PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND QUE V. JAVIER [2005]

nature

Petition for review on certiorari 

facts

·          Feb 14, 1990 Mercedes Javier with the RTC Malolos City, for DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION. 

·          Impleaded as defendant was PHILVILLE Development and Housing Corporation (PHILVILLE).

complaint allegations

·          Sps Crisanto (now deceased) and Mercedes Javier have been tenant-cultivators of a 5.5 hectare parcel of rice land at Meycauayan, Bulacan, owned by Felimon Emperado, a HOLDER OF A FREE PATENT.  

·          1977, PHILVILLE proposed to buy the land for conversion into a housing subdivision.  Spouses Javier, PHILVILLE and Emperado then entered into a Kasulatan ng Pagsasalin at Kusang Loob na Pagsusuko.  

·          Among the terms agreed upon by the parties was that the Javiers would be given a 2,000 sq m lot as a disturbance compensation. 

·          Instead of giving them a single lot measuring 2,000 square meters, what they received were 2 separate lots of 1,000 square meters each located far apart.    This prompted Mercedes to sue PHILVILLE for damages.

philville answer

·          PHILVILLE specifically denied the allegations in the complaint and raised the following affirmative and special defenses:

o    the complaint fails to state a cause of action;

o    it does not allege that the parties resorted to conciliation proceedings before the barangay;

o    plaintiff is estopped from filing the complaint.

amended complaint

·          Mercedes filed a motion for leave of court to amend her complaint.  

·          In her attached amended complaint, she alleged that:

o    the Kasulatan did not express the true agreement of the parties

o    sale is void as it was executed within the 5-year prohibitive period from the issuance of the free patent.

order denying the amendment of complaint

·          The trial court issued an Order denying Mercedes’ motion, holding that

o    the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the cause of action in the original complaint;

o    the proposed amendment is the subject of CC No. 172-M-90 between the same parties pending before another branch of the trial court.

·          Mercedes filed a MR of the trial court’s Order but it was denied.

philville’s mtd of the original complaint

·          On Nov 13, 1991, PHILVILLE moved to dismiss the original complaint alleging that the plaintiff had filed a protest with the Land Management Bureau seeking the revocation of the free patent issued to Felimon Emperado and the reversion of the land to the public domain.

mtd granted   

·          Nov 29, 1991: MTD granted for the reasons stated in the MTD filed by the defendants and it appearing that plaintiffs have no objection thereto as shown by the latter’s failure to appear before this Court during the hearing of the said motion on Nov 29, 1991

·          On Dec 27, 1991, Mercedes filed a MR of the said Order but it was denied. 

plaintiff’s appeal to the CA.

·          Dec 22, 2000, CA reversed the TC’s orders and remanding the case to the trial court.

instant petition for review on certiorari.

issue/ruling

whether the CA erred in reversing the challenged Orders of the trial court dismissing the complaint in CC No. 122-M-90. no.

·          Section 1, Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court then applicable provides:

SEC. 1. Grounds. – Within the time for pleading a MTD the action may be made on any of the following grounds:

·          J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Rafor: “within the time for pleading” means within the time to answer.  

·          Rule 11.1, the time to answer is 15 days after service of summons upon the defendant.   

·          PHILVILLE’s MTD the complaint in CC No. 122-M-90 was filed after it had filed its answer.   

·          In Heirs of Mariano Lagutan v. Icao  where a MTD was filed 3 months after the defendants had filed their amended answer, the said motion was filed out of time.  

·          In Ruiz, Jr. v. CA this Court ruled that where an answer has been filed, the defendant is estopped from filing a MTD.    The only exceptions to the rule, as correctly pointed out by the CA, are:

o    (1) where the ground raised is lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter;

o    (2) where the complaint does not state a cause of action;

o    (3) prescription; and

o    (4) where the evidence that would constitute a ground for the dismissal of the complaint was discovered only during the trial.  

·          None of the foregoing grounds is present in PHILVILLE’s MTD.

·          Petition denied. CA affirmed.  

Read More

BACELONIA, SR. VS. CA & BOLOS [2003]

PARTIES

Petitioners/Team School Shuttle Service:

·          Serena T. Bacelonia,

·          Graciano Bacelonia, Sr.

·          Graciano T. Bacelonia, Jr., - driver

Respondents/Team Parents of Jemelee:

·          Sps. Victorino S. Bolos, Jr. and Olivia P. Bolos

Team Cargo Truck:

·          Simeon Roxas-Cu – Owner

·          Daniel Carino – Driver

actions

·          CC No. Q-95-23169 – filed by Bacelonias against Roxas-Cu and Cariño

·          CC No.Q-98-33149 – filed by Sps Bolos against Bacelonia’s and Team Cargo Truck

nature

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

facts

·          Feb 3, 1993 - VEHICULAR ACCIDENT involving a tamaraw-type school shuttle service vehicle and a 6 x 6 Isuzu cargo truck along QC on resulting in the death of Sps. Bolos’ daughter, Jemelee Bolos.  

·          Jemelee was on board the SCHOOL SHUTTLE SERVICE vehicle that used to transport her from Marikina City to St. Bridget School in QC.

CC No. Q-95-23169

·          Mar 1, 1995 - Bacelonia’s filed on Mar 1, 1995 a complaint for damages Team CT with the RTC of QC

·          Apr 27, 1995 -  Bacelonias and their Team Cargo Truck entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT that led to the DISMISSAL of the complaint on Apr 28, 1995 by the trial court.

CC No.Q-98-33149

·          Jan 12, 1998, Victorino and Olivia Bolos filed a COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES against petitioners including Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Cariño before the RTC of QC

·          Defendants

o    Graciano, Sr. and Serena Bacelonia - OWNERS OF THE SCHOOL SHUTTLE  

o    Graciano Bacelonia, Jr. - DRIVER thereof.

o    Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Cariño were the OWNER and the DRIVER of the cargo truck

·          Feb 9, 1998, the petitioners filed their:

o    ANSWER with special and affirmative defenses and COUNTERCLAIM while their co-defendants

o    Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Cariño, filed their ANSWER with affirmative defenses and CROSS-CLAIM.

motion to be dropped as defendants

·          Sep 24, 1999, and upon termination of the testimony of the second witness for the Sps Bolos in CC #2, Bacelonias filed a MOTION TO BE DROPPED AS DEFENDANTS therefrom on the ground that a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT had already been entered into by the parties in CC No. 95-23169.  

·          The Bacelonias opined in essence that their co-defendants had explicitly admitted sole responsibility for the vehicular accident by entering into the compromise agreement.  

·          Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Cariño, filed an OPPOSITION thereto substantially contending that res-judicata does not obtain insofar as the present case is concerned, and that, on the contrary, they never admitted any responsibility for the accident on Feb 3, 1993.

·          Jan 10, 2000 - trial court resolved to DENY THE MOTION of the Bacelonias to be dropped as defendants on for lack of merit and scheduled the reception of evidence of the defense on Feb 3, 2000.

·          Jan 31, 2000, the Bacelonias filed a MR of the trial court’s order denying their motion to be dropped as defendants from CC No. Q-98-33149 and set the date of hearing thereof on Feb 15, 2000 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.  

·          On the same day, Bacelonias also filed a SEPARATE MOTION TO CANCEL THE HEARING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE for the defense earlier scheduled on Feb 3, 2000 so that their MR, scheduled for hearing on Feb 15, 2000, may not be rendered moot and academic. The motion to cancel hearing was itself scheduled to be heard on Feb 3, 2000.

·          Private respondents OPPOSED THE TWIN MOTIONS of the Bacelonias for lack of merit and argued that the scheduled hearing on Feb 3, 2000 for the initial presentation of evidence of the defense may be availed of by said Bacelonias for oral argument in support of their MR.

·          During the scheduled hearing for the initial presentation of evidence of the defense on Feb 3, 2000, the trial court denied the MR of the Bacelonias for lack of merit.

petition for certiorari to the ca

·          The Bacelonias elevated the matter to the CA through a petition for certiorari maintaining that they were not accorded their right to due process when their MR was denied by the trial court prior to its scheduled hearing on Feb 15, 2000.   

·          Mar 6, 2000 PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE CA in the questioned Resolution for being premature and for lack of merit.  

·          CA: questioned order of the trial court was INTERLOCUTORY and could not be assailed in a petition for certiorari and that, moreover, RES JUDICATA did not apply insofar as the claim in CC #2 was concerned.

·          The subsequent MR was denied by the CA on May 19, 2000.  

issue

·          WON the CA exceeded its jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 57455.

ruling

·          Sps. Bolos Comment on Oct 9, 2000 which elicited a Reply from the Bacelonias on May 15, 2001. Both parties filed their respective memoranda on Dec 18, 2001 in compliance with our resolution dated Oct 8, 2001 after which the case was deemed submitted for decision.

rule 65 is the proper remedy not rule 45

·          While the instant petition is ostensibly denominated as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking a review of the questioned resolutions of the CA, the discussion therein exclusively dwells on the sole issue of WON the CA committed GAD, a question which may be appropriately addressed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.  

·          Bacelonias: CA exceeded its jurisdiction when it dismissed their petition in CA G.R. S.P. No. 57455 allegedly for being premature and for lack of merit, thereby totally ignoring the basic issue on the alleged violation by the trial court of their basic right to due process.

·          A petition for review under Rule 45 is generally limited only to questions of law or errors of judgment. 

·          On the other hand, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be availed of to correct errors of jurisdiction including the commission of GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

·          Consequently, the instant petition for review may be denied for being an erroneous legal recourse.

TC DID NOT COMMIT GAD

·          CA correctly dismissed the petition for the reason that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Bacelonias’ MR on Feb 3, 2000.  

·          By GAD is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as would be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.  The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.

rule 15.5 is mandatory

·          The MR of the TC’s resolution on Jan 10, 2000 was filed by the Bacelonias on Jan 31, 2000.  The date and time of hearing thereof was set by the Bacelonias on Feb 15, 2000 at 8:30 AM.  

·          Rule 15.5:

Section 5.  Notice of hearing.- The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.  

·          The scheduled hearing of the said MR was BEYOND the period specified by the Revised Rules of Court which was not later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion, or no later than Feb 10, 2000.

·          Rule 15.5 uses the mandatory term “Must” in fixing the period within which the motion shall be scheduled for hearing.  

·          A motion that fails to religiously comply with the mandatory provision of Rule 15.5 is pro forma and presents no question which merits the attention and consideration of the court.

·          The mandatory character of Rule 15.5 becomes specially significant in this case, since it is apparent that the Bacelonias have been engaging in dilatory tactics, an imputation not without factual basis.  

compromise agreement not binding on the sps bolos

·          This compromise agreement was already interposed by the Bacelonias as one of the special and affirmative defenses in their answer to the complaint for damages in CC No. Q-98-33149.

·          It was no longer legally possible for the Bacelonias to file the Motion to Exclude on Sep 24, 1999 in CC #2 (actually a MTD the case against them), based on a compromise agreement that did not even bind the complainants who were not parties thereto.

·          The private respondents were already winding up the presentation of their evidence in CC No. #2.

·          Upon the denial of their Motion to Exclude on Jan 10, 2000, the Bacelonias filed the MR on Jan 31, 2000.  They also moved to cancel the scheduled hearing for the initial presentation of their evidence already scheduled on Feb 3, 2000 ostensibly to give way to oral arguments in support of their MR which, as above discussed, was pro forma.  

·          By their actuations, it can be conclusively presumed that the Bacelonias had no other intention but to delay the proceedings in CC #2.

bacelonias was not denied of due process

·          Besides, the Bacelonias cannot validly invoke violation of due process to question the trial court’s denial of their MR. It should be pointed out that the motion to cancel the scheduled hearing on Feb 3, 2000 filed on Jan 31, 2000 by the Bacelonias was itself scheduled to be heard on Feb 3, 2000 which latter date, incidentally, was previously set by the trial court for reception of defendants’ evidence. 

·          The Bacelonias were present during the hearing on said date to argue on the merits of their motion to cancel.

·          The private respondents objected to the motion to cancel the hearing on Feb 3, 2000, arguing that no compelling reason existed to grant the said pending motion; they proposed instead that Bacelonias avail of the said setting to argue their MR. 

·          Despite the denial by the trial court of their motion to cancel, and a subsequent directive for them to argue their MR on Feb 3, 2000, the Bacelonias chose to ignore the same. The Bacelonias thus had only themselves to blame for not having been heard on their MR.  

·          What is violative of due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.  In the case at bar, no GAD can be ascribed to the trial court inasmuch as it afforded the Bacelonias more than ample opportunity to explain their side.

dispositive

·          Petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED.

Read More

UE v. Pepanio

facts

·          DECS required college faculty members to have a master's degree as a minimum educational qualification for acquiring regular status.

·          1994 UE and its union executed a CBA with effect up to 1999 which provided that UE shall extend only semester-to-semester appointments to college faculty staffs who did not possess the minimum qualifications.

·          UE hired the two respondents on a semester-to-semester basis to teach in its college. They could not qualify for probationary or regular status because they lacked postgraduate degrees.

·          The two enrolled in graduate studies but failed to finish it.

·          UE extended probationary appointments to Bueno and Pepanio.

·          The Dean of the UE College of Arts and Sciences, sent notices to probationary faculty members, reminding them of the expiration of the probationary status of those lacking in postgraduate qualification

·          Pepanio replied that she was enrolled at the PUP.  

·          Bueno later wrote UE, demanding that it consider her a regular employee based on her six-and-a-half-year service. Pepanio cited her 3.5 years service.

·          Respondents filed cases of illegal dismissal against the school before the LA.

·          LA:  Bueno and Pepanio were regular employees, given that they taught at UE for at least four semesters under the old CBA. The new CBA could not deprive them of the employment benefits they already enjoyed.

·          UE appealed to the NLRC.

·          Bueno and Pepanio questioned the timeliness of the appeal to the NLRC. They pointed to the postmaster’s certification that its office received the mail containing the LA’s Decision on March 17, 2005 and "informed the Office of Atty. Mison right away but they only got the letter on April 4, 2005." Bueno and Pepanio claim that the 10-day period for appeal should be counted from March 22, 2005, five days after the postmaster’s first notice to Atty. Mison to claim his mail.

·          NLRC ruled that old CBA did not automatically confer permanent status to Bueno and Pepanio. They still had to meet the standards for permanent employment provided under the Manual of Regulations and the Joint Order mentioned above.

·          CA reinstated the LA’s Decision by reason of technicality. It held that the 10-day period for appeal already lapsed when UE filed it on April 14, 2005 since the reckoning period should be counted five days from March 17, when the postmaster gave notice to UE’s legal counsel to claim his mail or from March 22, 2005.  

·          Respondents:  petition should be denied since it failed to enclose a certification from the UE Board of Trustees, authorizing petitioner Dean Javier to sign the verification and CNFS. 

Issues/ruling

WON UE’s failure to enclose a certification from the UE Board of Trustees’ to execute the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was fatal

The BOD or Board of Trustees of a CORP must authorize the person who signs the verification and certification against non-forum shopping of its petition. But the Court has held that such authorization is not necessary when it is self-evident that the signatory is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.

The verification and certification were signed by petitioner Dean Javier who, based on the given facts of the case, was "in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition."

WON UE filed a timely appeal to the NLRC from the Decision of the LA;

Bueno and Pepanio contend that UE filed its appeal to the NLRC beyond the required 10-day period. They point out that the postmaster gave notice to Atty. Mison on March 17, 2005 to claim his mail that contained the LA Decision. He was deemed in receipt of that decision five days after the notice or on March 22, 2005. UE had 10 days from the latter date or until April 1, 2005 within which to file its appeal from that decision.

UE: period of appeal should be counted from April 4, 2005, the date appearing on the registry return receipt of the mail addressed to its counsel.

For completeness of service by registered mail, the reckoning period starts either

(a) from the date of actual receipt of the mail by the addressee or

(b) after five days from the date he received the first notice from the postmaster.

There must be a conclusive proof, however, that the registry notice was received by or at least served on the addressee before the five-day period begins to run.

The records fail to show that Atty. Mison in fact received the alleged registry notice from the post office on March 22, 2005 that required him to claim his mail. The Court has no choice but to consider the registry return receipt bearing the date April 4, 2005 which showed the date of Atty. Mison’s receipt of a copy of the LA Decision a conclusive proof of service on that date.

Reckoned from April 4, UE filed its appeal to the NLRC on time.

WON UE illegally dismissed Bueno and Pepanio.

Respondents argue that UE hired them when what was in force was the 1994 CBA between UE and the faculty union.  Escorpizo v. University of Baguio a school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications.   

UE gave respondents Bueno and Pepanio more than ample opportunities to acquire the postgraduate degree required of them.  

Petition granted. CA reversed.  

Read More