Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila FIRST DIVISION
ROMEO B. RAMIREZ RAMIREZ,
___ ___________ ________ G.R. No. ________
Represented Repre sented by: Atty-In-Fact
A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ
Narciso Luisto A. Ordoña; MeTC-51 MeTC -51 Civil Civil Case Cas e No. 03-27338 For: Collec Collection tion of Money & Damages Da mages
Petitioner , -Versus –
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Ass As s ociate Justice Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO DACUDAO Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG KWONG Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES Judge ANGELENE MARY QUIMPO-SALE Judge ALMA CRISPINA C. LACORTE LACORTE Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. M . ME M EDINA Atty. JUDINA O. O . FABROS-BERCASIO FABROS-BERCASIO Sheriff Sheriff III ARNIEL S. APOSTOL, and, CARMEN A. SALVADOR,
Respondents Respondents.. X-----------------------------------------------X
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW REVIEW ON CERTIORARI, and For ANNULMENT ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT on the GROUNDS OF LACK OF JURISDICTION & EXTRINSIC FRAUD (As provide provided d for unde underr Rule Rule 65 and Rule Rule 47 of the 1997 19 97 Rules Rules of Civil Civil Proced Pro cedure) ure) 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 Collecti on No. 03-27338, for “Collection
”, (filed (filed by therein Plaintiff, now of Sum o f Money & Dam Dam ages
herein Respondent Carmen Salvador , vs. therein Defendant, now herein Petitioner Rom eo Ram Ram irez ), 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 PA PARTIES RTIES The Parties to this petition are: PETITIONER’s 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. Gayagaya, City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan; who, by virtue of the hereto attached August 8, 2011, Special Power of Attorney (SPA)[Annex-1] and Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) April 16, 2012. ORDER,[Annex-2] is acting for and in behalf of his Uncle-In-Law, Defendant-Petitioner Romeo B. Ramirez , who just DIED recently, on April 1, 2015, due to sudden STROKE STRO KE / Brain Attack;[AnnexAttack;[Annex-3]
1
The NINE (9) RESPONDENTS are, ( 1) Retired Court of Appeals (C.A.) 8 th 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 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 M edina
r d
Law Offi Offi ce, 3 Floo r Doñ a Ju ana B ld g., No. 18 Plaza Riz al co r. Gen Lu na St.,
C al al o o c a n C i t y ;( ;(7) Atty.
JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO , with office address at
JR. Bldg., 1520 Quezon Avenue, South Triangle, Quezon City ;(8)
Sui te 402, 402,
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 Caloocan
City,
No. 83, 83, Malolo s A ve., Bago ng Barri o,
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 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 amount of o f Two Hundred Hundred Twenty Twenty Thousand Thousand Pesos Peso s (Php 220,00 220 ,000.0 0.00) 0)..
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 purcha purchase se price. price.
3.
To pay the Plaintiff Plaintiff the amount amount of Php 20,000. 20,0 00.00 00 as attorney’s fees, and
4.
To pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED. Caloocan Calooca n City, City, Metro Manil Manila, October Oc tober 25, 2005. 200 5.””
ELEANOR ANOR R. KWONG KWONG (sgd)ELE Presiding Judge
2
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 ponencia of 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 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.[Annex2007.[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.
“ORDER” , Petitioner would like to raise in [In view of that June 20, 2008 “ORDER”, particular, a very significant issue, that PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that June 20, 2008 “ORDER”, “ORDER”, granting Plaintiff’s Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution, there w as already already a “WRIT OF EXECUTION” dated EXECUTION” dated June 19, 2008 [Annex-9 [Annex-9] that HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???..., by the same trial court’s new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte, Collado-Lacorte, herself, ordering Sheriff III Arniel Apostol, to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment penned by former MTC-51 presiding Judge Eleanor R. Kw ong.] Thus, by virtue of that June 19, 2008 Writ of Execution , ( issued in advance, ahead of the “ORDER” for the issuance of such),
Sheriff III Arniel Apostol, (without
even carefully
analyzing and understanding the contents 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, there, hurriedly prepared prepared a “Sheriff’s Notice / Demand to Pay” Pay” [Annex-10] and immediately 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 ROMEO B. RAM RAMIREZ Blk 15, Lot Lot 3 C.P. Garci a St. Bonifacio Drive Pasong Tamo, Quezon City G R E E T I N G S: You are hereby notified that that by by virtue virtue of the W rit rit of Execution dated Execution dated June 19, 2008, 2008, issue d by by the Hon. Hon. ELEANOR R. KWONG, KWONG , former forme r Presidin Pre siding g Judge Judge of this Court in the abov above ee ntitled case, copy copy of whic w hich h is herewith herew ith attached atta ched and served serve d 3
upon upon you, plai plaintiff ntiff thru this office he h e reby reby de de mands that payme nt of THREE THR EE HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS( PESOS(P382,00 P382,000.00) 0.00) be be made imme diately upon upon rece re ce ipt ipt of of this notice . You are thereafter the reafter adviced advice d to pay pay the said s aid amount to the undersigned Sheriff Sheriff so that we may app apply the same sa me to the full satisfaction of of the Writ of Exe Exe cution issue issue d in the ins tant case. (Unders coring and empha emphasis sis supplied ) supplied ) Please be guied accordingly. Caloocan City, Me Me tro Manil Manila. a. November 14 2008 _____ __ ______ _____ __________, ________,
(SGD.) ARNIEL S. APOSTOL Sheri ff III III attached: atta ched: Writ of Exe Exe cution x--------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------x Upon receipt of the Sheriff’s Notice, 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 other legal actions actions and remedies available under the rules of court, c ourt, being being submitted and f iled by his 4th counsel Atty. Atty. Mercado Mercado were time and again again being being “DENIED” by MeTC-51 eTC-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, embarrassment, deep worry and fear leading to sleepless nights causing him to suffer serious anxiety and stress, thus resulting resulting for him him to live a daily da ily life suffering suffering from severe headache, 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 Araneta Center, Center, Cubao, Quezon City.(as already manifested on pages 5 & 6 of Petitioner’s August August 19, 2011, “ Amended Comp laint … ” submitted and filed at the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator. )
Left with no more recourse, being financially drained and nothing left except poor health and deteriorating physical condition, his family brought him to their hometown in 4
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro to hide away from extreme humiliation and shame, and to hopefully recuperate from his disconcertment. Unfortunately, the emotional feeling of having been victimized by the the unjust decisions decisions rendered 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 April 1, 2015, at the age of 69. 69. Fortunately, being a true Christian and devoted follower of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, his sincere devotio devotion n 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 Kong’s author & award-winning award-wi nning c olumnist Chip Tsao, which even even caused c aused furiou furious s anger and irritation not 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 he was not aware with what he actually wrote, f or 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 50 th Golden Birthday, inside his newly-constructed “room of worship” 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 ’s representative, popularly 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 fight for the c onstitution onstitutional al rights 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
5
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. (Nar ciso L ui sito
, Branch 128, Regional Trial Court [RTC], A . O rdoñ a vs. 1) Judge El eanor R. K wong Caloocan City; 2) Ju dge A ngelene Mar y Q. Sal e , Branch 106, RTC, Quezon City; 3) Judge , Branch 51, RTC, Caloocan City; and 4) Sherif f Al ma Cri spina C. L acorte
I I I Arniel S.
, Branch 51, Metropolitan Trial Court [MeTC] , Caloocan City). Apostol
P ETITIONER’S P ERSONAL STATEMENT First and foremost, herein Petitioner (Bro. Louie) desires to reiterate and to manifest what he had previously stated on page 3, of his aforesaid August 19, 2011, AMENDED COMPLAINT, that he is neither a lawyer nor had been a student of any law school, and nobody has ever taught him regarding Philippine Laws, Jurisprudence, Statutes and Codes, as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court. He is just a 4th year High School graduate, without any formal College education, and whose means of livelihood and employment to support his 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. 6
Hence, above-mentioned manifestation is offered as a means to request for consideration in guiding and instructing him on any deficiencies and/or non-compliance whatsoever, that require corrections, amendments and/or modifications for this instant Petition. Petitioner, further respectfully seeks the kind indulgence of this Honorable Supreme Court to bear with him in going over the records of the case for the LAST and FINAL TIME so that truth and justice may in the end prevail. With due respect and candor, Petitioner begs this Honorable Supreme Court to give a final look and glimpse on the overlooked substantial FACTS, ISSUES and material EVIDENCES that require utmost consideration, which if proven and given credit in the appreciation and determination of the issue will surely alter the final outcome of the case. It was just unfortunate that from the time the herein subject Decision became “Final & Executory” and has been recorded in the “Book of Entries of Judgment,” no one among the many Private Professional Lawyers who were consulted and offered to be hired (aside from Atty. Oscar Mercado), became interested anymore to assist Romeo Ramirez in finding a remedy on how to obtain the “TRUE JUSTICE” that he deserves. Everybody believed that the case is already closed and nothing more can be done. Even Lawyers at the Public 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 s inabmit nyo dito, ang kapal-kapa l, 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 Desisyo n ng KOR TE at wala na sa itinakdang panahon para mai-apela pa ito sa Supreme Court. Wala nang magagawa pa a ng 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
7
me) , hindi ka naman p ala abogado, nagmamagaling ka pa, gagastos lang kayo at maaabala tay o 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 D IVISION
NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames: Please tak e notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2013 which reads as follows: “OCA IPI No. 11 -3730-RTJ
(N arci so L ui si to A . Ordoñ a vs. Judge El eanor R. K wong, Regi onal T ri al Cour t, B ran ch 128, Cal oocan City; J udge A ngel ene Mary Q. Sal e, Regi onal T ri al Cour t, Br anch 106, Qu ezon Cit y; Ju dge Al ma Cri spina C. L acort e, Regi onal Tr i al Court, Branch 51, Caloocan Ci ty; and Sheri ff I I I Ar ni el S. Apostol , Metr opol itan Tr i al Cour t, B ran ch 51 Cal oocan Cit y).- 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) (2)
the aforesaid amended complaint; and the Report dated August 28, 2013 of the Office of the Court Administrator.
The Court further resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator in the attached Report dated August 28, 2013 (Annex A). Accordingly, the instant administrative complaint against Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol is DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for utter lack of merit.” BE RSAMI N, J., on leave; CARPI O, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1597 dated
November 12, 2013. Very truly yours, (SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Division Clerk of Court
RESOLUTION
OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ
November 18, 2013 x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 8
With all due respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, but just for clarification and for the record, Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, is NOT a Presiding Judge of Cour t, (RTC) Branc h 51, Caloo can City,
Regional Trial
as stated in the notice of resolution, but she is the new
Presiding Judge of the Me tropolitan 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 9
It further states that if based on EXTRINSIC FRAUD, the period for filing such action, is within FOUR (4) YEARS from its discovery (Sec. 3, Rule 47). It bears stressing then, that this Petition is hinged not only for a review on Certiorari, but also on the grounds of “Lack of Jurisdiction” and “Extrinsic Fraud”, which were the primary reasons that prompted herein Petitioner to submit and file to the Office of Supreme Court Administrator , his December 22, 2010, original “ Complaint ….”, and his August 19, 2011 “ Amended Complaint….” against the sub ject Unfounded Decision, henceforth assailed by this Petition. Herein Petitioner, barely DISCOVERED some of the numerous EXTRINSIC
FRAUDS that abound in this case while reviewing the voluminous (TWELVE) 12-year records on file with this case (from year
), 2000 -2012
after his Entry of Appearance was noted
and approved by Caloocan City MeTC-Branch 51, on its April 16, 2012, “ORDER”. Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, when herein Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR concocted again and filed another fallacious and unfounded COMPLAINT for EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez [Annex-14], before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 1304180-CV, (Carmen A. Salvador, Plaintiff vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, et.,al., Defendants), more
EXTRINSIC FRAUDS were DISCOVERED again by herein Petitioner, which prompted him to finally file Criminal Cases against Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, namely;
1.) For the crimes of SWINDLING / ESTAFA thru Falsification of Public Documents, ( Luz G. Ramirez , represented by Atty-in-fact Narci so L uisito A . Ordoñ a , 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 , L i li beth R. , and E den G. M ostal es , all represented by Atty-In-Fact Narci so L ui si to A. Ponce , Complainant vs. Carmen A . Sal vador , Respondent), submitted and filed Ordoñ a on October 01, 2014 , with NPS Docke t No. XV-03-INV-14J-9408. WHEREFORE, from the first time the extrinsic frauds were discovered on April 16,
2012, the reglementary FOUR (4) year period ( Sec. 3, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) within which to file this Petition is up to April 16, 2016, hence, the filing of this Petition for Annulment of Judgment, not only on the ground of “Lack of Jurisdiction” but also on the ground of “EXTRINSIC FRAUD” is timely made.
PROPER VENUE OF ACTION While the Rule on the Annulment of Judgment or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts asserts that it has to be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former 10
(Sec. 10, Rule 47), and that the Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts ( Sec. 9(2) of BP 129, The Judiciary Reorga nizat ion 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 h as 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; 11
“ xxxxxxx “After a judicious scrutiny of the evidence and arguments ventilated by the parties, this Court accordingly rules in favor of the plaintiff-appellee. “ The Court could not sustain defendant- 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. ( Pr emier Development Bank vs. Cour t 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. ( Premi er D evel opment B ank vs. Cour t of Appeal s, supr a “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 ini tial 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 ti tle 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 suppli ed ) 12
“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 th
how the case initially assigned with the 9 Division was eventually transferred to the
8th Division. It has to be emphasized that the country's second highes t courts, the Court of Appeals, had already been embroiled in scandal and controversy, wherein on August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court, in its bounden duty, constituted a three-person panel to assist in the investigation of the improprieties of the actions of the Justices of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ( Antonio V. Rosete, et al. v. SEC, et al.); to determine the culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.( A.M. No. 08-8-11CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.] Thus, being unaware of the aforesaid C.A. 8th 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 3 rd Counsel, Atty. Ricardo Barba was furnished with a copy or notice of the Court of Appeals, EIGHTH (8 TH) 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.
13
Then, on June 18, 2008, at 3:05 p.m., Plaintiff by her Counsel Atty. Dayang Preciosa M. Medina submitted and filed a “Manifestation and Motion” to resolve the 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 circums tances, 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
14
best interest of the service. The similar events being compared with the same dates are as follows; “On June 18, 2008, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of five days or until June 23, 2008 within which to file their consolidated memoranda of authorities and reply to the comment of the SEC. On June 19, 2008, MERALCO filed an ex-parte manifestation together with their reply to the comment of the GSIS. Meanwhile, Justice B. L. Reyes asked Atty. Custodio to report on "what transpired between her and Justice Sabio" when she returned the cartilla. "Teary-eyed," Atty. Custodio begged off from making a report. Justice Reyes decided to consult the Presiding Justice "to avoid an ugly confrontation" with the Justices on the "highly politicized case involving giants of the Philippine society." He explained to the Presiding Justice his understanding of the relevant IRCA rules and "the actual practice in similar situations in the past." The Presiding Justice promised to talk with Justice Sabio and, "for the sake of transparency and future reference," Justice Reyes requested permission to write an i nquiry on the matter. On the same day, Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasque z a letter calling the attention of Justice Edgardo P. Cruz ("Justice Cruz"), Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, to the "dilemma" as to who between him and Justice Sabio should "receive" CA-G.R. SP No. 103692. Justice Reye s 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. Securitie s and Exchange Commission, et al.] x- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --x
Going back to the anomalous advance issuance of the Wirt of Execution, (dated J u n e 19, 2008 ),
ahead of the ORDER for the issuance of such, ( dated
), Jun e 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 Wr it of Execution dated June 19, 2008 …” But then, that would make someone to ask, how come that a Writ of Execution was issued on June 19, 2008 considering that Caloocan City MeTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, only released the “ORDER” for the issuance of such on June 20, 2008??
15
Now, the question is, which of the two (2) judicial documents came out first? The Writ
of Execution, dated June 19, issued to Sheriff Apostol ? Or the ORDER, of Judge Lacorte, dated June 20 ordering for the issuance of the Writ? Perhaps, the Writ of Execution itself would provide a vividly clear answer. And, hereunder reproduced is the Writ of Execution for quick and easy reference;
WRIT OF EXECUTION TO
ARNIEL S. APOSTOL Sheriff III of this Court authorized by law to serve process.
G R E E T I N G S: WHEREAS, October 25, 2005, Decision in the above-entitled case was rendered by this Court,…. xxxx.. “WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007 and on June 18, 2008, a Motion for Execution and Manifestation and Motion were filed respectively by plaintiff’s counsel and the Motion for Execution was granted by this Court in its Order dated Ju ne 20, 2008 .” xxxx… th “GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of this Court this 19 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 o r 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 BLINDfolded (similar to the blind-folded Lady Justice symbol in the Philippine Justic e System), while performing their duties, including Judge Lacorte herself who, likewise, didn’t notice the c onflicting dates when she signed it.
2. THAT, the Ministerial Officers, Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and Judicial Employees of the Caloocan City, MeTC-51, had ALL became so INCOMPETENT
to
diligently
PERFORM
their
SWORN
DUTIES
and
RESPONSIBILITIES in the administration of Justice? …which, perhaps
16
necessitates all of them 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 CLEA R INDI CATION” pointing to the REALITY of something FISHY and ANOMALOUS TRANSACTIONS tainted with IRREGULARITIES and CORRUPTION that are actually “GOING ON,” “TAKING PLACE,” and PROLIF ERATING in SOME or MOST, if not ALL Courts of Justice in the
Philippine Judicial Syst e m, …by which corrupt
Lawyers, Clerk of Courts and P residing Judges a re
conniv ing and
conspiring with each other to further their dirty and devious tricks! A glaring FACT being tolerated by eac h 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 honest ly, diligently a nd with acc uracy because they have been BLIND-folded, similar to the existing c lassical SY MBOL in the Philippine Judicial System.
Irrefutable and indisputable here is the FACT, that when Petitioner submitted and filed his numerous Motion to Dismiss due to FORUM-SHOPPING and LACK OF JURISDICTION, it took almost a YEAR before it was resolved, whereas, on the other hand, when it comes to the 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 i nnocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.” x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
17
“ISSUES for Arguments / Discussions” I ssue N o. 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 M oney & 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 1 st 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
i s no long er interested to prosecut e the instant case and sh e now
desires to w ithdraw 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 “t o
c h a n g e t h e v e n u e f o r h e r c a s e –a n d a g ai n s t th i s, n o
s e ri o u s o b j e c ti o n c a n b e r ai se d ”, ( 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, “t h e
ru l e a g a i n s t f o r u m s h o p p i n g c o u l d n o t
be appl ied to plaintiff -app ellee becau se her intentio n in fili ng the case before the cour t a quo
.” (p.4, of Caloocan City, RTC-121, DECISION) . was not to shop for a favorable jud gm ent 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 O W N E R o f
a c er t a i n p o r t i o n o f u n d i v i d e d L O T 7 9 9, Pi e d ad
Estate with LRC Record No. 5975,” in her FIRST COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter,
DENIED her OWNERSHIP to the subject LOT and simply “c l a i m e d
O N L Y t h e OW N E RS H I P t o a
r e si d e n t i a l H O U S E w h i c h i s a l l eg e d l y e r e c t ed o v e r t h e s a i d p o r t i o n o f l an d ,”
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 prev ented or avoided by the rules on forum -shop ping wou ld 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 t he respondent
18
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 s upplied )
[WOW… WHAT A PERFECT PORTRAYAL OF BLIND-folded C.A. JUSTICE Renato Dacudao in the Philippine Judicial System!!! Is this the kind of Justice that has been multi-awarded with prestigious awards, such as; Outstandin g State Prosecutor , Ministry of Justice, 1978; Presidenti al A wardee, Best W ritten Decision am ong RTC Judg es all over the coun try , Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration June 9, 1989; Awardee, Best Decision in Crim in al Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro M em orabilia Com mission ,
1995; Winner, T h e C h i e f J u s t i c e C a y e t a n o A r e l l a n o A w a r d a s O u t s t a n d i n g R T C J u d g e , 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 n o long er interested to p rosecute the instant case and sh e
”, but worst of all, she also LIED before the now desires to w ithdraw th e said case
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 ”.
19
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) A NGELENE 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 exce llence 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 ExParte Motion to dismiss, he immediately submitted and filed his ”COMMENT” with “VIGOROUS OBJECTION” to the said Motion in view of his “COUNTERCLAIM”. WAS IT NOT 20
THEN A SUFFICIENT MANIFESTATION OF HIS PREFERENCE TO RESOLVE HIS COUNTERCLAIM ? It might be safe to say and assume therefore, that Judge Quimpo- Sale’s ACTION on instantaneously granting the Respondent’s MOTION to Dism iss, 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 SecondLevel Court Judge”? ... another crystal clear indication that even in Quezon City MTC and up to the Court of Appeals Tribunal, perhaps MOST if not ALL Judges are also BLINDfolded…. who cannot clearly SEE or maybe deliberately refused to SEE…??? Ifso,“ ”
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 vi olation of t he r ule shall consti tute contempt of cour t and shal l be a cause f or t he summary D I SM I SSAL of bot h petit ions, wit hout prejudice to t he tak ing of appr opri ate acti on agai nst the counsel or par ty concer ned .” Thereafter, the Court restated the Rule in Revi sed Cir cular No. 28-91 21
and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 . Ultimately, the Rule was embodied i n t he 1997 amendments t o the Rul es 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 DefendantPetitioner’s M otion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, and ruled out with partiality in
FAVOR of Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, by merely stating that
there was
s u b s t an t i al c o m p l i an c e o f n o n - f o r u m s h o p p i n g , 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 22
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 w ith THE SUBMISSION OF FALSE VERIFICATION!!! Perhaps it could have been more justifiable if the filing of another case in another tribunal was done ONLY, AFTER an ORDER for the DISMISSAL of the first complaint has already been GRANTED, and not just by simply filing a Motion for the dismissal of the first complaint. What was presented above is just a tip of an iceberg, yet, clearly demonstrates why thousands
of
INNOCENT
FILIPINOS
are
suffering
in
jail
as
VICTIMS
of
INJUSTICES!!!...because there are many appointed JUSTICES who are not only “BLIND” not being able to SEE or willfully and deliberately
ignore to SEE the real issues, facts and
circumstances, but they also LACK the expertise, knowledge and necessary skills needed to properly utilize the weighing scale of Justice, yet they still get promoted from being an MTC Judge into becoming an RTC Judge.??? On the other hand, Justices who have so much expertise, exceptional knowledge, seasoned and skilled in the implementation and administration of justice had turned out to 23
become undesirable and corrupt in their practice of law. They normally connived with undeserving, dishonest Counsels/Lawyers and together paved their own 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 Ap peals, 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;
24
“Any VIOLATION of this CIRCULAR shall be a CAUSE for the DISMISSAL of the COMPLAINT,…..However, any CLEARLY, WILLFULL and DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING by any PARTY and HIS COUNSEL through the fil ing 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
AGA INS T
EVERYBODY
INV OLVED
SHOULD
HAVE
BEEN
LIKEW ISE,
RECOMMENDED!
I ssue No. 2 : “LACK
OF JURISDICTION”
The Caloocan City MeTC-51 DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION over the instant case filed therein by Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador (who, including her Counsel Atty.
Dayang Preciosa Medina are both residents of Calocohan City). Nevertheless, being seasoned and expert, Judge Eleanor Kwong is skillful enough, wickedly and immorally smart, clever and shrewd on what to do and how to acquire 25
Jurisdiction over the instant case, even if on its face alone she perfectly knew that she has no jurisdiction over it. ( perhaps there was a “SECRET DEAL” among them that she would get a
share from any amount that the Plaintiff may collect, for if not, then what reason did she have in attending to such complaint? Unless, she wanted her court to have an overflowing cases to attend to and to keep her 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, PlaintiffRespondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, through her Counsel ATTY. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, with office address at Medina Law Office, 3 rd flr., Doña Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza Rizal cor. Gen. Luna St., Caloocan City , Judge KW ONG, 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 f or 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 RTC121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, (who was compulsory RETIRED from SERVICE after her CONVICTION in Quezon City for the crime of child abuse) , maliciously utilized and applied
that COMMENT which was clearly mentioned and pointed out in the Plaintiff- 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,bycounsel ( referring
to the Plaintiff’s “NEW
Counsel” Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS -BERCASIO, who represented her in RTC ),arguesthat
therewas substantial compliancewith the rule againstforum shopping because 26
themotiontowithdrawcasewasfiledinQuezonCitybeforethefilingofthiscase. .” 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 Cas e 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 f iled, 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,
27
MeTC-51 Clerks of Court and convicted Calokohan City RTC-121, former Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES. To further proceed and continue with the undersigned’ presentation on how Judge KWONG, willfully and maliciously paved the way to forcibly acquire improperly and unlawfully, her JURISDICTION over the instant case, she EXPLOITED and TOOK ADVANTAGE of the very popular COMMON PRACTICE well-known to everyone as “ delaying tactics” during the entire initial per iod 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 on ly 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 Withdr aw 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 forum shopping.” ??????? substantial compliance of non-
( underscoring, emphasis and question marks supplied) Xxxxx…. long 28
“ If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had 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 f ull 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 Caloc ohan 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.”
29
On the contrary, whatever kind of reasoning and explanation they give will never justify their action of filing multiple complaints and submitting False Verification attached to their complaint. Thus, the malicious ACTS, deceitful means and fraudulent way employed by both Respondent-Plaintiff CARMEN SALVADOR together with her dishonest and undeserving Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA MEDINA, resulted into their initial success that only require a little finishing touch from the hand of Caloocan City MeTC-51, Presiding Judge Eleanor Kwong, hence, her ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, which is not only ridiculous and preposterous, but a whopping INSULT and direct DISOBEDIENCE to the Administrative Circular 28-91, dated February 08, 1994 issued by the Supreme Court, and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 made effective 01 April 1994, which expands the CERTIFICATION requirement to include cases filed in Court and quasi-judicial agencies below the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2) of said Circular to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in order to deter the EVILS of FORUM SHOPPING. “Forum Shopping” is not comparable or similar to certain simple issues in which technicality ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, for it might override substantial justice, as claimed and referred to by Judge Kwong in her bias ruling. On the contrary, “FORUM SHOPPING” is considered a “PERNICIOUS EVIL”. It
adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and trifles with and mocks judicial processes. It has been held that forum shopping is evident where the elements of “litis pendentia” or “res judicata” are present.” (United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001, 353 SCRA 782 ).
While Civil Case No. 03-27338, may be mistakenly considered as a “PERSONAL ACTION”, based from its caption or title being a “Collection of Sum of Money and Damages”, it is also an undeniable FACT that the amount being collected by the Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador from Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez is the alleged UNPAID BALANCE from the fictitious SALE OF A PROPERTY that is located in Quezon City, of which alleged unpaid balance, the Petitioner’s family refused to pay because they found out that Resp ondent 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 TW O (2) most significant of all, to wit;
1. Whether or not the Defendant has to pay the P220,000.00 remaining balance of the purchase price; and, 30
2. Whether or not the Defendant is liable to pay plaintiff monthly rentals of Php 1,500.00 ( for the use and occupancy of an alleged HOUSE ) until the remaining balance is fully paid.. These were the amounts being collected by Plaintiff-Respondent
Salvador from
Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez, as allegedly arising from the fictitious deed of Sale, denominated as “Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Aria-arian” which the latter allegedly entered into with the former , of which kind of ACTION for “ Collection of Sum of Money and Damages” may be commenced and tried in the proper court where the Plaintiff resides ( Sec. 2, Rule 4), is somewhat correct. However, it is also EQUALLY TRUE that the 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 “RE AL 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
31
RAMIREZ and not to Defendant-Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, whom Plaintiff-Respondent had
never met nor talk with personally, since time imm emorial. Obviously, The Respondent’s action of filing her Complaint to collect money and damages from the Petitioner depends from her rightful poss ession 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 n ot 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 l ot derived from a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Alexander A. Parco, an awardee-owner of the subject l ot in fav or of plaintiff Carmen A. Salvador. Alexander Parco likewise, came into his possession the subject l ot 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 l ot from Wilfredo Torres through a Deed of Assignment dated February 2, 1993. Wilfredo Torres was the registered owner of the subject l ot 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 l ot . 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 l ot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.” From the foregoing, it is apparently clear that the case brought before the Trial Court was an “accion en rem” because it affected not only the POSSESSION but the TITLE of the real property located in Quezon City. The trial court in Caloocan City did not have the jurisdiction in ruling upon the issue of possession much more ownership of the subject property in Quezon City. It also bears stressing that while the Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule upon the ownership of the subject LOT , it is likewise significant to point out what was stated 32
in the 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 l ot 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 l ot 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. 33
The TCT No. 118192 containing an area of 416,533 square meters (41.65 hectares) is covered by Lot 799 of Piedad Estate, of which portions are presumed to be legally owned by the heirs of Kalaw family and other portions are also presumed to be absolutely owned by the heirs of Torres-Sumulong family. This land dispute between Torres and Kalaw family is a very complicated case for quieting of Title, which has long gone for a period of over 30 years until it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in its Decision dated September 10, 2003, G.R. No. 91486, declaring null and void all TCTs of “Piedad Estate” covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614, including Lot 799, from which TCT-118192 that covers Lots 21 & 22 subject this case, emanated from. Respondent submitted at the Trial court voluminous records of documents as their evidence to support their claim that Wilfredo Torres is no longer the absolute owner of Lots No. 21 and 22, inside his own Wiltor Subdivision. The BLIND-folded Lady Judge KWONG, just admittedly placed all the 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” (K 1-14), (K15 – K16), K17, K18K19 and Exhibit L-L4, which Plaintiff presented in court as their documentary evidences to prove that TCT 118192 in the name of W ilfredo Torres was already null and void, would only prove otherwise that Wilfredo Torres is indeed the legal owner of Lots No. 21 & 2 2 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 34
by its President Leopoldo Zapi, offered to buy from Wilfredo Torres the 41.65 hectare land covered by TCT No. 118192 in the amount of P16,288,400.00. In behalf of NAPLICO (NCR Urban Poor Multi-purpose Cooperative) Zapi as President, entered an agreement with Torres that the former shall pay a down payment of Php 400,000.00 and the remaining balance of Php 15,888,400.00 will be amortized at Php158,844.00 a m onth 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 Tor res, Zapi in
conspiracy with NAPLICO Officers and Members, including Respondent Carmen Salvador, sold, conveyed, disposed, occupied and appropriated for their own use and benefit, several portions of said land, but failed or ignored to pay Torres the monthly amortization indicated in their agreement. Despite verbal and written demands made, Zapi and his cohorts have failed and refused to vacate, return or peacefully turn-over a total of thirty (30) lots to Torres, hence the latter was compelled to file four (4) consolidated Estafa cases against Zapi and his cohorts, at the Department of Justice, NCR, Quezon City with I.S.No. 98-24390; 98-24866; 98-26175 and 99-0942. These cases were however dismissed by a Resolution dated June 27, 2000, issued by Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Jocelyn A. Solis-Reyes, on the basis that the acts committed by Zapi and his cohorts in selling lots owned by Torres does not constitute Estafa, because there was no provision in the agreement that prohibits the sale or disposition of said lots pending full payment of the purchase price. Their non-compliance in turning over to Torres the thirty (30) lots only give rise to civil liability. Therefore, it was only the Civil Case for Annulment of Contract and Damages, No. Q94-19204, at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, branch 101, filed by Torres through his Atty-in-Fact, Cesar Serrano, against Zapi and NAPLICO officers (including REYNALDO PONCE, who is the author of, and one of the witnesses in the Respondent’s fictitious “Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-arian” ), as the Civil Case that was won by Torres in a Decis ion
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 35
ownership over the subject property and that all transfer of “RIGHTS” o ver 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 Memorand um, 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, 8 th Division DECISION in CAG.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 supp lied )
[ What an EXCELLENT, award-winning reasoning of an Associate Justice who was
conferred with a Presidential Award, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all ove r 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 confiden ce accorded to him, by
coming out on January 10, 2007, six months p rior to his compulsory reti rement on Ju ne 19, 2007, with a foolish, irrational, senseless and ridiculous ruling as stated above.]
Admittedly, YES. But what about the Deeds of Absolute Sale that were executed for the conveyance of property from Remigio Tamayo ( alleged awardee of Torres) to Alexander Parco (alleged 1st buyer ) and to Respondent Carmen Salvador ( alleged 2nd buyer )? All their Deeds of Sale were also XEROX or PHOTOCOPIES too, NOT registered and CANNOT likewise be registered with the Register of Deeds, because both Deeds of Sale pertain to Lots 21 & 22, which are also covered by TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador even supported with another documentary evidences, such as the spurious “Deed of Assignment”, dated February 2, 1993, and the June 30, 1995, “ Affidavit 36
“of Tamayo, which are all FAKE documents that were maliciously and unlawfully fabricated by Respondent Salvador in connivance with her nephew
Parco and Torres’ caretaker
Remigio Tamayo, intentionally & purposely done to deceive the Ramirez family in buying the property of which Respondent Salvador has no legal personality to dispose or sell. While the 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. Resp ondent
Carmen Sa lvador’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 willf ully, ma liciously and abusive ly modify ing 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 ”, t hereaft er, denie d her ownership to the subject LOT and simply “ claimed only the ownership to a residential house which is erected over the said po rtion o f land ”, where in T RUTH and in FACT, t he “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 fo r 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 t hereat 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
37
Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 13-04180-CV, by way of Respondent Salvador using the herein assailed DECISION, including the RTC and Court of Appeals Decision, as her evidence to support her claim. However, that EJECTMENT case had already been “ DISMISSED” by an “ORDER ” dated June 30, 2014, of which the trial court of Quezon City MTC, branch 32, had likewise furnished the Office of Supreme Court Administrator, with a copy of t he same. 4. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondent’s Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA in trying to justify that her client’s act ion in filing the case in Caloocan C ity involves a HOUSE wh ile the f irst one filed in Q uezon City involved a LOT, which a cc ording t o her c reates the big difference; 5. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondent’s Counsel Atty. Dayang Preciosa Medina in willfully, maliciously and dishonestly submitting a belatedlyfiled COMMENT on the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss d ue 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 violatio n of the rule on forum shopping, as c learly 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.
38
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 he r, a Motion to withdraw the first case in Quezon City had already been filed, prior to the filing of another case in Calooc an 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 t he game a nd to eventually render kind judgment for the Respondent whom she favored with.
8.5.
Re ndering a DECISION that w as primarily based on t he purported, self styled and fictitious contract denominated as “ Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-Arian” of which due execution a nd authenticity was not proven in court, because the Respondent failed to identify the signature atop the name of Petitioner ROMEO B. RAMIREZ and for the Respondent not having a personal 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 t he Pet itioner; “ 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
39
fraudulent and deceitful acts, made it difficult for them to accept the injustices that were deliberately inflicted upon them. Hence, they were compelled to hire again another private & license professional lawyer requiring them to pay another Php30,000.00 Acceptance fee and Php 3,000.00 per court appearances thereafter. Unfortunately, as already said, ALL Manifestations, Motions and Remedies available under the Rules of Court being submitted and filed by their 4 th Counsel Atty. Oscar I. Mercado, were time and again being DENIED by the Caloocan City MeTC Branch 51, until Atty. Mercado decided to finally withdraw his appearance in court. THENCEFORTH, herein 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.
I ssue 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 COMPLAINT S. 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 40
Sale to show that she allegedly bought the property, Lots No. 21 and 22, (OBJECT of the SALE), with a combined area of Two Hundred Forty (240) sq. m. in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 300,000.00) PESOS in order to entice the 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 ON E ( 1 ) ( with an area of 120 sq. meters). The another adjacent L o t No . 22 L o t , No. 21 (with the same area of 12 0 sq. meters), was sold by another person to different buyer, which Petitioner was able to find out only after paying Respondent Salvador the down payment of Php 180,000.00 , which is another reason why Petitioner refused to pay the remaining balance of P220,000.00) In falsifying the said document, Respondent made it appear in the said Deed of Absolute Sale that the property was allegedly owned by its AWARDEEOWNER, which is her nephew Alexander A. Parco. While the subject document shows it was allegedly executed only on January 29, 2000 or THREE (3) months before 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 s quatters’ “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 t his 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 vir tu e of th e Deed of Absol ute Sal e, made and execut ed by and th
between Remigi o Tamayo and A l exander A . Parco on 8 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 AWARDEE41
OWNER”. For, if Alexander A. Parco is the true “ AWARDEE-OWNER”, then what is the sense of him buying it from Remigio Tamayo? He could not be an AwardeeOwner if he only acquired the property by allegedly purchasing it from the one supposed to be the real awardee-owner , who is Remigio Tamayo.
3. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE , dated March 08, 1995, allegedly executed by Remigio Tamayo (already 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, co nniving 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 hectar es more or less. N ow known as lot 21 and 22 of the subd. Plan of Block 1. TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 118192 “A parcel of land …..xxx x Xxxx xx Xxxx xxx 42
xxxxxxxxx… to pt of begining, containing an area of FOUR HU NDRED SI XTEEN THOUSAND F IVE HUNDRED SIX TEEN TH OUSAND F IVE HUN DRED F IF TY THREE ???(416, 533)sq. m. more or less”. Do hereby
ASSIGN, TRANSFER and CONVEY unto said Remigio Tamayo his heirs porti on bel ow descri bed propert y more part i cul arl y Block 1 L ot N o. 21 and L ot 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 p ersonally constructed by him piece by piece for ten years since 1985. For obvious reason, if this AFF IDAVIT of Re migio 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 han dwritings and signatures
43
of Respondent Carmen Salvador appearing on all the documents that bear her signatures and handwritings. Another significant FACT between these TWO documents, aside from the FORGED SIGNATURES and the OBJECTS of SALE being changed, is that both documents were acknowledged before the same Notary Public of Caloocan City VICE NTE 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;
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE purportedly
On page 2 of the alleged
ACKNOWLEGED and NOTARIZED before Notary Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN on the 8
th
day of March 1995 at Kalookan City, it shows Remigio Tamayo’s
Reside nce 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.
44
Even without referring or subjecting this document to a hand-writing expert, anybody can clearly see and safely say that, while in an instant look it would appear to have been purportedly personally prepared, and written by Remigio 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
A r i - A r i a n ” 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 selfserving 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.
45
3. At ang naturang ari-arian ay ipinagbibili ko kasama na ang karapatan
ko
sa
lupa
kay
Mr.
Romeo
B.
Ramirez
sa
napagkasunduan naming halagang P400,000.00. 4. Ang naturang napagkasunduan naming kabayaran ay ibibigay sa akin ng dalawang hulog. 5. Ang unang kabayaran na nagkakahalaga ng P180,000.00 ay tinanggap ko ngayong araw na ito ( 15 May, 2000) at napagkasunduan namin na ang natitirang balanseng halagang P 220,000.00 ay ibibigay sa akin sa buwan ng Disyembre 2000, at kung natanggap ko na ang kabuuang kabayaran ng aking ariarian ay gagawa ako ng Deed of Absolute Sale, sa kapakanan ng bumili, Mr. Romeo B. Ramirez. 6. Napagkasunduan
din
namin
na
kung
sakaling
hindi
sila
makatupad sa aming usapan na babayaran nila ang balanse sa Disyembre ng taong ito ay sisingilin ko sila ng kanilang buwanang renta sa naturang bahay, simula ngayong buwan na ito hanggang hindi sila makabayad ng kanilang balanseng kabayaran. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )
( …end of page 1, without signature of any of the al leged parti es)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
( …on page 2 of the Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari -arian, it reads,)
Bilang katunayan ay nilagdaan ko ang KATIBAYAN na ito ngayong ika-15 ng Mayo, 2000, dito sa Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City. (underscoring & emphasis supplied) (SIGNED) CARMEN A. SALVADOR May-ari CONFORME: (Unidentified Signature)- NOT the signature of Romeo B. Ramirez ROMEO B. RAMIREZ Mga Saksi: (Signed) 1. CAMILO B. AQUINO
(Signed) 2. REYNALDO A. PONCE
x----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- x 46
By merely reading the contents and understanding the meaning of the foregoing “Katibayan sa Bilihan…” anybody can easily comprehend and understand that it is NOT a mutually agreed upon contract between two or more parties. It is a pure and simple statement of a single party and is NOT binding with any other party. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself with respect to the other, to give something or to render some services. (A rt . 1305, Civil
). Code of the Phi l i ppi nes In view of the “Katibayan…”, there was no meeting of minds b etween 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 , Augu st 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 Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra ).” Paragraph 5, page 7, CA-G.R. SP NO. 94866, DECISION. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)
47
With due respect to that foregoing C.A. Decision, Petitioner is again of humble submission to the Honorable Supreme Court on his view that the aforesaid CA opinion is a baseless and unfounded which cannot in any way be applied to Salvador-Ramirez case. As already mentioned above, there was NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP that existed between Salvador and Ramirez and there was also NO EVIDENCE extant in the record that Petitioner Ramirez made such declaration. The “Katibayan…” as exhibited by the Respondent does not even bear signatures of any of the parties on its FIRST PAGE and it was also not acknowledged before a notary public. Consequently, before the same may be received as evidence, its DUE EXECUTION and AUTHENTICITY must first be proven. (Sec. 20, Rul e 132 of t he Revised
). However, despite the fact that Respondent failed to prove its due Rul es on E vidence execution and authenticity, said “Katibayan…” was willfully and maliciously admitted by the Trial Court,… placed by Judge ELE ANOR 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
48
Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to jointly and severally pay the Petitioner the damages sustained, in the amounts of; 1.
Php 1,440,000.00 (One Million Four Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos ), representing the down payment amount of P180,000.00 paid on May 15, 2000, by the Plaintiff to Respondent, computed at standard 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. Osc ar 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
49