Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS City of Manila MARCELIA C. ITURRALDE, TERESITA CABANILLA, and HEIRS OF ERNEST CABANILLA (as represented by ROSALINDA C. VDA. DE CABANILLA, ERNEST JOEL CABANILLA, and JOMAR CABANILLA), Petitioners, ---versus---
CA-GR-SP No. 146364 For: Certiorari
HON. MARIA GILDA LOJAPANGILINAN, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 76 of Quezon City, Public Respondent, GLORY C. TANCINCO, REGINALD C. TANCINCO, WILLIAM C. CABANILLA, and EUNICE C. BUCSIT, Private Respondents. x-------------------------------x
COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(to the Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 November 2016)
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, by and through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Petitioners, and in support thereof most respectfully allege, to wit: 1. The Petition for Certiorari is arguably defective upon its face. Petitioners’ contend, based on their Motion for Page 1 of 6 010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD PS 0719
Reconsideration1, that the requirement as to the statement of the full names and addresses of all the petitioners and respondents was substantially complied with by indicating the same in the attachments included in Petition for Certiorari’s2 captions shows the complete identities of the parties. Such contention, however, cannot bend an express mandate of the Rules of Court, as well as of the 1999 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, to wit: Sec. 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. - The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. xxx The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (n; Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998). xxx (Emphasis supplied).
Sections 3(a) and 4 of the 1999 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals provide: Section 3. What Should be Filed. — a. The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. (Sec. 3, Rule 46, RCP) xxx Section 4. Effect of Non-compliance with Requirements. — The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Sec. 3, Rule 46, RCP) (Emphasis supplied).
2. Petitioners, in their Motion for Reconsideration, rectified the defects pointed out by the Honorable Court with regard to 1 Dated 22 November 2016 2 Dated 18 June 2010 Page 2 of 6 010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD PS 0719
their Petition for Certiorari3. Petitioners then filed, simultaneously with the Motion for Reconsideration, an Amended Petition for Certiorari, incorporating thereon the rectified items reflected in the Motion for Reconsideration. However, it should be pointed out that the same was coursed through the Honorable Court, without obtaining prior leave of court. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “leave of court” as permission obtained from a court to take some action which, without such permission, would not be allowable; as, to sue a receiver, to file an amended pleading, to plead several pleas. 3. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Amended Petition for Certiorari may have amended the Counsel for Petitioners’ IBP Receipt Number and MCLE Certificate of Exemption Number, however, a glitch now exists as it appears that the Counsel for Petitioners’ Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) Number stated in both the foregoing is already outdated. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Amended Petition for Certiorari exhibits PTR No. 0432073; 1-12-14; Quezon City. Such phenomenon can no longer be argued as a mere oversight. It becomes incumbent upon the Petitioners to impress upon the Honorable Court that technical errors will no longer be committed, considering that the Honorable Court sanctions the dismissal of the pleading if one suffers from any defect. 4. The Honorable Court must be wary with the consistent maneuver of the Petitioners to drift away with the Rules of Procedure. The issue at hand is no longer an issue of a mere oversight of technicalities laid down by the Rules of Court. “You can never make the same mistake twice because the second time you make it, it's not a mistake, it's a choice” said by the famous author Steven Denn. The Supreme Court, in Lanzaderas v Amethyst Security and General Services, Inc.4, held that: xxx Although technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves, they are necessary, however, for an effective and expeditious administration of justice. It is settled that a party who seeks to avail of certiorari must observe the rules thereon and non-observance 3 Dated 18 June 2010 4 GR No. 143604, 20 June 2003. Page 3 of 6 010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD PS 0719
of said rules may not be brushed aside as "mere technicality." While litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that the rules of procedure should not be enforced strictly at the cost of substantial justice, still it does not follow that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation, assessment and just resolution of the issues. Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because they may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for compelling reasons. xxx
PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to DENY THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION dated 22 November 2016 filed by the Petitioners for LACK OF MERIT. Such other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable under the foregoing premises are equally prayed for. 6 December 2016, Quezon City. G.P. ANGELES & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Accused th 6 Floor Penthouse West City Plaza Building No. 66 West Avenue, Quezon City 1100 Tel Nos. 412-4465 / 376-2224 (Telefax) Mobile Nos. 09175612080 / 09399038679 E-mail:
[email protected] By:
GALELEO P. ANGELES Page 4 of 6 010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD PS 0719
Lifetime No. 05517/ Q.C. PTR No. 2182471 / 01-06-16 / Q.C. Roll No. 46286 MCLE Compliance No. IV-0011482
THEENA C. MARTINEZ IBP No. 1026779 / January 26, 2016 / Isabela PTR NO. 2209115 / 1-8-16 /Quezon City Roll No. 63484 MCLE Compliance No. V-0012301/ 04/14/2019
CRISTINE E. PASCUAL-BELLO IBP No. 1008608 / 01-12-16 / CALMANA PTR No. 2059103 / 01-12-16 / CALOOCAN Roll No. 63772 MCLE Compliance No. V-0004175
COPY FURNISHED:
(RET.) JUDGE PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE Counsel for Petitioners Unit 205 ACRE Building, No. 137 Malakas St. 1100 Central, Quezon City
HON. MARIA GILDA LOJA-PANGILINAN Page 5 of 6 010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD PS 0719
Public Respondent Regional Trial Court Br. 76 Quezon City Justice Hall Building Quezon City
WRITTEN EXPLANATION Due to the distance and lack of messengerial services at the present time, the filing and service of the foregoing pleading to the other party was made through registered mail in lieu of the preferred mode of personal service. This explanation is made in compliance to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
THEENA C. MARTINEZ
Page 6 of 6 010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD PS 0719
