has admitted

not paying the balance of Php 220,000.00. The court a quo was therefore

correct in ordering Defendant-appellant to pay the money pursuant to the

provisions of the agreement.

“The contention that the contract is not valid for being un-notarized

is not tenable. This appears to be a mere afterthought contrived to avoid

the effects of the agreement. It bears stressing that the parties have

already partly executed the contract when defendant-appellant himself

paid the initial payment. The notarization of the contract is not a requisite

for its validity considering that it is merely consensual in character.

“Moreover, paragraph 6 of the contract also provides for the payment

of rentals in case of default in the payment of the balance of the purchase

price. This provision must be correlated with paragraph 2 stating that the

amount of rental is Php1,500.00 monthly.

“Finally, defendant-appellant could not insist on the ownership of

one Wilfredo Torres as the latter’s title has already been nullified, contrary

to defendant-appellant’s assertion that the decision of the RTC of Quezon

City is not yet final as the same is still on appeal. The withdrawal of the

appeal has necessarily resulted to the said judgment ripening into finality.

(underscoring and emphasis supplied)

13

“As for the propriety of the award of attorney’s fees, the Court

upholds the same considering that plaintiff-appellee was compelled to

litigate to protect her rights.

Thus, the RTC concluded with this adjudicative pronouncement;

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is accordingly

rendered DISMISSING the appeal. With costs against defendant-appellant.

“SO ORDERED.

“Caloocan City, March 30, 2006.

(SGD) ADORACION G. ANGELES

“Presiding Judge”

Thereafter, Petitioner by the same 3rd Counsel (Atty. Barba) appealed the RTC

DECISION by way of Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (C.A.). It was assigned

to Ninth (9th) Division, however, a Group Resolution dated January 10, 2007, with CA-G.R.

SP NO. 94866, was issued by the Court of Appeals, Eighth (8th

) Division, which upheld and

sustained the RTC Decision.

[In view of the above circumstances, Petitioner sincerely requests the Honorable

Supreme Court to have a Resolution constituting a Panel of Investigators to conduct

an honest and fair investigation regarding the aforementioned matter, and find out

how the case initially assigned with the 9th Division was eventually transferred to the

8th Division. It has to be emphasized that the country's second highest courts, the

Court of Appeals, had already been embroiled in scandal and controversy, wherein on

August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court, in its bounden duty, constituted a three-person

panel to assist in the investigation of the improprieties of the actions of the Justices of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 (Antonio V. Rosete, et al. v. SEC, et al.);

to determine the culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in

the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to

the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality,

competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.( A.M. No. 08-8-11-

CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP

NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]

Thus, being unaware of the aforesaid C.A. 8th Division’s Group Resolution, neither

Motion for Reconsideration was filed nor elevated the CASE to the Supreme Court, as

previously mentioned, mainly because neither the Defendant nor his 3rd Counsel, Atty.

Ricardo Barba was furnished with a copy or notice of the Court of Appeals, EIGHTH (8TH)

Division’s Group Resolution.

Hence, the October 25, 2005 DECISION rendered by Caloocan City, MTC-51,

became “Final and Executory”, and was eventually, entered and recorded in the “Book of

Entries of Judgment” on February 01, 2007. Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan

City MeTC-51.

14

Then, on June 18, 2008, at 3:05 p.m., Plaintiff by her Counsel Atty. Dayang Preciosa

M. Medina submitted and filed a “Manifestation and Motion” to resolve the Plaintiff’s

pending Motion for Execution of Judgment, dated August 10, 2007.

After only ONE (1) day, the aforesaid Motion was immediately granted by the

Caloocan City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, in an “ORDER”,

dated June 20, 2008, ordering for the issuance of a “Writ of Execution.”

However, as already manifested above (page 3), what is terribly significant to point out

here is that, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that “ORDER”, dated June 20, 2008, ordering

for the issuance of a writ of execution, there was already a “WRIT OF EXECUTION”, dated

June 19, 2008 that HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???????, by the same Caloocan

City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, which was issued to Sheriff III

Arniel Apostol ordering him to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment of former MTC-51

Judge Eleanor R. Kwong.

[ Herein Petitioner is somewhat confused on how was that made possible? Was

it JUST a “SIMPLE MISTAKE”?... a “CLERICAL ERROR” perhaps?... or maybe it was a

“CLEAR-CUT DEMONSTRATION” showing how INCOMPETENT are, the Caloocan City,

MeTC-51’s Ministerial Officers / Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and Judicial

Employees to diligently PERFORM their SWORN DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES in

the administration of Justice?...or, most probably, this is a “CRYSTAL CLEAR

INDICATION” that there are really something FISHY and ANOMALOUS

TRANSACTIONS tainted with IRREGULARITIES, CORRUPTION and ANOMALIES that

are actually “GOING ON,” “TAKING PLACE,” and PROLIFERATING in SOME or MOST,

if not ALL Courts of Justice in the Philippine Judicial System, by which Lawyers,

Clerk of Courts and Presiding Judges are conniving and conspiring with each other to

further their dirty and devious tricks! …particularly in this City of Caloocan which

based from what happened, may even be regarded now as a City of CALOKOHAN…!!!]

It is enormously alarming, shocking, and disgusting to discover that these sorts of

things are actually happening and still proliferating within our very own Judicial System.

Anybody who would assess, evaluate and visualize the foregoing events and circumstances,

using their sound reasoning and impartial interpretation, can easily comprehend and realize

what actually happened at the Calokohan City MeTC-51, by simply reading between the lines

and picturing in mind the factual scenario that might have transpired on those days of June

18, 19 and 20, 2008.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

[ It is again, quite noting to emphasize here a very relevant issue, by which, exactly on

these dates of June 18, 19 & 20, 2008, in the much publicized dispute and charges of

impropriety among the justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) involved in CA-G.R. SP No.

103692 entitled "Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.", was

a very similar anomalous transaction that was taking place, between and among the C.A.

Justices, that resulted to the DISMISSAL from service of the “very notorious” (sic) Associate

Justice Vicente Q. Roxas being found guilty of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of

Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the

15

best interest of the service. The similar events being compared with the same dates are as

follows;

“On June 18, 2008, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of five days or until June

23, 2008 within which to file their consolidated memoranda of authorities and reply to the

comment of the SEC. On June 19, 2008, MERALCO filed an ex-parte manifestation together

with their reply to the comment of the GSIS. Meanwhile, Justice B. L. Reyes asked Atty.

Custodio to report on "what transpired between her and Justice Sabio" when she returned

the cartilla. "Teary-eyed," Atty. Custodio begged off from making a report. Justice Reyes

decided to consult the Presiding Justice "to avoid an ugly confrontation" with the Justices on

the "highly politicized case involving giants of the Philippine society." He explained to the

Presiding Justice his understanding of the relevant IRCA rules and "the actual practice in

similar situations in the past." The Presiding Justice promised to talk with Justice Sabio and,

"for the sake of transparency and future reference," Justice Reyes requested permission to

write an inquiry on the matter.

On the same day, Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasquez a letter calling the

attention of Justice Edgardo P. Cruz ("Justice Cruz"), Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, to

the "dilemma" as to who between him and Justice Sabio should "receive" CA-G.R. SP No.

103692. Justice Reyes posed these questions before the Presiding Justice:

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx………….

On June 20, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez referred the letter of Justice Reyes to Justice

Cruz, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, noting "some urgency involved as the hearing of

the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008." ( A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING

JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v.

Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --x

Going back to the anomalous advance issuance of the Wirt of Execution, (dated June

19, 2008), ahead of the ORDER for the issuance of such, (dated June 20, 2008), it is widely

accepted in every Court of Law and in all investigation processes that a slight variance on

specific DATES and TIMES is very critical and crucial in the determination of ones guilt and in

assessing and evaluating the credibility of one’s testimony. An accused for example who

would testify and claim that he killed “Victim-X” on June 19, 2008, because he merely followed

and obeyed the instruction from a written ORDER given to and received by him on June 20,

2008, or a day after the crime has already been committed by him, is a totally absurd, bizarre

and ridiculous statement, that cannot be given any weight at all, and has to be immediately

stricken out, instead!

The testimony of Sheriff III Apostol, stated and contained in the Sheriff’s

Notice/Demand to Pay, also clearly states the actual DATE of the Writ of Execution…,

“…by virtue of the Writ of Execution dated June 19, 2008…”

But then, that would make someone to ask, how come that a Writ of Execution was

issued on June 19, 2008 considering that Caloocan City MeTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma

Crispina B. Lacorte, only released the “ORDER” for the issuance of such on June 20, 2008??

16

Now, the question is, which of the two (2) judicial documents came out first? The Writ

of Execution, dated June 19, issued to Sheriff Apostol ? Or the ORDER, of Judge Lacorte,

dated June 20 ordering for the issuance of the Writ?

Perhaps, the Writ of Execution itself would provide a vividly clear answer. And,

hereunder reproduced is the Writ of Execution for quick and easy reference;

WRIT OF EXECUTION

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

G R E E T I N G S:

WHEREAS, October 25, 2005, Decision in the above-entitled case was

rendered by this Court,….

xxxx..

“WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007 and on June 18, 2008, a Motion for

Execution and Manifestation and Motion were filed respectively by plaintiff’s

counsel and the Motion for Execution was granted by this Court in its Order

dated June 20, 2008.”

xxxx…

“GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of this Court this 19th of June

2008 at Caloocan City, Metro Manila. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)

(SGD) ALMA CRISPINA B. COLLADO-LACORTE Presiding Judge

NOW, what sort of explanation would justify the enormous error openly

manifested in the conflicting DATES presented above? Perhaps, there could only be

THREE (3) reasonable and realistic justifications;

1. THAT, it was just a simple mistake or clerical error committed by the

Ministerial Officers, Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and Judicial

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

simply overlooked or had failed to SEE because they were ALL BLIND-

folded (similar to the blind-folded Lady Justice symbol in the Philippine

Justice System), while performing their duties, including Judge Lacorte

herself who, likewise, didn’t notice the conflicting dates when she signed

it.

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

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

INCOMPETENT to diligently PERFORM their SWORN DUTIES and

RESPONSIBILITIES in the administration of Justice? …which, perhaps

17

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

that ALL these things were the result of JUDGE ELEANOR KWONG’s

greediness in having numerous records of cases filed in her court , to the

point of even admitting complaint outside her jurisdiction, which she

should rather had dismissed right away, in order to lessen the job of her

court’s personnel.

3. THAT, it is indeed a “CRYSTAL CLEAR INDICATION” pointing to the

REALITY of something FISHY and ANOMALOUS TRANSACTIONS tainted

with IRREGULARITIES and CORRUPTION that are actually “GOING ON,”

“TAKING PLACE,” and PROLIFERATING in SOME or MOST, if not ALL

Courts of Justice in the Philippine Judicial System, …by which corrupt

Lawyers, Clerk of Courts and Presiding Judges are conniving and

conspiring with each other to further their dirty and devious tricks! A

glaring FACT being tolerated by each and every one due to the main

reason AGAIN, that ALL of them are actually performing their respective

sworn DUTIES and RESPONSIBILTIES, but most often failed to do their

jobs honestly, diligently and with accuracy because they have been

BLIND-folded, similar to the existing classical SYMBOL in the Philippine

Judicial System.

Irrefutable and indisputable here is the FACT, that when Petitioner submitted and filed

his numerous Motion to Dismiss due to FORUM-SHOPPING and LACK OF JURISDICTION, it

took almost a YEAR before it was resolved, whereas, on the other hand, when it comes to the

Respondent’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution to implement the Judgment, it

took only ONE (1) DAY for the court to resolve, notwithstanding the FACT that a Writ of

Execution has already been issued in advance.??? WERE THERE NO FAVORITISM,

PREDJUDICE and PARTIALITY IN THAT?

The Supreme Court in its “per curiam” DECISION, on CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692, entitled

“Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.” [A.M. NO. 08-8-11-CA :

September 9, 2008], stated, thus;

“The Judiciary, which is acclaimed as the firmest pillar of our democratic institutions,

is vested by the Constitution with the power to settle disputes between parties and to

determine their rights and obligations under the law. For judicial decisions, which form part

of the law of the land, to be credible instruments in the peaceful and democratic resolution

of conflicts, our courts must be perceived to be and, in fact be, impartial, independent,

competent and just. To accomplish this end, it is imperative that members of the Judiciary

from its highest magistrates to its humblest employees adhere to the strictest code of

ethics and the highest standards of propriety and decorum. Indeed, it is unfortunate that

one of the country's second highest courts, the Court of Appeals, should be presently

embroiled in scandal and controversy. It is this Court's bounden duty to determine the

culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy

and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial

ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in

the performance of official functions.”

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

18

“ISSUES for Arguments / Discussions”

Issue No. 1 : “FORUM SHOPPING”

When Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR filed her Complaint before

the Caloocan City MeTC-51, [Annex-14] on June 17, 2003, “For Collection of Sum of Money

& Damages,” there was still a PENDING, UNRESOLVED CASE of the SAME NATURE and

ISSUE in Quezon City MeTC-32, [Annex-15] docketed as Civil Case No. 29501 “For Specific

Performance with Damages”, which the same Respondent filed on October 30, 2002 against

the same Petitioner Romeo B. Ramirez.

In view of that first complaint filed in Quezon City, Petitioner by his 1st Counsel Atty.

Hilario Quiambao (now deceased) filed his “ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM” on December

10, 2002,. However, instead of commenting on the Defendant’s “Answer with Counterclaim”,

Respondent filed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case” [Annex-16] on June 16,

2003, stating that “she is no longer interested to prosecute the instant case and she now

desires to withdraw the said case”.

On the contrary, immediately on the following day, June 17, 2003, Respondent

hurriedly filed again her readily prepared SIMILAR “COMPLAINT” of the SAME NATURE and

ISSUE, having IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION before the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial

Court (MeTC) Branch 51.

It bears stressing here that the obvious REASON why Respondent filed an “Urgent

Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the Case” in Quezon City, and have another one filed in her

place of residence, was not merely “to change the venue for her case –and against this, no

serious objection can be raised”, (as ruled out by the Court of Appeals on p.10, DECISION,

CA-G.R. SP NO. 94866), of which the same was likewise asserted by the Caloocan City

RTC-121, which declared and gave an opinion that, “the rule against forum shopping could not

be applied to plaintiff-appellee because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo

was not to shop for a favorable judgment.” (p.4, of Caloocan City, RTC-121, DECISION).

On the contrary, Plaintiff-Respondent evidently changed the venue for her case so she can

shop for a favorable judgment, by means of willfully, maliciously and abusively modifying her

COMPLAINT from claiming to be “the OWNER of a certain portion of undivided LOT 799, Piedad

Estate with LRC Record No. 5975,” in her FIRST COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter,

DENIED her OWNERSHIP to the subject LOT and simply “claimed ONLY the OWNERSHIP to a

residential HOUSE which is allegedly erected over the said portion of land,” in her second

complaint filed in Caloocan City.

Thus, it is crystal CLEAR that both Caloocan City RTC-128, and Court of Appeals

8th Division gravely “ERRED” in not sustaining defendant-appellant’s theory that there was

forum shopping, when they issued their rulings, stating that, “the chances that the evil

sought to be prevented or avoided by the rules on forum-shopping would have

transpired by reason of the actions of the respondent in the Quezon City and

later in the Caloocan City, was remote, if not altogether nil…..All the respondent

19

did was to change the venue of her case-and against this, no serious objection

can be raised,” -paragraph 2, page 10, CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, January 10, 2007,

DECISION- (underscoring and emphasis supplied)

[WOW… WHAT A PERFECT PORTRAYAL OF BLIND-folded C.A. JUSTICE Renato Dacudao in the Phil ippine Judicial System!!! Is this the kind of Justice that has been multi-awarded with prestigious awards, such as; Outstanding State Prosecutor,

Ministry of Justice, 1978; Presidential Awardee, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all

over the country, Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration June 9, 1989; Awardee, Best

Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro Memorabilia Commission,

1995; Winner, The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as Outstanding RTC Judge,

Foundation for Judicial Excellence, 1996. ????

DEAF and BLIND??? Mga Bulag na nga ba ang mga nakapwesto sa ating

Judicial System? O sadyang nagbubulag-bulagan lamang?...dahil naka-piring at

may takip ang mga MATA na pati ang mga TENGA ay natakpan na rin kaya pati

mahahalagang TESTIMONYA ay balewala na rin sa kanila.]

Being BLIND-folded Justices, they even FAILED to SEE (or perhaps deliberately

ignored to SEE), that Respondent Carmen Salvador, LIED not only in Quezon City MeTC-

32, in stating that “she is no longer interested to prosecute the instant case and she

now desires to withdraw the said case”, but worst of all, she also LIED before the

Caloocan City MeTC-51, by submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION [Annex-17] that she has

not commenced any other ACTION and that no similar ACTION of the SAME NATURE

and ISSUE is pending with any other tribunal or agency, which is already a CLEAR

VIOLATION of the Rule against Non-Forum Shopping, as provided for under the New

Rules on Civil Procedure.

Unaware of the second Complaint filed in Caloocan City, Petitioner was even caught

in surprise to receive from Caloocan City MeTC-51, a copy of an Urgent Motion to Declare

(him) Defendant (Ramirez) in Default, dated August 25, 2003. Upon receipt of the said

motion, Petitioner immediately submitted and filed in Caloocan City his ANSWER, dated

September 01, 2003 and promptly sought the immediate DISMISSAL of the instant

Complaint filed against him. Petitioner not only pointed out and raised before the Trial

Court that Plaintiff had willfully violated the Rule on Non-FORUM SHOPPING in

submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION, but also raised the ISSUE that Caloocan City has

NO JURISDICTION over the instant Complaint, on the basis that the PROPERTY (LOT

and HOUSE) that was fraudulently sold by the Respondent to Petitioner’s family is located in

Quezon City, hence, only the proper Courts in Quezon City have the JURISDICTION over

the instant Complaint.

On the other side, upon ORDER of the Court in Quezon City, Petitioner by his 1st

Counsel Atty. Hilario Quiambao, on September 01, 2003 submitted and filed his COMMENT

on the Plaintiff’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case, and explicitly stated thereat his

“VIGOROUS OBJECTION” to it, in view of his “ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM”.

20

However, after FIVE (5) months, when Respondent failed to submit and file a REPLY

to the Petitioner’s “vigorous objection” not to grant the Plaintiff’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion

to Withdraw Case in view of his (Ramirez) Answer with Counterclaim, and upon failure of

Ramirez’ Counsel Atty. Quiambao to file within the reglementary period of 15 days, a

Manifestation of his preference for the court to resolve his counterclaim, the Plaintiff’s

Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case was eventually RESOLVED by Quezon City

MeTC-32, in its ORDER, dated February 2, 2004, issued by its Presiding Judge

ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE, granting the DISMISSAL of the Complaint, the

decreetal portion reads;

“The court grants plaintiff’s motion for the dismissal of the

complaint. Despite the opposition of the Defendant, he did not, within

fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, file a

manifestation of his preference for this court to resolve his counterclaim

in this case.

Wherefore, the complaint is ordered dismissed, without

prejudice to the defendant’s filing of a separate action on his

counterclaim.”

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, February 2, 2004.

(SGD) ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE

Presiding Judge

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

(again, another muti-awarded Judge who was recently honored last year by the Judiciary and

was cited on the 23rd anniversary of the Judicial Excellence Awards (JEA), extolling her roles in moving

judicial reform forward and for being diligent in her duties ;??? received the Chief Justice Cayetano

Award for Outstanding Second Level Court Judge, for having “significantly contributed to judicial

reform…???...cited as the Outstanding Trial Court Judge for First Level Courts in 2006, being the

“select few” to have won both excellence awards…???)

…in instantaneously GRANTING the Respondent’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to

Withdraw Case and DISMISSING the case right away, despite Petitioner’s VIGOROUS

OBJECTION to it in view of his “ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM”, and her Court’s failure to

notify or direct the Petitioner to file his Manifestation of preference to resolve his Counterclaim,

if such is still needed, is tantamount to neglect of duty and is not in accordance with the

CANONS of the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. “What was the point of filing again

another separate action on the Counterclaim?” Why go through long processes again of

filing a separate action for the Petitioner’s counterclaim? The case is already within her court

and it was just a matter of resolving the Petitioner’s Counterclaim and the case could have

been ended already.

Quite noting here is the FACT, that when Petitioner received the Plaintiff’s Urgent Ex-

Parte Motion to dismiss, he immediately submitted and filed his ”COMMENT” with

“VIGOROUS OBJECTION” to the said Motion in view of his “COUNTERCLAIM”. WAS IT NOT

21

THEN A SUFFICIENT MANIFESTATION OF HIS PREFERENCE TO RESOLVE HIS

COUNTERCLAIM?

It might be safe to say and assume therefore, that Judge Quimpo-Sale’s ACTION on

instantaneously granting the Respondent’s MOTION to Dismiss, is a clear manifestation of her

being influenced only by someone to DISMISS the Complaint within her jurisdiction in order

that the second complaint filed by the Respondent in Caloocan City can prosper and be

brought to a full-blown trial…thus, Judge Quimpo-Sale’s unwarranted decision paved the way

for the second complaint filed in Caloocan City to be somewhat justified “as if it had

substantially complied with the Rules on forum shopping” as stated by the baseless ruling of

Judge Kwong. Was this one of the reasons or criteria for a Judge like Judge Quimpo-Sale to

be conferred with a “Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award for Outstanding Second-

Level Court Judge”?... another crystal clear indication that even in Quezon City MTC and

up to the Court of Appeals Tribunal, perhaps MOST if not ALL Judges are also BLIND-

folded…. who cannot clearly SEE or maybe deliberately refused to SEE…???

If so, “How can we ORDINARY, yet PEACEFUL and LAW-ABIDING Filipino Citizens of

the Republic of the Philippines obtain TRUE JUSTICE then…???”

Hence, Judge Quimpo-Sale’s award-winning “VERDICT” in instantaneously granting

the Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Case despite the Defendant’s vigorous objection to it in view

of the latter’s Answer with Counterclaim, resulted into Caloocan City MTC-51 Presiding Judge

Eleanor R. Kwong to pave a way and acquire jurisdiction over it, and found good reason to

DENY the Petitioner ’s MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO FORUM SHOPPING, by coming up

with her own shallow, unsound and untenable ruling that the Respondent ’s action in

submitting an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw case, which was eventually granted, will

suffice her substantial compliance of non-forum shopping. ???

As previously stated above, starting on September 01, 2003, when Petitioner first

raised the ISSUE of FORUM SHOPPING in his ANSWER; and was then pointed out and

repeatedly raised it over and over again, on October 03, 2003 in the Defendant’s

COMMENT, to the Plaintiff’s Urgent Motion to Declare Defendant in Default; on November

19, 2003, in the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping; and finally, on June

24, 2004 in yet another Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping filed by

Defendant’s 2nd Counsel Atty. Regidor Pablo Pablo, Jr., who bluntly quoted the Supreme

Court’s pronouncement on the Rule on Forum Shopping in the case of “Prubankers

Association vs. Prudential Bank and Trust Company, 302 SCRA 74”, and stated, thus;

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

the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the Court on January 11,

1983, which imposed a sanction in this wise: “A violation of the rule

shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the

summary DISMISSAL of both petitions, without prejudice to the

taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned .”

Thereafter, the Court restated the Rule in Revised Circular No. 28-91

22

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

embodied in the 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court .”(Underscoring

and emphasis supplied).

It was ONLY then, AFTER almost a YEAR ( 10 months and 21 days), of repeatedly

showing, pointing and raising the ISSUE of Forum Shopping, that the Caloocan City

MeTC-51 former Presiding Judge Eleanor Kwong, finally decided to resolve said ISSUE, in

an ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, intentionally and maliciously DENYING the Defendant-

Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, and ruled out with partiality in

FAVOR of Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, by merely stating that there was

substantial compliance of non-forum shopping, the dispositive portion of said ORDER

reads;

“Plaintiff’s counsel was given ten (10) days to comment but

NONE was filed, hence, the motion is now considered submitted for

resolution.

“ Perusal of the records of this case shows that plaintiff filed

before the said court an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case” on

June 16, 2003, but the same was ONLY RESOLVED on February 2, 2004. The Complaint before this court was filed on June 17, 2003.

“As the Motion to Withdraw case was filed before the filing

of this instant complaint, there is substantial compliance of non-

forum shopping.” (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )

In an ATTEMPT to further JUSTIFY her above-quoted shallow and petty-minded

ruling, Judge KWONG, proceeded, thus;

“It was held in several cases that the rules of procedure ought

not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, rules on procedure are

used only to secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and

rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated.

(Arsenio Reyes, Jr., vs. C.A. et. al., G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000).

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

been considered submitted for decision, since the defendant

belatedly filed his Answer. This Court hereby accords both parties

fair play and the opportunity to ventilate their issues in a full blown

trial.” (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied for

lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Caloocan City, Metro Manila

July 21, 2004

(SGD) ELEANOR R. KWONG

Presiding Judge

This kind of interpretation and application of law presented by Judge KWONG in

DENYING the Defendant-Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, is not only a

clear demonstration of her IRRATIONAL and UNJUST ruling, but also clearly shows her

PARTIALITY, DISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDE, IGNORANCE of LAW and WILLFUL,

MALICIOUS, and HORRIBLE WAY of twisting and perverting the Rules of Court, as well as

23

DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to the Supreme Court’s Administrative Orders, Directives and

Circulars.

On the other hand, the above-quoted NONSENSE and BASELESS ruling of Judge

KWONG, and intentional mis-interpretation of the law, became a BIG stepping stone for

HER to be elevated and promoted to a higher position into becoming the Presiding Judge

NOW of the “CALOKOHAN” City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 128. This is an INSULT

to the FILIPINO people who are required by Law to give due RESPECT, HONOR and HIGH

REGARD to the JUDICIARY, being ONE of the THREE highly-revered branches of our

government!!! No doubt why most narrow-minded Filipino individuals pretending to be

patriotic ended up being rebellious to the government.

With all due respect to the NEW ADMINISTRATION of the Honorable Supreme Court

and the Highest Tribunal of our Land, from which former Chief Justice Renato Corona was

recently impeached and subsequently removed from his post, now facing multiple charges of

corruption, irregularities and anomalies, the undersigned sincerely SEEKS and REQUESTS

that an IMMEDIATE and URGENT ASSESSMENT and EVALUATION of ALL JUSTICES

appointed to preside in various Courts and Tribunals within the Philippine Judicial System

should be PRIORITIZED, in order to avoid having more VICTIMS of INJUSTICES who are

now suffering in JAILS, mainly because of some dishonest and deceitful Judges who normally

render such kind of BASELESS and UNFOUNDED RULING similar to Judge Eleanor Kwong.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES, PETITIONER IS OF

HUMBLE SUBMISSION BEFORE THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW ON

CERTIORARI, IF INDEED, THE ACT OF FILING ANOTHER COMPLAINT IN ANOTHER TRIBUNAL

CAN REALLY BE JUSTIFIED TO HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL

COMPLIANCE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING, BY MERELY FILING A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE

FIRST COMPLAINT FROM THE OTHER TRIBUNAL... THEN FILE THE SAME AGAIN INTO

ANOTHER TRIBUNAL THE FOLLOWING DAY, and much more with THE SUBMISSION OF FALSE

VERIFICATION!!!

Perhaps it could have been more justifiable if the filing of another case in another

tribunal was done ONLY, AFTER an ORDER for the DISMISSAL of the first complaint has

already been GRANTED, and not just by simply filing a Motion for the dismissal of the first

complaint.

What was presented above is just a tip of an iceberg, yet, clearly demonstrates why

thousands of INNOCENT FILIPINOS are suffering in jail as VICTIMS of

INJUSTICES!!!...because there are many appointed JUSTICES who are not only “BLIND” not

being able to SEE or willfully and deliberately ignore to SEE the real issues, facts and

circumstances, but they also LACK the expertise, knowledge and necessary skills needed to

properly utilize the weighing scale of Justice, yet they still get promoted from being an MTC

Judge into becoming an RTC Judge.???

On the other hand, Justices who have so much expertise, exceptional knowledge,

seasoned and skilled in the implementation and administration of justice had turned out to

24

become undesirable and corrupt in their practice of law. They normally connived with

undeserving, dishonest Counsels/Lawyers and together paved their own court’s playing field

and twist the Rules of Court inside their jurisdiction, in order to render kind judgment to

whoever party they favored with, hence, the Almighty God as the Most High Judge found it

proper to intervene, by anointing a “SERVANT” and guiding him to elevate this matter to the

respectable NEW Administration of the most Honorable Supreme Court and the Highest

Tribunal of the Land which has the inherent power not only to correct the mistakes of lower

courts, but also to initiate or recommend Disciplinary proceedings against the Counsel and

Judges involved, for the advancement of Justice.

It bears stressing and significant to note, that the Honorable SUPREME COURT had

already set a vividly clear, definitive and decisive guidelines regarding the “Rules on Forum

shopping”, which assert as follows;

The ESTABLISHED RULE is that FORUM SHOPPING EXIST, IF BOTH ACTIONS

INVOLVE THE SAME TRANSACTIONS, SAME ESSENTIAL FACTS and

CIRCUMSTANCES and MUST RAISE IDENTICAL CAUSES of ACTIONS, SUBJECT

MATTER and ISSUES. [International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,

249 SCRA 389, 394-395, October 18, 1995; GSIS vs. Sandiganbayan, 191 SCRA 655, 660,

November 26, 1990; and Silahis International Hotel, Inc. vs. NLRC, 225 SCRA 94 100, August 4,

1993.]

The RATIONALE for the requirement of a CERTIFICATION against forum

shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim

involving the same issues in another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency,

and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation. Filing MULTIPLE

petitions or COMPLAINTS constitutes ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES. (Wee vs.

Galves, G.R. No. 147394, 11August 2004, 436 SCRA 96, 108-109, CITING Zebra Security Agency

vs. NLRC, Phil.200, 209), which tends to degrade the administration of justice,

wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of

the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. (Nacuray vs. NLRC, 336 Phil. 749, 756).

Furthermore, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and

transparency among Lawyers and their Clients in the pursuit of their cases

before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue

inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts.

(Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 605, 616.)

Significantly, to curb the malpractice of forum shopping, the Rule ORDAINS

that a VIOLATION thereof would constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT and be a CAUSE

FOR THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL of BOTH PETITIONS without prejudice to the taking of

appropriate ACTION AGAINST the COUNSEL of the PARTY CONCERNED.

FINALLY, the Supreme Court’s Administrative CIRCULAR No. 4-94, further states,

that;

25

“Any VIOLATION of this CIRCULAR shall be a CAUSE for the DISMISSAL of the

COMPLAINT,…..However, any CLEARLY, WILLFULL and DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING

by any PARTY and HIS COUNSEL through the filing of MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS or other

initiatory pleadings to obtain FAVORABLE ACTION shall be a GROUND for SUMMARY

DISMISSAL thereof and shall CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Furthermore, the SUBMISSION OF FALSE CERTIFICATION or NON-COMPLIANCE

with the UNDERTAKINGS therein as provided in Paragraph 1 hereof, SHALL

CONSTITUE “INDIRECT CONTEMPT of COURT”, without prejudice to DISCIPLINARY

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COUNSEL and the FILING of a CRIMINAL ACTION

against the GUILTY PARTY.” (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)

Now, are these above-quoted JURISPRUDENCE, MEMORANDUM,

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

to the multi-awarded Court of Appeals Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, and to

Caloocan City RTC-121 Presiding Judge Adoracion G. Angeles and much more to

Judge ELEANOR KWONG? If so, then what made her qualified to be elevated into

becoming a Regional Trial Court (RTC) JUDGE of Calokohan City?

FOR THE WELL-ACCEPTED RULE IS THAT, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES

NO ONE! and, CERTAINLY NOT A CREDENTIAL FOR PROMOTION, BUT PERHAPS A

VALID GROUND FOR DEMOTION or rather TERMINATION OF SERVICE PARTICULARLY

FROM BEING A JUDGE!

IT IS, THEREFORE, NEITHER BEFITTING NOR PROPER AND APPROPRIATE TO

SIMPLY ALLEGE THAT CALOOCAN CITY Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch-51, as well as

CALOOCAN CITY Regional Trial Court, Branch-121 and COURT OF APPEALS 8TH

DIVISION, JUST “GRAVELY ERRED” IN NOT SUSTAINING THE Defendant-Petitioner’s

THEORY THAT THERE WAS FORUM SHOPPING! IT WOULD ONLY FURTHER DEGRADE

THE IMAGE AND CREDIBILITY OF THE PHILIPPINE JUSTICE SYSTEM… ALL THE THREE

(3) TRIBUNALS WILLFULLY, KNOWINGLY, DELIBERATELY, MALICIOUSLY AND

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

IF THEY ONLY ADHERRED IN THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THIS

CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED LONG TIME AGO JUST FOR WILFULL

VIOLATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING ALONE, AND THE FILING OF APPROPRIATE

ACTION AGAINST EVERYBODY INVOLVED SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIKEWISE,

RECOMMENDED!

Issue No. 2 : “LACK OF JURISDICTION”

The Caloocan City MeTC-51 DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION over the instant

case filed therein by Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador (who, including her Counsel Atty.

Dayang Preciosa Medina are both residents of Calocohan City).

Nevertheless, being seasoned and expert, Judge Eleanor Kwong is skillful enough,

wickedly and immorally smart, clever and shrewd on what to do and how to acquire

26

Jurisdiction over the instant case, even if on its face alone she perfectly knew that she has no

jurisdiction over it. (perhaps there was a “SECRET DEAL” among them that she would get a

share from any amount that the Plaintiff may collect, for if not, then what reason did she have

in attending to such complaint? Unless, she wanted her court to have an overflowing cases to

attend to and to keep her court’s personnel busy every day. ). Thus, Judge KWONG started

her FIRST move;

TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION (by all means)

Knowing fully-well and being totally aware that Calokohan City MeTC-51, does not

have jurisdiction over the instant COMPLAINT filed by Calokohan City resident, Plaintiff-

Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, through her Counsel ATTY. DAYANG PRECIOSA M.

MEDINA, with office address at Medina Law Office, 3rd flr., Doña Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza

Rizal cor. Gen. Luna St., Caloocan City, Judge KWONG, willfully, deliberately and maliciously

started to pave the way on how to illegally acquire her jurisdiction over the instant case, by

way of her July 21, 2004, “ORDER”, in resolving the Petitioner-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

due to Forum Shopping. Judge Kwong ruled, thus;

“Plaintiff ’s counsel was given ten (10) days to comment but

NONE was filed, hence, the motion is now considered submitted

for resolution.” (underscoring and emphasis supplied)

With all due respect your honor, but there was indeed a Plaintiff’s COMMENT, dated

and filed by her Counsel “Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA” on July 26, 2004 or FIVE

(5) DAYS later???, after the court has already issued its July 21, 2004, ORDER???

In fact, that belatedly filed COMMENT was intentionally DONE, SUBMITTED and

FILED, then willfully and maliciously RECEIVED by the trial court, purposely to be transmitted

and forwarded to Caloocan City RTC-121, intended to be utilized as Plaintiff’s additional

argumentative evidence to support the readily concluded DENIAL of the Petitioner’s expected

future appeal.

While Judge Kwong seemed not to be aware of it, yet, former Calocohan City RTC-

121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, (who was compulsory RETIRED from SERVICE

after her CONVICTION in Quezon City for the crime of child abuse), maliciously utilized and applied

that COMMENT which was clearly mentioned and pointed out in the Plaintiff-Appellee’s

Memorandum filed by Counsel on March 23, 2006.

The “DECISION” dated March 30, 2006 of former Calokohan City RTC-121, Presiding

Judge, now convicted Judge Adoracion Angeles, (which was instantaneously rendered after

ONLY SEVEN (7) days from the date Plaintiff filed her MEMORANDUM on March 23, 2006) openly

affirms;

xxx,…“She, Plaintiff-Appellee, by counsel (referring to the Plaintiff’s “NEW

Counsel” Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, who represented her in RTC), argues that

there was substantial compliance with the rule against forum shopping because

27

the motion to withdraw case was filed in Quezon City before the filing of this case.

Moreover, Defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss before the court a quo failed to

comply with the provisions of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.” xxx, ®

(That foregoing particular boldly-underlined sentence, with emphasis

supplied by herein Petitioner, refers to the belatedly filed Plaintiff’s “COMMENT”

of which Judge Kwong was seemed unaware of.)

® DECISION, penned by Caloocan City RTC-121

Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, dated March 30, 2006,

- three (3) months prior to her being CONVICTED on JULY 17, 2006 at the

Quezon City RTC Branch 100, in CRIMINAL Case Nos. Q-97-69655-56,

for VIOLATION of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 for CHILD ABUSE.

Plaintiff’s new Counsel Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio who represented Plaintiff

Carmen Salvador before Calocohan City RTC-121, in her “MEMORANDUM” for Plaintiff-

Appellee that she submitted and filed, in the ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION of, Issue No. I.

“Whether or not the Trial Court erred in not Dismissing the Case due to Forum

Shopping”, therein argued, (despite of her personal knowledge that the Plaintiff’s COMMENT was

belatedly filed to and received by the trial court), still utilized the same to justify her baseless

argument, and frankly asserted, thus;

“Moreover, as sta ted in Plaintiff ’s COMMENT on the said

Motion to Dismiss, which was received by the trial court after it

has already issued the aforementioned Order, the Motion to

Dismiss itself should not have been given due course, in the first

place, because of its failure to comply with the provisions of Section

4, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.” ®® (underscoring &

emphasis supplied)

®® MEMORANDUM (for Plaintiff-Appellee), submitted & filed on March 23, 2006 by Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio before Calocohan City RTC-121.

It bears stressing to lay emphasis on the foregoing argument of Petitioner’s new

Counsel Atty. Judina Fabros-Bercasio that it has no basis at all, considering that the Plaintiff’s

“COMMENT” was not raised at the trial court, it having been just intentionally and lately

received by MTC, and then maliciously forwarded to RTC where it was finally made an official

part of the records of the case.???????

These foregoing declarations contained in the Plaintiff-Appellee’s “MEMORANDUM”

and in the Caloocan City RTC-121 “DECISION”, are undoubtedly, crystal clear manifestations

of conspiracy among dishonest LAWYERS, deceitful CLERK OF COURTS and corrupt

JUDGES, which are substantial pieces of EVIDENCE that prove beyond reasonable doubt

about their willful and malicious way of manipulating and twisting the Rules of Court inside

their jurisdiction, which are specific acts constituting fraud or deceit not primarily on the part of

Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador but by and among her Counsels, Atty. Dayang

Preciousa Medina and Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio, in connivance with Calokohan City,

28

MeTC-51 Clerks of Court and convicted Calokohan City RTC-121, former Presiding Judge

ADORACION G. ANGELES.

To further proceed and continue with the undersigned’ presentation on how Judge

KWONG, willfully and maliciously paved the way to forcibly acquire improperly and unlawfully,

her JURISDICTION over the instant case, she EXPLOITED and TOOK ADVANTAGE of the

very popular COMMON PRACTICE well-known to everyone as “delaying tactics” during the

entire initial period when she had “NO JURISDICTION” yet over the instant case. In so doing,

Judge KWONG WITTINGLY, DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY delayed to resolve for

almost a YEAR, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping.

In reality, Judge KWONG cannot and could not actually resolve the Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, much more that she cannot and could not cite the

Defendant-Petitioner in Default, not only because of her LACK OF JURISDICTION, but also

because by doing so, would only mean the END of the CASE. (If ONLY Defendant Ramirez had

the undersigned already as Counsel with him during those times, he could have given him the best

advice to simply disregard the Complaint filed against him in Caloocan City and let him be cited there

in DEFAULT which cannot and would never actually happen, even if he failed or refused to file an

ANSWER or REPLY and totally ignored the Complaint, for as long as the one pending in Quezon City is

not yet resolved and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw is also not granted, then the grave evil sought

to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping which is the rendition by two competent tribunals

of two separate and contradictory decisions, is MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN.)

During those times, the Plaintiff-Respondent’s “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw

the case” in Quezon City MeTC-32, remains pending, and the FIRST “COMPLIANT” was,

likewise, not yet been DISMISSED. Thus, Judge Kwong fully-well knew that she had actually

“NO JURISDICTION” over the newly-filed case in Caloocan City, much more that she does

not have the option to resolve the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss which she intentionally and

deliberately intends to DENY, hence, she waited unwearyingly until the Urgent Ex-Parte

Motion to Withdraw the case filed by her favorite client Plaintiff Carmen Salvador in Quezon

City was finally GRANTED. Thereafter, found her time at last to ultimately resolve the ISSUE

on Forum Shopping by issuing the aforementioned ORDER dated July 21, 2004, the

dispositive portion of which is again quoted hereunder, which reads;

“ Perusal of the records of this case shows that plaintiff

filed before the said court an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw

Case” on June 16, 2003, but the same was ONLY RESOLVED on

February 2, 2004. The Complaint before this court was filed on

June 17, 2003. As the Motion to Withdraw case was filed

before the filing of this instant complaint, there is

substantial compliance of non-forum shopping.”???????

(underscoring, emphasis and question marks supplied)

Xxxxx….

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

long been considered submitted for decision, since the

29

defendant belatedly filed his Answer. This Court hereby

accords both parties fair play and the opportunity to ventilate

their issues in a full blown trial.

“WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED for

lack of merit.” (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )

SO ORDERED.

Caloocan City

July 21, 2004 (Signed)

ELEANOR R. KWONG

Presiding Judge

PERFECT! So now, the case is within Judge Kwong’s JURISDICTION in Calocohan

City, where they can do all kinds of maneuvering and manipulation by setting their own

rules of the game in their own court’s playing field and twisting the rules of procedure to suit

for their favor.

Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, who willfully, knowingly, intentionally

and deliberately violated the Rule on Forum Shopping by;

FIRSTLY, lying before the Quezon City MTC-32, in submitting her Urgent Ex-Parte

Motion to Withdraw the case, claiming that she is no longer interested in further prosecuting

the instant case and she desires to withdraw the said case, yet, on the following day

hurriedly submitted and filed another Complaint of the same nature, issue and

circumstances in Caloocan City;

SECONDLY, by lying again before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, for not informing

MeTC-51 regarding the pendency of the case before Quezon City MeTC-32, and

THIRDLY, by making MISREPRESENTATION when she submitted a FALSE

VERIFICATION, stating thereat that she has not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues in any other tribunal and agency, which is a clear violation of the

Rule on Non-Forum Shopping.

In the same manner, Plaintiff’s Counsel ATTY. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA

who is also liable and guilty of forum shopping for conspiring with her client in maliciously

and abusively modifying the Plaintiff’s Complaint from claiming to be the owner of a certain

portion of undivided lot 799 Piedad Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her FIRST

COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter, denied her ownership to the subject LOT and

simply claimed only the ownership of an alleged residential HOUSE which is purportedly

erected over the said portion of land, in her SIMILAR COMPLAINT filed in Caloocan City.

Thereafter, used it to justify her client’s action of filing another case in Caloocan City by

arguing that “the case filed in Quezon City involves a LOT whereas the one filed in Caloocan

City involves a HOUSE, and this, she (Atty. Medina) claimed, create the big difference.”

30

On the contrary, whatever kind of reasoning and explanation they give will never

justify their action of filing multiple complaints and submitting False Verification attached to

their complaint.

Thus, the malicious ACTS, deceitful means and fraudulent way employed by both

Respondent-Plaintiff CARMEN SALVADOR together with her dishonest and undeserving

Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA MEDINA, resulted into their initial success that only

require a little finishing touch from the hand of Caloocan City MeTC-51, Presiding Judge

Eleanor Kwong, hence, her ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, which is not only ridiculous and

preposterous, but a whopping INSULT and direct DISOBEDIENCE to the Administrative

Circular 28-91, dated February 08, 1994 issued by the Supreme Court, and Administrative

Circular No. 04-94 made effective 01 April 1994, which expands the CERTIFICATION

requirement to include cases filed in Court and quasi-judicial agencies below the Supreme

Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2) of said

Circular to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in order to deter

the EVILS of FORUM SHOPPING.

“Forum Shopping” is not comparable or similar to certain simple issues in which

technicality ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, for it might override

substantial justice, as claimed and referred to by Judge Kwong in her bias ruling.

On the contrary, “FORUM SHOPPING” is considered a “PERNICIOUS EVIL”. It

adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court

dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and

trifles with and mocks judicial processes. It has been held that forum shopping is

evident where the elements of “litis pendentia” or “res judicata” are present.” (United

Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No.

135945, March 7, 2001, 353 SCRA 782).

While Civil Case No. 03-27338, may be mistakenly considered as a “PERSONAL

ACTION”, based from its caption or title being a “Collection of Sum of Money and Damages”,

it is also an undeniable FACT that the amount being collected by the Plaintiff-Respondent

Salvador from Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez is the alleged UNPAID BALANCE from the

fictitious SALE OF A PROPERTY that is located in Quezon City, of which alleged unpaid

balance, the Petitioner’s family refused to pay because they found out that Respondent only

got her “RIGHT” on the subject property illegally, by forging the signature of the rightful owner

Wifredo Torres, on the alleged Deed of Assignment and by fabricating a falsified (FAKE)

Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie,

(Respondent Carmen Salvador).

Among the many issues that were raised and argued in the court a quo and in the

appellate courts, are the TWO (2) most significant of all, to wit;

1. Whether or not the Defendant has to pay the P220,000.00 remaining

balance of the purchase price; and,

31

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

of Php 1,500.00 (for the use and occupancy of an alleged HOUSE) until the

remaining balance is fully paid..

These were the amounts being collected by Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador from

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

denominated as “Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Aria-arian” which the latter allegedly entered into

with the former, of which kind of ACTION for “Collection of Sum of Money and Damages”

may be commenced and tried in the proper court where the Plaintiff resides (Sec. 2, Rule 4),

is somewhat correct.

However, it is also EQUALLY TRUE that the Plaintiff’s ACTION affects the TITLE

to or POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY, or INTEREST therein, and as such, it

should have been commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the

area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4).

Therefore, the Plaintiff-Respondent’s ACTION is NOT purely a PERSONAL action. It

is a “REAL ACTION”, an “accion en rem” that affects TITLE to or POSSESSION of the

subject real property, or interest therein, which is located in Quezon City;

Relative thereat, is the Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which is based

on Supreme Court Circular No. 13-95, promulgated on June 20, 1995, providing a vividly

clear and well-defined guidelines that, ALL “REAL ACTIONS” (those affecting “TITLE” to,

or “POSSESSION” of the real property), should be COMMENCED and TRIED in the

PROPER COURT which has TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION over the AREA wherein the

real property involved or a portion thereof is situated.

It is very apparent from the very face of the Respondent’s Complaint, filed in and

brought before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, that the subject matter involved is an alleged

residential HOUSE supposedly erected on a parcel of land that is located in Quezon City. In

the Plaintiff’s Complaint submitted and filed in Caloocan City, it reads;

“ Xxxxx…

1. Plaintiff is the true and lawful owner of a residential HOUSE located at the

corner of Bonifacio Drive and Quezon St., Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City,

which is erected on a parcel of land consisting of One Hundred Twenty (120) square

meters, more or less. The “right” over the said parcel of land likewise belongs to the

plaintiff, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 29, 2000, executed in

her favor by the awardee of the said lot.” (underscoring and emphasis supplied)

From its very face alone, the complaint is DISMISSIBLE and does not deserve to be

entertained by any other Courts outside Quezon City. Whether Plaintiff-Respondent ’s action

is for “Collection of Sum of Money and Damages”, the FACT remains that she could not

have any amount collectible from the Defendant-Petitioner if not for the SALE of “REAL

PROPERTY” located in Quezon City which she fraudulently sold to Defendant’s wife LUZ

32

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

never met nor talk with personally, since time immemorial.

Obviously, The Respondent’s action of filing her Complaint to collect money and

damages from the Petitioner depends from her rightful possession and proof of legal

ownership over the subject property, which she has the burden to prove first in court. Her

demand to collect money and damages can only be justified if she can prove that she has

the legal personality to sell the same, otherwise, if not, then she does not have any legal and

valid cause of action against the Petitioner. It would even further give rise to her being held

for a Criminal act of Swindling/ESTAFA thru fabrication and falsification of public documents.

Thus, the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, DOES NOT

HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE.

However, the trial court maliciously justified the Respondent’s ACTION to collect

money, when it ruled upon the OWNERSHIP and POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY

located in QUEZON CITY, BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION. The trial court ruled, thus;

“The Plaintiff’s right over the subject lot derived from a Deed of Absolute

Sale executed by Alexander A. Parco, an awardee-owner of the subject lot in favor

of plaintiff Carmen A. Salvador. Alexander Parco likewise, came into his

possession the subject lot through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 5, 1995,

executed by one Remigio Tamayo in his favor. This Remigio Tamayo acquired the

right over the subject lot from Wilfredo Torres through a Deed of Assignment

dated February 2, 1993. Wilfredo Torres was the registered owner of the subject

lot with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 118192, until the said title was declared

null and void by the Decision dated February 28, 2000 of Judge Demetrio B.

Macapagal Sr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City.”

The Trial Court further ruled;

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

Plaintiff was still the lawful possessor of the right of the subject lot. It being so,

there is no fraud nor deceit made by the Plaintiff, as being claimed by the

defendant.

When the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 22, 2000 was executed

between Wilfredo Torres in favor of Romeo Ramirez, Wilfredo Torres was no

longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch

79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.”

From the foregoing, it is apparently clear that the case brought before the Trial Court

was an “accion en rem” because it affected not only the POSSESSION but the TITLE of the

real property located in Quezon City. The trial court in Caloocan City did not have the

jurisdiction in ruling upon the issue of possession much more ownership of the subject

property in Quezon City.

It also bears stressing that while the Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule

upon the ownership of the subject LOT, it is likewise significant to point out what was stated

33

in the Plaintiff’s instant complaint as well as what was claimed by her counsel in their

Comment to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to forum shopping, that the subject matter

involved in the case they brought in Caloocan City is NOT a “LOT” but a “HOUSE”. It being

so, then, WHY DID CALOOCAN CITY, MeTC-51 JUDGE KWONG RULED OUT AND

DECIDED ON MATTER or ISSUE, NOT BEING BROUGHT BEFORE HER COURT?...by

way of coming out with a ruling as to who is the rightful owner of the LOT ??? instead of

deciding on whether there was really a HOUSE erected thereat, which Plaintiff-Respondent

alleged being rented by Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez.

IS THIS ANOTHER CLEAR MANIFESTATION OF JUDGE KWONG’s

EXCEPTIONAL IGNORANCE???

Furthermore, the trial court’s ruling and insistence that “Wilfredo Torres was no

longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 79,

Quezon City, had already attained its finality” was merely a court’s wrongful presumption

which cannot be justified, as it is baseless and bereft of merit, not only because it is not

supported by any evidence extant in the record, but mainly because the Decision of Quezon

City, Regional Trial Court Branch 79, was only declaring null and void the Transfer of

Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 118192 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of

Wilfredo Torres, but NOT the legality of Torres’ legal ownership to other portions of land

inside “WilTor” subdivision which include Lots No. 21 & 22, subject of the case, and are also

covered by TCT 118192.

Untenable also is the court’s opinion that, “When the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

December 22, 2000 was executed between Wilfredo Torres in favor of Romeo Ramirez,

Wilfredo Torres was no longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial

Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.”

Common sense alone would suffice to say, that even if TCT No. 118192 in the name

of Wilfredo Torres was declared null and void, it does not necessarily mean that Torres is no

longer the legal owner of other lots covered by said TCT, and even assuming but not

admitting, but just for argument sake that the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79, has indeed,

already attained its finality, and that Torres was no longer the owner of the more than 40

hectares of land covered by TCT 118192, does it necessarily mean then that Respondent

Carmen Salvador automatically become its rightful owner? Where is the logic in that? This

does not make any sense at all, which again prove beyond reasonable doubt how

IGNORANT are the kind of Justices who have been appointed to preside and

administer Justice in this particular case!

By simply reading, even without scrutinizing the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79,

anyone can easily understand and figure out that TCT 118192 was only declared null and

void, it being a derivative Title from TCT No. 56809 issued by the Registry of Rizal on March

7, 1939, which was eventually reconstituted only by the Quezon City Register of Deeds by

way of Wilfredo Torres’ mother Dominga Sumulong’s Petition on December 28, 1966.

34

The TCT No. 118192 containing an area of 416,533 square meters (41.65 hectares)

is covered by Lot 799 of Piedad Estate, of which portions are presumed to be legally owned

by the heirs of Kalaw family and other portions are also presumed to be absolutely owned by

the heirs of Torres-Sumulong family. This land dispute between Torres and Kalaw family is a

very complicated case for quieting of Title, which has long gone for a period of over 30 years

until it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in its Decision dated September 10, 2003,

G.R. No. 91486, declaring null and void all TCTs of “Piedad Estate” covered by Original

Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614, including Lot 799, from which TCT-118192 that covers

Lots 21 & 22 subject this case, emanated from.

Respondent submitted at the Trial court voluminous records of documents as their

evidence to support their claim that Wilfredo Torres is no longer the absolute owner of Lots

No. 21 and 22, inside his own Wiltor Subdivision.

The BLIND-folded Lady Judge KWONG, just admittedly placed all the Respondent’s

voluminous documents into her weighing scale without even looking at and scrutinizing the

contents of those documents whether they really support the claim and allegation of

Respondent Salvador as the rightful owner with absolute and legal personality to sell or

dispose the same.

However, by going over and scrutinizing the Plaintiff-Respondent’s evidences

submitted at the trial court, marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “K” (K1-14), (K15 – K16), K17, K18-

K19 and Exhibit L-L4, which Plaintiff presented in court as their documentary evidences to

prove that TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres was already null and void, would only

prove otherwise that Wilfredo Torres is indeed the legal owner of Lots No. 21 & 22 subject of

this case.

An evaluation of those documentary evidences presented and submitted by the

Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador, clearly shows that it was for an Action for quieting of

Title, filed way back on March 31, 1967 before branch V, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City, re-raffled

and transferred to branch 31, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City and branch 100 RTC Quezon City,

until it was unloaded to Branch 79 in 1987 as a new created sala of RTC Quezon City.

On June 11, 1988 all the records of the case were burned during the fire that razed

the Quezon city Hall Building where RTC 79 was then housed.

By way of Petition for Reconstitution of Judicial records, the records of the case were

reconstituted as per Order dated August 22, 1989 and January 16, 1990. The Court also

granted on MARCH 15, 1994 the Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Manifestation & Motion for the

reconstitution of additional documents. Kalaw is the plaintiff and Wilfredo Torres is one

among the Defendants in that case.

On May 26, 1993, while Wilfredo Torres was detained by then Pres. F.E. Marcos, as

a political prisoner at the new Bilibid prison (Plaintiff’s Exhibit “L”), NAPLICO Officers led

35

by its President Leopoldo Zapi, offered to buy from Wilfredo Torres the 41.65 hectare land

covered by TCT No. 118192 in the amount of P16,288,400.00.

In behalf of NAPLICO (NCR Urban Poor Multi-purpose Cooperative) Zapi as

President, entered an agreement with Torres that the former shall pay a down payment of

Php 400,000.00 and the remaining balance of Php 15,888,400.00 will be amortized at

Php158,844.00 a month for a period of ten (10) years from June 15,1993 to June 15, 2003.

However, upon taking possession of the land (now popularly known and registered

as WilTor Heights Subdivision) in honor of its absolute owner Wilfredo Torres, Zapi in

conspiracy with NAPLICO Officers and Members, including Respondent Carmen Salvador,

sold, conveyed, disposed, occupied and appropriated for their own use and benefit, several

portions of said land, but failed or ignored to pay Torres the monthly amortization indicated in

their agreement. Despite verbal and written demands made, Zapi and his cohorts have failed

and refused to vacate, return or peacefully turn-over a total of thirty (30) lots to Torres, hence

the latter was compelled to file four (4) consolidated Estafa cases against Zapi and his

cohorts, at the Department of Justice, NCR, Quezon City with I.S.No. 98-24390; 98-24866;

98-26175 and 99-0942. These cases were however dismissed by a Resolution dated June

27, 2000, issued by Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Jocelyn A. Solis-Reyes, on the basis

that the acts committed by Zapi and his cohorts in selling lots owned by Torres does not

constitute Estafa, because there was no provision in the agreement that prohibits the sale or

disposition of said lots pending full payment of the purchase price. Their non-compliance in

turning over to Torres the thirty (30) lots only give rise to civil liability.

Therefore, it was only the Civil Case for Annulment of Contract and Damages, No. Q-

94-19204, at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, branch 101, filed by Torres through his

Atty-in-Fact, Cesar Serrano, against Zapi and NAPLICO officers (including REYNALDO

PONCE, who is the author of, and one of the witnesses in the Respondent’s fictitious

“Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-arian”), as the Civil Case that was won by Torres in a Decision

dated January 26, 1994, granting him to recover twenty-seven (27) out of the thirty (30) lots,

by virtue of a Writ of Execution dated April 6, 1995.

Included among those 27 lots were lots 21 & 22, having a combined area of 240

square meters, which was fraudulently sold by Remigio Tamayo in favor of Alexander Parco,

in the amount of Php 235,000.00, through a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 8,

1995 (while Torres was still detained in prison, and one month prior to the release of the April 6,

1995 Writ of Execution). In the said Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Tamayo in

favor of Alexander Parco (nephew of Respondent Carmen Salvador), was the forged signature

of Wilfredo Torres as if showing that he gave his conformity to the said sale.

In view of that forged signature of Torres, he (Torres) executed an AFFIDAVIT,

marked as Petitioner-Defendant’s Exhibit “8”. Mr. Wilfredo Torres further personally testified

in court as witness for Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, to prove not only that his signature was

forged in the Deed of Absolute Sale between Tamayo and Parco, but also to prove his

36

ownership over the subject property and that all transfer of “RIGHTS” over it are null and

void.

The trial court however, willfully and deliberately IGNORED to consider the Affidavit

and Testimony of Torres, including the genuine December 22, 2000, Deed of Absolute Sale

duly executed by Torres in favor of Petitioner Ramirez. When Petitioner presented it in court,

Respondent objected for its admittance for simple reason, which according to Plaintiff’s

consel (Atty. Medina), it was not and cannot be registered at the Registry of Deeds of

Quezon City. (p.9 of Plaintiff’s Memorandum, dated August 23, 2005). Plaintiff’s counsel Atty.

Dayang Preciosa Medina further contended in court that, “since it cannot be registered with

the Registry of deeds, should create a doubt in the minds of every reasonable man to think that the

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 118192 is indeed spurious.”

Thus, even in the January 10, 2007 Court of Appeals, 8th Division DECISION in CA-

G.R. SP NO. 94866, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal, the C.A. likewise, ruled out the same;

xxx…”the purported certificate of title of Wilfredo Torres could be – as

apparently it was – a mere figment of petitioner’s imagination. In fact, what was

presented in evidence in court was a xerox or a photocopy of a supposed certificate of

title No. 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which was thus provisionally marked

in evidence. This explained why the alleged Deed of Sale executed on December 22,

2000 by this Wilfredo Torres in favor of the petitioner was refused or denied

registration by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, because it was not accompanied

by the owner’s copy of the authentic certificate of title .” Xxx (underscoring and emphasis

supplied)

[ What an EXCELLENT, award-winning reasoning of an Associate Justice who was

conferred with a Presidential Award, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all over the

country, during the Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration, June 9, 1989;……a summa

cum laude graduate at the Central Philippine university, Iloilo City and LL. M. with the highest

honors at the Manuel L. Quezon University;…… Outstanding State Prosecutor, Ministry of

Justice, 1978;….…. Awardee, Best Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro

Memorabilia Commission, 1995;….…. Winner of The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as

Outstanding RTC Judge, Foundation for Judicial Excellence, 1996; …… served as Judicial

Supervisor and State Prosecutor at the Department of Justice from 1972 to 1987;….….

became a Regional Trial Court Judge in Cebu from 1988 to 1989;;;…..promoted to the Court

of Appeals in 1998;….. just to betray the trust and confidence accorded to him, by

coming out on January 10, 2007, six months prior to his compulsory retirement on June

19, 2007, with a foolish, irrational, senseless and ridiculous ruling as stated above.]

Admittedly, YES. But what about the Deeds of Absolute Sale that were executed for

the conveyance of property from Remigio Tamayo (alleged awardee of Torres) to Alexander

Parco (alleged 1st buyer) and to Respondent Carmen Salvador (alleged 2nd buyer)? All their

Deeds of Sale were also XEROX or PHOTOCOPIES too, NOT registered and CANNOT

likewise be registered with the Register of Deeds, because both Deeds of Sale pertain to

Lots 21 & 22, which are also covered by TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which

Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador even supported with another documentary evidences, such as

the spurious “Deed of Assignment”, dated February 2, 1993, and the June 30, 1995, “Affidavit

37

“of Tamayo, which are all FAKE documents that were maliciously and unlawfully fabricated

by Respondent Salvador in connivance with her nephew Parco and Torres’ caretaker

Remigio Tamayo, intentionally & purposely done to deceive the Ramirez family in buying the

property of which Respondent Salvador has no legal personality to dispose or sell.

While the Petitioner’s documentary evidence supported by testimonies and affidavits

were all denied consideration, the Respondent’s unsubstantiated documents were all

admitted by the trial court and placed into Judge Kwong weighing scale, and were all utilized

in the promulgation of judgment.

And so, after employing ALL forms of FRAUD and DECEIT, made by the Respondent

in bad faith and with intent to deceive, of which are hereunder summarized as follows;

1. Respondent Carmen Salvador’s deceitful and fraudulent way of filing an

Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case in Quezon City on June 16, 2003,

and then filing again another ACTION with SIMILAR CAUSE, SAME ESSENTIAL

FACTS, ISSUES and CIRCUMSTANCES, in Caloocan City on the following day,

June 17, 2003;

2. Respondent Carmen Salvador’s deceitful and fraudulent way of submitting a

FALSE VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION by concealing the fact that she had

already commenced an ACTION of the same nature and issue in Quezon City,

and that she already filed a Motion to withdraw the case, but, of which

resolution is still pending;

3. Respondent Carmen Salvador’s deceitful and fraudulent way of conniving and

conspiring with her Counsel in willfully, maliciously and abusive ly modifying

her COMPLAINT from “claiming to be the owner of a certain portion of

undivided Lot 799, Piedad Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her

FIRST COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City”, thereafter, denied her ownership

to the subject LOT and simply “claimed only the ownership to a

residential house which is erected over the said portion of land”, where

in TRUTH and in FACT, the “dilapidated shanty” or (small structure as

described by Remigio Tamayo in his alleged AFFIDAVIT ), made up of scrap

materials, which Respondent Carmen Salvador had been referring to as being

rented from her by Eden Mostales way back in March 1999, was already

DEMOLISHED immediately after she fraudulently sold the LOT to Petitioner’s

wife, on May 15, 2000, in order to give way for the Petitioner’s family to

construct a NEW CONCRETE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE that was BUILT AND

CONSTRUCTED by Petitioner ROMEO RAMIREZ, and which is the one presently

erected thereat since June 2000.

And yet, Respondent Carmen Salvador is still fraudulently and fictitiously

insisting and continuously claiming to be her own, as evidenced by her

concocting and filing again recently, another fallacious and unfounded

COMPLAINT for EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Petitioner

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

38

Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 13-04180-CV,

by way of Respondent Salvador using the herein assailed DECISION, including

the RTC and Court of Appeals Decision, as her evidence to support her claim.

However, that EJECTMENT case had already been “DISMISSED” by an

“ORDER” dated June 30, 2014, of which the trial court of Quezon City MTC,

branch 32, had likewise furnished the Office of Supreme Court Administrator,

with a copy of the same.

4. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondent’s Counsel Atty. DAYANG

PRECIOSA M. MEDINA in trying to justify that her client’s action in filing the

case in Caloocan City involves a HOUSE while the first one filed in Quezon City

involved a LOT, which according to her creates the big difference;

5. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondent’s Counsel Atty. Dayang

Preciosa Medina in willfully, maliciously and dishonestly submitting a belatedly-

filed COMMENT on the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping,

FIVE (5) days later after an ORDER has already been issued, with an ulterior

motive or hidden agenda to use it against the Petitioner’s appeal, which they

actually did.

6. The deceitful and fraudulent way of the Caloocan City MeTC-51, Clerks of

Courts in intentionally and maliciously admitting that belatedly-filed comment

and forwarding the same to Caloocan City, RTC-121..

7. The deceitful and fraudulent way of both Respondent’s other Counsel Atty.

JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO and Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC)

Branch 121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES in willfully, maliciously

and unscrupulously utilizing the belatedly filed COMMENT of Atty. DAYANG

PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, in filing the former’s MEMORANDUM and in the latter’s

ORDER dismissing the Defendant-Appellant’s appeal before Caloocan RTC-121.

8. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court

(MeTC) Branch 51 Presiding Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG in willfully,

erroneously, and knowingly;

8.1. Intentionally and maliciously ACCEPTING the Petitioner’s belatedly-filed

Answer not to be cited in Default and then, subsequently used it as a

means to justify and to neutralize Respondent’s clear violation of the

rule on forum shopping, as clearly stated in her ruling, to wit;

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

long been considered submitted for decision, since the

defendant belatedly filed his Answer. “

8.2. Intentionally and deliberately DELAYING to resolve for almost a YEAR,

the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum shopping, which she

only resolved after knowing the fact that the first case in Quezon City

had already been dismissed.

39

8.3. Deliberately DENYING the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to forum

shopping by making a pronouncement of her OWN baseless ruling that

there was a substantial compliance of non-forum shopping, since

according to her, a Motion to withdraw the first case in Quezon City had

already been filed, prior to the filing of another case in Caloocan City;

8.4. Tenaciously BRINGING the case into a full blown trial as if granting

both parties fair play to ventilate their issues in a full-blown trial but

purposely meant to simply ACQUIRE JURISDICTION over the instant

case, in order for her to set her own rules of the game a nd to

eventually render kind judgment for the Respondent whom she favored

with.

8.5. Rendering a DECISION that was primarily based on the purported, self-

styled and fictitious contract denominated as “Katibayan sa Bilihan ng

Ari-Arian” of which due execution and authenticity was not proven in

court, because the Respondent failed to identify the signature atop the

name of Petitioner ROMEO B. RAMIREZ and for the Respondent not

having a personal knowledge as far as the signature of Romeo Ramirez

in the “Katibayan…” is concerned. (p 14, TSN, August 14, 2004);

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

RAISED before her Court. Despite the Respondent’s claim in her

complaint and the insistence of her counsel that it was the HOUSE

being the subject matter brought before the Court a quo, and was the

one they alleged to as being rented by Petitioner Romeo Ramirez,

Judge Kwong rendered a DECISION ordering the Petitioner;

“ 1. Xxx

2. To pay the Plaintiff the amount of One thousand Five Hundred

(Php 1,500.00) Pesos a month, starting May 15, 2000, as rentals

for the use and occupancy of the subject LOT until the

defendant has fully paid the remaining balance for the purchase

price.”

Hence, after employing all crafty means in the foregoing DECEITFUL and

FRAUDULENT acts, thus, the baseless and unfounded Complaint of herein Respondent

CARMEN A. SALVADOR found its way to get a FAVORABLE JUDGMENT from a friendly

court in her place of residence in Caloocan City, which has “NO JURISDICTION” over it and

of which is exactly the GRAVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED OR AVOIDED BY THE

RULE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.

As previously mentioned, when the aforesaid Sheriff’s Notice / Demand to Pay was

served to Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, his health started to deteriorate. His whole family, wife

and three children were all badly affected by the unfounded decision rendered against them.

Knowing fully-well that they were the real victims of Respondent Carmen Salvador’s

40

fraudulent and deceitful acts, made it difficult for them to accept the injustices that were

deliberately inflicted upon them.

Hence, they were compelled to hire again another private & license professional

lawyer requiring them to pay another Php30,000.00 Acceptance fee and Php 3,000.00 per

court appearances thereafter. Unfortunately, as already said, ALL Manifestations, Motions and

Remedies available under the Rules of Court being submitted and filed by their 4th Counsel

Atty. Oscar I. Mercado, were time and again being DENIED by the Caloocan City MeTC

Branch 51, until Atty. Mercado decided to finally withdraw his appearance in court.

THENCEFORTH, herein Petitioner’s representative & Atty-In-Fact, stepped-in and

took over, by submitting and filing before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, his “Notice of Entry of

Appearance”, dated April 10, 2012, which was noted and approved by the court in its “Order”

dated April 16, 2012. It was only then that undersigned Petitioner’s Legal Counsel found out

and discovered, not only the aforementioned ANOMALIES and IRREGULARITIES, but also

the fraudulently fabricated fictitious and falsified documents that were used by the Respondent

as her evidence to prove her alleged claim of ownership and alleged rightful possession of the

subject property.

Issue No. 3 : FRAUDULENTLY FABRICATED FICTITIOUS AND

FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS.

In an attempt to bolster the Plaintiff’s Complaint and support her allegations,

Respondent submitted voluminous documentary exhibits that were ALL admitted by the Trial

Court and placed into Judge Kwong’s weighing scale of Justice, while that of the Petitioner’s

meritorious documentary exhibits were ALL DENIED considerations and were NOT

ADMITTED to be placed into the weighing scale of the BLIND-FOLDED Lady Justice. Among

the Plaintiff-Respondent’s documentary exhibits being referred to, were the following;

1. The Respondent’s COMPLAINTS. The FIRST one filed in Quezon City on

October 30, 2002, and the SECOND one, filed in Caloocan City on June 17,

2003.

Evaluation: Both of these COMPLAINTS filed in Quezon City and in

Caloocan City are unfounded, baseless and fictitious. Plaintiff DO NOT EXACTLY

knew what she really own, whether a HOUSE or a LOT, because the TRUTH of the

matter is that at the back of her mind, she perfectly knew that she actually does

not OWN any property at all in Quezon City.

2. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, dated January 29, 2000, allegedly executed

by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie, Respondent Carmen A. Salvador;

(marked at the trial court as Plaintiff’s Evidence, EXHIBIT “A”.)

Evaluation: In connivance and conspiracy with her nephew Alexander A.

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

41

Sale to show that she allegedly bought the property, Lots No. 21 and 22, (OBJECT

of the SALE), with a combined area of Two Hundred Forty (240) sq. m. in the

amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 300,000.00) PESOS in order to

entice the Petitioner’s wife LUZ RAMIREZ to buy the SAME property (2 Lots) in

the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 400,000.00) PESOS. (But in

reality, Petitioner was able to occupy and is presently occupying only ONE (1)

Lot, No. 21 ( with an area of 120 sq. meters). The another adjacent Lot No. 22

(with the same area of 120 sq. meters), was sold by another person to different

buyer, which Petitioner was able to find out only after paying Respondent

Salvador the down payment of Php 180,000.00, which is another reason why

Petitioner refused to pay the remaining balance of P220,000.00)

In falsifying the said document, Respondent made it appear in the said

Deed of Absolute Sale that the property was allegedly owned by its AWARDEE-

OWNER, which is her nephew Alexander A. Parco.

While the subject document shows it was allegedly executed only on

January 29, 2000 or THREE (3) months before Petitioner’s wife paid the down

payment of One Hundred Eighty Thousand (Php 180,000.00) Pesos on May 15,

2000, Respondent Carmen Salvador had already been claiming ownership of the

subject properties way back in March 1999 when she had the squatters’ “shanty”

(barong-barong) erected thereat, rented in the amount of P500.00 per month, not

by Petitioner Ramirez but by Eden Mostales as evidenced by their mutually

agreed Contract of Lease and handwritten receipts of payments for house rent,

all dated in the year 1999, (Plaintiff’s Exhibit “E”, “ E-1” to “E-4”)

If not for this fake Deed of Absolute Sale, showing TWO (2) Lots with a

combined area of 240 square meters, fabricated in her (Respondent Salvador)

favor, Petitioner’s wife would never be enticed to buy the subject property from

her in the amount of P400,000.00.

Another proof of falsification employed in this subject document aside from

it NOT being NOTARIZED, NOT REGISTERED and cannot be registered with

the Registry of Deeds, can also be gleaned easily from the paragraph;

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

between Remigio Tamayo and Alexander A. Parco on 8th day of

March 1995 (Vide Annex “A” as an integral part of this instrument.”

The contents of the foregoing paragraph contained in this Deed of Absolute

Sale, purportedly executed by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie,

(Respondent Carmen Salvador), do not conform to the alleged sale transaction

STATUS of Alexander A. Parco reflected and shown at the bottom of the

document, in which he is being referred to as the “VENDOR and AWARDEE-

42

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

the sense of him buying it from Remigio Tamayo? He could not be an Awardee-

Owner if he only acquired the property by allegedly purchasing it from the one

supposed to be the real awardee-owner, who is Remigio Tamayo.

3. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, dated March 08, 1995, allegedly executed by

Remigio Tamayo (already DECEASED), in favor of Alexander A. Parco, as if

showing that the former being the AWARDEE/OWNER sold to the latter being the

BUYER, a consolidation of Lot Nos. 21 and 22, Block 1, with the total area of TWO

HUNDRED FORTY (240) square meters, in the sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY

FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P 235,000.00); (marked as Plaintiff’s Evidence,

EXHIBIT “F”).

Evaluation: Respondent Carmen A. Salvador together with her nephew

Alexander A. Parco and Remigio Tamayo, conniving and conspiring with one another,

fabricated and falsified this subject document by forging the signature of the TRUE and

LEGAL OWNER of the subject property, Wilfredo Torres, as if showing that Torres

gave his conformity to the sale transaction.

The CERTIFICATION and AFFIDAVIT of Wilfredo Torres together with his

personal TESTIMONY in the trial court that his signature was indeed forged and

falsified, were not given due consideration, not even looked upon and were totally

ignored and refused by Judge Kwong to be SEEN and placed into her weighing scale.

By merely examining the signatures atop the name REMIGIO TAMAYO and his

wife Rose Tamayo, will reveal that it was all handwriting signatures similar to

Respondent Carmen Salvador.

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

Manila, as if showing that Wilfredo Torres, as the true and legal OWNER, executed

a Deed Of Assignment in favor of Remigio Tamayo as the alleged ASSIGNEE;

( marked as Plaintiff’s EXHIBIT “G”.)

Evaluation: By merely looking and reading the contents of this document,

anybody who understands simple English words and grammar can easily figure out

that this is merely a FICTITIOUS and FALSIFIED document, to wit;

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

as caretaker of the said property for a couple of years and yet services to be

rendered to the latter. A parcel of land located at the District of Pasong Tamo,

Quezon City, portion of undivided lot 799 with an area of 40 hectares more or

less. Now known as lot 21 and 22 of the subd. Plan of Block 1.

TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 118192

“A parcel of land …..xxxx

Xxxxxx

Xxxxxxx

43

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

SIXTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND FIVE

HUNDRED FIFTY THREE ???(416, 533)sq. m. more or less”. Do hereby

ASSIGN, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto said Remigio Tamayo his heirs

portion below described property more particularly Block 1 Lot No. 21 and

Lot No. 22. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

WITHOUT ANY NAMES AND SIGNATURES of who is the supposed

OWNER/ASSIGNOR and who is the ASSIGNEE. There is even NO

SIGNATURE of ANYBODY. It was not registered and cannot be

registered with the Register of Deeds and it was not even notarized

nor acknowledged before any notary public.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The AFFIDAVIT OF REMIGIO TAMAYO, dated June 30, 1995, allegedly executed

by Remigio Tamayo at Kalookan City; (marked as Plaintiff’s Evidence, EXHIBIT

“D”.)

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

contradiction with the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 8, 1995 which the

same Remigio Tamayo had purportedly executed in favor of Alexander A. Parco.

In the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed on March 8, 1995 by Remigio

Tamayo in favor of Alexander A. Parco, it shows that the OBJECTS of SALE sold by

the former to the latter in the full amount of Two Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Pesos

(Php 235,000.00) are just TWO (2) LOTS, Lot Nos. 21 and 22 with a combined area of

240 square meters, whereas, in this AFFIDAVIT allegedly executed also by the same

Remigio Tamayo, the OBJECT of SALE was changed from LOT to HOUSE, showing

that what he allegedly sold to Alexander Parco in the full amount of Php 235, 000.00

was just a HOUSE or small edifice which he claimed to have personally constructed by

him piece by piece for ten years since 1985.

For obvious reason, if this AFFIDAVIT of Remigio Tamayo was indeed genuinely

prepared by him, his only purpose of executing it is to deny selling the property (Lots

No. 21 & 22) to Alexander Parco, and utilize this document to prove his claim, in order

to avoid conflict with the real owner of the Lots who is Wilfredo Torres. (A perfect

clever technique in the “modus operandi’ of professional squatters, who would

illegally squat in an open land, build a shanty therein and then sell it together

with an alleged “RIGHT” over the land.).

On the other hand, herein Petitioner is more convinced that even this

“AFFIDAVIT” purportedly executed by Remigio Tamayo, is just another product of

Respondent Carmen Salvador’s professionalism in fabricating FAKE documents, which

can easily be proven again by the handwritten SIGNATURE atop the name REMIGIO

TAMAYO, which every single character, styles and strokes of every alphabet and word

thereat is not only similar but exactly the same with all the handwritings and signatures

44

of Respondent Carmen Salvador appearing on all the documents that bear her

signatures and handwritings.

Another significant FACT between these TWO documents, aside from the

FORGED SIGNATURES and the OBJECTS of SALE being changed, is that both

documents were acknowledged before the same Notary Public of Caloocan City

VICENTE M. MALAPITAN, yet the SIGNATURES atop the name of the alleged Notary

Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN are not identical with each other, which clearly

indicate that either one of the two is a genuine signature and the other one a forged

signature, or most probably none of the two is genuine and authentic.

In addition, Petitioner would like to raise a more glaring proof evidently showing

that these two documents were just fabricated and falsified, is the discrepancy on the

DATES and PLACES of issue of Remigio Tamayo’s Residence Certificate;

On page 2 of the alleged DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE purportedly

ACKNOWLEGED and NOTARIZED before Notary Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN

on the 8th

day of March 1995 at Kalookan City, it shows Remigio Tamayo’s

Residence Certificate, being;

Res. Cert. No. 2911456

Issued at Manila

Issued on Feb. 13, 1995

While, on Remigio Tamayo’s Residence Certificate in his alleged

AFFIDAVIT, purportedly ACKNOWLEDGED and NOTARIZED also before

Notary Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN on the 30th

day of June 1995 at

Kalookan City, Metro Manila, (or just THREE months later), it shows;

Res. Cert. No. 2911456

Issued on 5-25-95

Issued at Kalookan City

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

Tamayo’s wife ROSE TAMAYO as if showing that she and their children gave their

consent and conformity to the purported sale transaction allegedly entered into by

Remigio Tamayo with Alexander A. Parco; (marked as Plaintiff’s Evidence,

EXHIBIT “H”.)

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

wife of Remigio Tamayo, ultimately proves without any single iota of doubt that

Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR is indeed NOT only a PROFESSIONAL

SQUATTER, but also an EXPERT SWINDLER who had mastered ALL forms and

means of falsification and forgery, as well as deceitful and fraudulent way of selling

something that does not belong to her.

45

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

anybody can clearly see and safely say that, while in an instant look it would appear to

have been purportedly personally prepared, and written by Remigio Tamayo’s wife

ROSE TAMAYO, as if showing that it was personally written and signed by her,

together with her children and two (2) other witnesses, a scrutiny and close

examination on the penmanship and handwriting style of every single character of

words and alphabet thereat, will clearly reveal that it was all WRITTEN and SIGNED by

only ONE person, Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR herself, if compared to all other

documents that bear her handwritings and signatures.

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

executed by and between Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR and Petitioner

ROMEO B. RAMIREZ. (marked as Plaintiff’s Evidence, EXHIBIT “B”.)

Evaluation: This alleged contract of sale denominated as “Katibayan sa

Bilihan ng Ari-Arian” which was used by herein Respondent CARMEN A.

SALVADOR in filing multiple complaints against herein Petitioner ROMEO B.

RAMIREZ, is NOT a MUTUALLY AGREED upon contract that employs consent of

TWO parties, but is just a mere fictitious document.

As can easily be gleaned from its contents, and literal meaning having been

written in vernacular (Tagalog), said “Katibayan sa Bilihan…” merely contains self-

serving statements of ONLY ONE person, CARMEN SALVADOR alone, thus, in the

“Katibayan…it reads;

KATIBAYAN SA BILIHAN

NG ARI-ARIAN

SA MGA KINAUUKULAN:

Ako, si Carmen Salvador na may sapat na gulang, may asawa at

sa kasalukuyan ay naninirahan sa 83 Malolos Ave., Bagong Barrio,

Caloocan City ay nagsasaad na:

1. Ako ay nagmamay-ari ng bahay sa panulukan ng Bonifacio Drive

at Quezon st., Bonifacio Drive, Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon city,

na nakatirik sa isang lote na may sukat na 120 sq. meters,

humigit kumulang.

2. Na sa katunayan ay pinauupahan ko ang naturang bahay sa

halagang P1,500.00 kada buwan kay Mr. & Mrs. Romeo B.

Ramirez.

46

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

karapatan ko sa lupa kay Mr. Romeo B. Ramirez sa

napagkasunduan naming halagang P400,000.00.

4. Ang naturang napagkasunduan naming kabayaran ay ibibigay

sa akin ng dalawang hulog.

5. Ang unang kabayaran na nagkakahalaga ng P180,000.00 ay

tinanggap ko ngayong araw na ito ( 15 May, 2000) at

napagkasunduan namin na ang natitirang balanseng halagang P

220,000.00 ay ibibigay sa akin sa buwan ng Disyembre 2000,

at kung natanggap ko na ang kabuuang kabayaran ng aking ari-

arian ay gagawa ako ng Deed of Absolute Sale, sa kapakanan ng

bumili, Mr. Romeo B. Ramirez.

6. Napagkasunduan din namin na kung sakaling hindi sila

makatupad sa aming usapan na babayaran nila ang balanse sa

Disyembre ng taong ito ay sisingilin ko sila ng kanilang

buwanang renta sa naturang bahay, simula ngayong buwan na

ito hanggang hindi sila makabayad ng kanilang balanseng

kabayaran. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)

( …end of page 1, without signature of any of the alleged parties)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

( …on page 2 of the Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-arian, it reads,)

Bilang katunayan ay nilagdaan ko ang KATIBAYAN na ito

ngayong ika-15 ng Mayo, 2000, dito sa Bgy. Pasong Tamo,

Quezon City. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)

(SIGNED)

CARMEN A. SALVADOR May-ari

CONFORME:

(Unidentified Signature)- NOT the signature of Romeo B. Ramirez

ROMEO B. RAMIREZ

Mga Saksi:

(Signed) (Signed)

1. CAMILO B. AQUINO 2. REYNALDO A. PONCE

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

47

By merely reading the contents and understanding the meaning of the foregoing

“Katibayan sa Bilihan…” anybody can easily comprehend and understand that it is NOT a

mutually agreed upon contract between two or more parties. It is a pure and simple

statement of a single party and is NOT binding with any other party.

A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself

with respect to the other, to give something or to render some services. (Art. 1305, Civil

Code of the Philippines).

In view of the “Katibayan…”, there was no meeting of minds between Respondent

Carmen Salvador and the Petitioner. The trial court deliberately ignored and willfully failed

and refused to SEE the glaring FACTS, such as;

The Respondent miserably failed to prove the authenticity and the due execution of

the alleged “Katibayan sa Bilihan…”. During the direct examination of the Respondent,

she failed to identify the signature above the name ROMEO B. RAMIREZ. On cross

examination, she admitted that she had no personal knowledge as far as the signature of

Romeo B. Ramirez in the “Katibayan…” is concerned (p 14, TSN, August 14, 2004).

Obviously, for the failure of the Respondent to identify the signature of Romeo B.

Ramirez in the “Katibayan…” and with her admission that it was the daughter of Romeo

Ramirez that handed her the document, it is evidently clear that she did not see Romeo

Ramirez sign the document. Added to the FACT that Respondent Salvador and

Petitioner Ramirez had never ever meet and talk with each other since time immemorial,

therefore, it is evidently clear that there was no well-define contractual relationship that

existed between them.

Thus, the C.A. 8th Division’s DECISION through the ponencia of Associate Justice

Chairman Renato C. Dacudao (who retired from the Court of Appeals on June 19, 2007, A.

M. No. 07-8-27-SC, Oct 10, 2007), in likewise upholding the “Katibayan sa Bilihan….”, is

another crystal clear indication of a VERY POOR Justice System in the Philippines. In the

aforesaid C.A. Decision, it says;

“The Court also upholds the Bilihan between herein parties.

“Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it

is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their rights and obligations

thereunder---obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between

the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. (Premier

Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA 686). Equity demands that a

party cannot disown its previous declaration to the prejudice of the other

party who relied reasonably and justifiably on such declaration. (Premier

Developm ent Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra).” Paragraph 5, page 7, CA-G.R. SP NO. 94866,

DECISION. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)

48

With due respect to that foregoing C.A. Decision, Petitioner is again of humble

submission to the Honorable Supreme Court on his view that the aforesaid CA opinion is

a baseless and unfounded which cannot in any way be applied to Salvador-Ramirez

case. As already mentioned above, there was NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP that

existed between Salvador and Ramirez and there was also NO EVIDENCE extant in the

record that Petitioner Ramirez made such declaration.

The “Katibayan…” as exhibited by the Respondent does not even bear signatures

of any of the parties on its FIRST PAGE and it was also not acknowledged before a

notary public. Consequently, before the same may be received as evidence, its DUE

EXECUTION and AUTHENTICITY must first be proven. (Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Revised

Rules on Evidence). However, despite the fact that Respondent failed to prove its due

execution and authenticity, said “Katibayan…” was willfully and maliciously admitted by

the Trial Court,… placed by Judge ELEANOR KWONG in her weighing scale as the

heaviest evidence,…and was ultimately utilized as the basis in the promulgation of

Judgment.

“C O N C L U S I O N”

After everything said and have been presented, with all the spirit of humbleness,

humility and respect, undersigned sincerely PETITIONS the Honorable Supreme Court of

our land to exercise its supervisory powers over the Court of Appeals Eighth Division,

which promulgated a questionable Resolution, dated 10 January 2007 in sustaining the

unfair decision of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121, which

likewise affirmed and upheld the unsubstantiated, baseless and unfounded Decision of

the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, whereby ALL three (3)

tribunals had acted with grave abuse of discretion, and had decided a question of

substance in a way not in accord with law, that law being the rule and jurisprudence; as

well as had sanctioned a substantial departure from the accepted and usual course of

judicial proceedings, hence, this instant Petition for the Honorable Supreme Court to note

and act upon accordingly.

Prescinding therefrom, the 25 October, 2005, DECISION of Caloocan City MeTC

branch 51 should be annulled.

“P R A Y E R”

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing circumstances and all premises

considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that JUDGMENT be

rendered, 1) ANNULING the DECISION dated October 25, 2005, that was rendered by

the Caloocan City MeTC, branch 51, on Civil Case No. 03-27338, for Collection of Sum of

Money and Damages, Carmen Salvador vs. Romeo Ramirez; with, 2) Issuance of a Writ

of Prohibition, for the Respondent to desist from further causing the Petitioner’s family

other forms of harassment by using the “Katibayan sa Bilihan…”; and, 3) Writ of

49

Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to jointly and severally pay the Petitioner the

damages sustained, in the amounts of;

1. Php 1,440,000.00 (One Million Four Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos), representing the

down payment amount of P180,000.00 paid on May 15, 2000, by the Plaintiff to

Respondent, computed at standard bank’s compounded interest rate for 15 years

(2000 -2015), or in any amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the

law and justice may require.

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

or correction for the public good and to deter others from committing fraud and in

concocting and filing fallacious and unfounded complaints against unsuspecting

individuals, or in any amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the law

and justice may require.

3. Php 1,500,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos) as MORAL damages, for

sleepless nights, moral shock, and wounded feeling that led to the Petitioner’s

untimely DEATH, as a result of the fraudulent and malicious actions of Respondent

Salvador and unfounded Decisions rendered by Judge Eleanor Kwong, or in any

amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the law and justice may

require.

4. Php 300,000.00 as and for Attorney’s fees, incurred by the Petitioner, that to defend

and protect his interest, engaged the services of three (3) Professional Lawyers,

namely; Atty. Regidor Pablo, Atty. Ricardo Barba, and Atty. Oscar Mercado.

5. The cost of suit, plus

6. Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are likewise, further

implored.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City for Manila, 01 May, 2015.

NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOÑA

Petitioner’s Representative/ Atty-In-Fact

Lot 2, Blk.15, C.P. Garcia St. Wiltor Height Subdivision

Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City

Mobile No. 0946-276-4977

50

Republic of the Philippines) Quezon City, Metro Manila) S.S.

“VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATE” OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOÑA, a.k.a. “Bro. Louie”, Filipino, of legal age, married,

and with office address at Lot 2, Blk.15, C.P. Garcia St., Wiltor Height Subd., Bgy. Pasong

Tamo, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, after being duly sworn to in accordance with

Law hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the Petitioner’s Representative and Atty-In-Fact in the above entitled Petition.

2. That I personally caused the preparation of the above Petition.

3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof, for I am the one who personally

drafted and wrote it.

4. That each and every allegation contained therein is true and correct of my own personal

knowledge and based on the authentic records.

5. That I have not commenced any other action or proceedings of the same nature and issue in

any other tribunal or agency, except for the August 19, 2011, 45-pages “Amended

Complaint” which was subsequently given due course and eventually ripened into an

Administrative Matter for Agenda, with OCA -I.P.I. No. 11-3730-RTJ, as previously

mentioned above on pages 6 and 8 of this Petition and other than that, no such action or

proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or

agency; and that if I should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed or is pending

before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake

to inform the court promptly within five (5) days from receipt of knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _____ day of__________

2015, in Quezon City.

NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOÑA

Affiant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this___day of ____________, 2015 at

Quezon City, Affiant, having exhibited his Postal I.D. No. 5417238, issued at Quezon City Central

Post Office and valid until August 13, 2015.

Doc. No._____

Page No._____

Book No._____

Series of 2015