LAST-DITCH PLEA TO SUPREME COURT TO STOP DEMOLITION OF POOR HOMES
LAST-DITCH PLEA TO SUPREME COURT
TO STOP DEMOLITION OF POOR HOMES
By BERTENI "TOTO" CATALUÑA CAUSING
This highly-sensitive social issue stemming from poverty that is impossible to happen to the family and children of Janet Lim-Napoles is being shared so that the public may know and learn from the arguments raised here in a last-ditch bid to save poor families from being demolished of their homes in Pulang Lupa, Las Piñas City.
To my mind, the Supreme Court committed a grave error in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the author to prevent demolition of house to be carried out by Casimiro Development Corporation (CDC) with the help of the local executives of Las Piñas.
In this Motion for Reconsideration that the author filed on Monday (August 12, 2013), he displayed the most out of his brilliance to write this ULTIMATE PLEA.
Here is the introductory argument of the author in that final plea.
"Annulment
of judgment case cannot be barred by res judicata.
"This doctrine of preclusion does not simply
apply when the judgment that is deemed final is the one being DIRECTLY
CHALLENGED. It is not like in ordinary cases where the final judgment is only
collaterally attacked.
"Bluntly speaking, THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS RES JUDICATA IN ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
complaint.
"With this, the Supreme Court is illogical in saying the RTC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Annulment of Judgment
complaint on the ground of res judicata.
"Having said those strong statements,
the petitioners, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully move the Honorable
Court to reconsider its Resolution dated June 17, 2013 and direct the
respondents to file their comment to the instant Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition – and, most importantly, stop the respondents from implementing the
writ of demolition of the MeTC of Las Piñas, Branch 79.
"Meanwhile, a copy of the same
Resolution was received by the law firm on July 26, 2013, giving the
petitioners until August 10, 2013 (a Saturday) to file a motion for
reconsideration or until August 12, 2013, the first office day thereafter.
"It is noted that a copy of the first writ
of demolition issued by the respondent MeTC was attached to the petition as Annex “D.” A copy of the second writ of demolition was
attached to the same petition as Annex
“E.”
"Additionally, it is indispensable to
enjoin the respondents from demolishing the homes of the petitioners if only to
be humane to the petitioners who are being sought to be demolished and driven
to the streets without any relocation site being provided.
"Because it is illogical for the Supreme
Court to say that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the annulment of judgment complaint by invoking res judicata, it is begged
of the Highest Court of the Land, THE LAST BULWARK OF THE POOR LIKE THE
PETITIONERS, that before acting on the motion for reconsideration it issue
a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a status quo ante order (SQAO).
"This, if the Supreme Court does not want one
most inhuman act to happen: an act of demolishing homes and forcing the
residents, particularly kids, to live on streets in these times of rainy days.
"Demolition is one of the revolting things
to happen as it is now being loathed at by the executive.
"Even the Congress passed Republic Act 7279
to ease the traumatic impact of demolition whose victims are always the poor
and the underprivileged.
"The petitioners here are all
underprivileged."
THE FULL COPY OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BELOW
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
LEONARDO L.
MATEO, CANDIDO L. MATEO,
ROWENA MATEO,
EMELINDA MATEO,
GERALDO L. MATEO,
WILFREDO L. MATEO,
ROWENA L. MATEO,
EDGARDO L. MATEO,
RICARDO B.
TORRES, ROSALINA S. MATEO,
LEAN PRECIOUS
MATEO QUILATAN, PAUL
QUILATAN, LEONIÑO
S. MATEO, JOSE ROBIN
MATEO,
CHRISTOPHER MATEO, MA. GLENDA
MATEO, ADELA R.
MATEO, JOSELITO R.
MATEO, JOSEFINO
R. MATEO, JOSE RUEL
R. MATEO, JESUSA
R. MATEO, MARICRIS
R. MATEO, MARIVIC
R. MATEO, MARIBEL
R. MATEO,
Petitioners,
-
versus - G.R. No. 207157
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF LAS PIÑAS-BRANCH 255,
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT OF LAS PIÑAS, BRANCH 79,
and CASIMIRO
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondents,
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Motion for Reconsideration
Annulment
of judgment case cannot be barred by res judicata.
This doctrine of preclusion does not simply
apply when the judgment that is deemed final is the one being DIRECTLY
CHALLENGED. It is not like in ordinary cases where the final judgment is only
collaterally attacked.
Bluntly speaking, THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS RES JUDICATA IN ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
complaint.
With this, the Supreme Court is illogical in saying the RTC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Annulment of Judgment
complaint on the ground of res judicata.
Having said those strong statements,
the petitioners, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully move the Honorable
Court to reconsider its Resolution dated June 17, 2013 and direct the
respondents to file their comment to the instant Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition – and, most importantly, stop the respondents from implementing the
writ of demolition of the MeTC of Las Piñas, Branch 79.
Meanwhile, a copy of the same
Resolution was received by the law firm on July 26, 2013, giving the
petitioners until August 10, 2013 (a Saturday) to file a motion for
reconsideration or until August 12, 2013, the first office day thereafter.
It is noted that a copy of the first writ
of demolition issued by the respondent MeTC was attached to the petition as Annex “D.” A copy of the second writ of demolition was
attached to the same petition as Annex
“E.”
Additionally, it is indispensable to
enjoin the respondents from demolishing the homes of the petitioners if only to
be humane to the petitioners who are being sought to be demolished and driven
to the streets without any relocation site being provided.
Because it is illogical for the Supreme
Court to say that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the annulment of judgment complaint by invoking res judicata, it is begged
of the Highest Court of the Land, THE LAST BULWARK OF THE POOR LIKE THE
PETITIONERS, that before acting on the motion for reconsideration it issue
a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or a status quo ante order (SQAO).
This, if the Supreme Court does not want one
most inhuman act to happen: an act of demolishing homes and forcing the
residents, particularly kids, to live on streets in these times of rainy days.
Demolition is one of the revolting things
to happen as it is now being loathed at by the executive.
Even the Congress passed Republic Act 7279
to ease the traumatic impact of demolition whose victims are always the poor
and the underprivileged.
The petitioners here are all
underprivileged.
Res judicata
illogical to prohibit
annulment of
judgment case
When the premise states that res judicata is illogical to exist in a
annulment of judgment case, it is meant about a legit annulment of judgment
case that is founded on legitimate grounds.
The grounds allowed by the Rules of
Court in annulment of judgment are lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud.
In the instant annulment of judgment
case, the grounds are lack of jurisdiction because of three reasons.
The
first reason why the MeTC of Las Piñas had no jurisdiction is the fact that
the plaintiff was not yet an owner of the lot that was the subject of the same
unlawful detainer case.
The fact that the plaintiff was not yet the
owner can easily be seen on the Deed of Conditional Sale attached by the
plaintiff as Annex “A” of its complaint for ejectment.
The same deed of conditional sale withheld
transfer of possession rights until all installments are paid.
The same ejectment complaint was filed on
June 16, 1991 as seen on the face itself of the complaint for ejectment. The MeTC promulgated the decision to eject
the petitioners on 19 October 1992. The
deed of absolute sale was executed only on 4 March 1993, or two years before the
filing of the ejectment case.
The
second reason why the MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case is the
fact that the person who signed the verification for the corporation-plaintiff did not have any board resolution of
Casimiro Dev’t Corp. authorizing the signatory, Mr. Gabriel Casimiro, to sign
the same ejectment complaint.
In short, the MeTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff Casimiro Dev’t Corp.
The
third reason why the MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case is
because it did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.
A reading of the complaint shows it
does not state the existence of a lease between Casimiro Dev’t Corp. and the
petitioners. It also did not state the
expiration of lease. It also did not
state that the cause of action for ejectment, if ever there was any, was still
within the one-year period to vest jurisdiction over the subject matter unto
the MeTC.
The same complaint also did not
state that the plaintiff tolerated the petitioners to occupy the piece of land
subject of the case. It also did not
state that the tolerance was withdrawn. It also did not state that the cause of
action for ejectment, if ever there was any, was still within the one-year time
bar to vest unto the MeTC jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The same complaint did not allege
any facts as to how it happened or what contract or relationship there was that
the petitioners occupied the same lot and did not state how the petitioners
lost that right to possess. And, again,
there was no statement that any cause of action, if ever there was any, was
still within the one-year period to vest authority unto the MeTC.
To the contrary, the same complaint
admitted it bought by installments the piece of land subject of this case from
putative owner China Banking Corp. It also
admitted that it had not yet paid the installments at the time of the filing of
the ejectment suit. It also admitted
that by virtue of this deed of conditional sale they told the petitioners to
leave the land at once.
If at all, it is very clear that the
only cause of action present as seen in the complaint was one for accion pauliana or recovery of
possession in a plenary proceedings.
The decision sought to be annulled
did not tackle the issues of acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
plaintiff (Casimiro Dev’t Corp.) and over the subject matter of the case.
When the decision of the MeTC of Las
Piñas, Branch 79, reached the Supreme Court for the first time as “CESAR
MATEO, CANDIDO MATEO, DOMINGO A. SANTOS, DANILO RIVERA VIRGINIA JARDIN GUPIT,
ZENAIDA ARANDA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND CASIMIRO
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents”, G.R. No. 128392. April 29,
2005, the Highest Court was confronted with the only issue of whether or not
the same ejectment suit should be dismissed upon the claim that the land
concerned was a fishpond.
It is very clear that the Supreme
Court passed upon only on the issue of whether or not it was the MeTC or the DARAB
that had jurisdiction over the case.
To clearly show that the only issue
resolved by the Supreme Court was whether the said ejectment must be under the
jurisdiction of the DARAB or the MeTC, let the pertinent portion of the ruling
of the Supreme Court in GR No. 128392 be quoted, to wit:
Since
there is no proof of tenancy relationship, and in view of absence of the
necessary elements enumerated in Duremdes v. Duremdes, the DARAB does
not have jurisdiction over the present case.
The MTC, therefore, had jurisdiction over the subject matter and hence
properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.
Thus, it has been shown that the
grounds relied on by the petitioners here are legitimate issues of lack of
jurisdiction.
It is not important that these
grounds be proven as yet because it was yet in the preliminary stage.
What is important is that when it is not
yet clear whether the grounds invoked can be proven or not, the RTC should have
given due course to the complaint for Annulment of Judgment and consider those
affirmative defenses as evidentiary.
Anyway, the petitioners have proven that
their grounds for lack of jurisdiction are legit.
And if the grounds invoked were legit, the
RTC had no discretion to dismiss the complaint for Annulment of Judgment. By this alone, it is very clear that the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion.
So that it is very clear also that in this
case, it is illogical for res judicata
to bar annulment of judgment.
As such, the Supreme Court in this case clearly
erred in point of law, logic and principle.
Still, res judicata cannot be invoked
against annulment of judgment case.
Supreme Court ruled
in one case
that res judicata cannot bar
annulment of
judgment petition
After assembling the arguments above
that res judicata is illogical to bar annulment of judgment, a decision of the
Supreme Court in one case was stumbled upon.
This is the decision of the SC in
the case Orbeta vs. Sendion, July 8, 2005, G.R. No. 155236, July 8,
2005.
In this case, the Supreme Court
stated:
To begin with, it is the height of sophistry to argue that res judicata would bar a petition for annulment of judgment whose,
as in this case, prior judgment happens to be that which is sought to be
annulled. The petition for annulment
of judgment precisely challenges the validity of the “first judgment,” and to
adopt petitioners’ argument would lead to permanent preclusion of annulment of
judgment as a remedy. Significantly,
the reverse is true for the rationale underlying annulment of judgment is incongruent with the concept of res judicata. Hence, the action for annulment of
judgment precludes the defense of res
judicata. The grounds for
annulment of judgment are either lack of jurisdiction or the presence of
extrinsic fraud in the rendition of the judgment sought to be annulled. On the
other hand, among the requisites of res
judicata are jurisdiction
on the part
of the court
rendering the first judgment over the parties and identity of causes of
action between the first and the second actions. Ineluctably, said requisites
are absent. The first judgment, in Civil
Case No. 10173, pertains to the merits of the action for recovery of
possession, quieting of title, and recovery of damages, whereas the cause of
action in the petition for annulment relates to the lack of jurisdiction that
marred the rendition of the first judgment.
The element of identity of parties is
likewise not present. Respondent was not
a party to either Civil Case No. 10173
or CA-G.R. SP No. 48943.
The judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 48943 is no
bar to the petition for annulment as well. There is neither identity of parties
or identity of causes of action as between the certiorari petition and the
petition for annulment of judgment. Petitioners claim that “the alleged
exclusion of indispensable party Paul Sendiong . . . had already been
ventilated before the [Court of Appeals] in CA-G.R. SP No. 48943, . . . which
was TERSELY DISMISSED per Decision promulgated on June 30, 2000.” The
eleven-page Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48943 hardly
constitutes a “terse dismissal” except perhaps in the land of the long-winded,
but a perusal of the said Decision reveals no discussion at all about
impleading Paul Sendiong in Civil Case No. 10173.
In fact, the only mention made of respondent
in the aforesaid Decision was in the narration of facts. The adjudication of
CA-G.R. SP No. 48943, as expressed in the Decision, was limited to the
propriety of the denial of the Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 10173. The
appellate court upheld the denial on the ground that there was no written
explanation as to why the Notice of Appeal was served by registered mail
instead of personal service.[22] No other matter was discussed by the Court of
Appeals therein, certainly none on the merits of the Civil Case. In fact, the
Decision ends with the caveat: “This Court is confronted only with the
procedural aspect of the case.”
Since this decision of the Supreme
Court forms part of the law of the land, public respondent RTC of Las Piñas,
Branch 255, had the obligation to follow the same.
But what it did was it dismissed the
annulment of judgment outright and the motion for reconsideration from the
dismissal.
There is no more issue then that the
RTC of Las Piñas committed grave abuse of discretion.
As such, the Supreme Court erred in
ruling that this petition failed to show any grave abuse of discretion
committed by the RTC when it dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment
on the ground of res judicata.
Many parties in the
instant case are
not parties in the
Supreme Court case
Actually, even if we test the
existence of res judicata by the test
of parties, it is very clear that many parties in this annulment of judgment,
particularly LEONARDO LARA MATEO, were not named as parties in the Supreme
Court case.
This can be easily determined by
comparing the names of the petitioners in G.R. No. 128392 against the names
listed in this petition.
So that, even if it is to be tested
as to the parties, it is clear that there are no complete similarity of
parties.
With this alone, it sufficient to
see there was no res judicata.
This petition can
be equitably treated
as Petition for
Review on Certiorari
Let it be stressed that the demands
of justice here in this case, as evinced by the fact that res judicata cannot bar annulment of judgment, is compelling.
With this, the Supreme Court can set
aside the Rules in favor of substance in order not to frustrate the apparent
merit for the cries of justice by the petitioners.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, this petition for
annulment of judgment was filed only on May 31, 2013.
The RTC order being challenged was
received on May 24, 2013.
Hence, the number of days that
lapsed were only seven days as against the fifteen days to file an appeal by
petition for review on certiorari.
The Prayer
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of
the Supreme Court that after due notice and hearing, it declares that the RTC
of Las Piñas, Branch 255, committed grave abuse of discretion and direct the
same court to reinstate the Annulment of Judgment complaint and hear and decide
the same.
Also,
it is prayed that the Supreme Court declare that the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Las Piñas, Branch 79, committed grave abuse of discretion in not deferring
its action on the demolition so that the issues in Annulment of Judgment are
not rendered moot and moribund.
And
before this petition can be heard, it is beseeched to the Supreme Court that it
issues a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) or Status Quo Ante Order, enjoining the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Las Piñas, Branch 79, from implementing or executing its writ of demolition.
Other
reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for. Manila, August
12, 2013.
RENTA PE CAUSING
SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES
Unit 1, 2368 JB Roxas
St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
By:
BERTENI CATALUÑA
CAUSING
IBP No. 876498 /
Manila IV / 10-01-2013
PTR No. 1435314 /
Manila / 10-01-2013
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE
No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012
Copy furnished:
REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF LAS PIÑAS-BRANCH 255,
LAS PIÑAS CITY
METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT OF LAS PIÑAS-BRANCH 79,
LAS PIÑAS CITY
ATTY.
RODOLFO P. DEL PRADO
Counsel
for CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
DEL
PRADO DIAZ AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
4th
Floor, United Life Building,
837
A. Arnaiz Avenue, Legaspi Village, Makati City
MAYOR NENE AGUILAR
Office
of the Mayor, City Hall of Las Pinas
Zapote
Road, Las Piñas City
OFFICE OF THE VICE-MAYORS
and COUNCILORS OF LAS PIÑAS
City
Council, City Hall of Las Piñas,
Zapote
Road, Las Piñas City
Explanation
Far distance and
lack of manpower compelled the firm to furnish the parties copies of this
motion by registered mails with return card.
BERTENI
CATALUÑA CAUSING
Comments