Singson v. Larrazabal

8/10/2021 G.R. No.
G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017 - ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON CORTAL, NENITA CODILLA, GENEROSO P…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
August 2017 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 >

August 2017 Decisions >
G.R. No. 199107, August 30,
ChanRobles 2017 - ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON
Professional CORTAL, NENITA CODILLA, GENEROSO PEPITO
Review, Inc.
LONGAKIT, PONCIANA BATOON, AND GREGORIA

SABROSO, Petitioners, v. INAKI A. LARRAZABAL
ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY INAKI P. LARRAZABAL,
JR., THE HONORABLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL
OFFICE NO. VIII, TACLOBAN CITY AND THE HONORABLE
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
QUEZON CITY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DARAB), Respondents.:

G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017 - ALFONSO SINGSON

CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON CORTAL, NENITA CODILLA,
GENEROSO PEPITO LONGAKIT, PONCIANA BATOON, AND
GREGORIA SABROSO, Petitioners, v. INAKI A.
LARRAZABAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY INAKI P.
LARRAZABAL, JR., THE HONORABLE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, TACLOBAN CITY
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2017augustdecisions.php?id=696 1/46
8/10/2021 G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017 - ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON CORTAL, NENITA CODILLA, GENEROSO P…
AND THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON CITY IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), Respondents.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017
ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON

CORTAL, NENITA CODILLA, GENEROSO PEPITO
LONGAKIT, PONCIANA BATOON, AND GREGORIA
SABROSO, Petitioners, v. INAKI A. LARRAZABAL
ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY INAKI P.
LARRAZABAL, JR., THE HONORABLE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, TACLOBAN
CITY AND THE HONORABLE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON
ChanRobles On-Line CITY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
Bar Review
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), Respondents.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Procedural rules must be faithfully followed and dutifully

enforced. Still, their application should not amount to
"plac[ing] the administration of justice in a
straightjacket."1 An inordinate fixation on technicalities

cannot defeat the need for a full, just, and equitable
litigation of claims.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under

Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying
ChanRobles CPA
that the assailed September 30, 20103 and September
Review Online
7, 20114 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.


SP No. 04659 be reversed and set aside, and that the
Court of Appeals be directed to give due course to the
dismissed appeal of Alfonso Singson Cortal, Juanito
Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla, Generoso Pepito Longakit,
Ponciana Batoon, and Gregoria Sabroso (petitioners).
The assailed Court of Appeals September 30, 2010

Resolution dismissed petitioners' appeal under Rule 43 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on account of several
technical defects. First was an inconsistency between the
listing of petitioners' names in their prior Motion for
Extension of Time and subsequent Petition for Review, in
which the accompanying verification and certification of
non-forum shopping were laden with this same
ChanRobles Special
inconsistency and other defects. Second was the non-
Lecture Series
inclusion of the original Complaint filed by the adverse

party, now private respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal

Enterprises, before the Regional Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reform. And
last was petitioners' counsel's failure to indicate the
place of issue of the official receipt of his payment of
annual membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.5
The assailed Court of Appeals September 7, 2011

Resolution denied petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration.6
Private respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises

(Larrazabal Enterprises) owned three (3) parcels of land
in Sitio Coob, Barangay Libertad, Ormoc City: Lot No.
5383-G, with an area of 7.6950 hectares and covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 10530; Lot No.
5383-N, with an area of 5.7719 hectares and covered by
TCT No. 10530; and Lot No. 5383-F, with an area of
8.7466 hectares and covered by TCT No. 16178.7
In 1988, these three (3) parcels were placed under the
Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of Presidential Decree

No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228.
Pursuant to the Scheme, Emancipation Patents and new
transfer certificates of title were issued to farmer-
beneficiaries, petitioners included.8
In 1999, Larrazabal Enterprises filed its Action for

Recovery of these parcels against the Department of
Agrarian Reform and the petitioners before the Office of
the Regional Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB).9 It assailed the cancellation

of its transfer certificates of title and the subsequent
issuance of new titles to petitioners. It alleged that no
price had been fixed, much less paid, for the
expropriation of its properties, in violation of the just
compensation requirement under Presidential Decree No.
27, as amended. Thus, it prayed for the recovery of
these lots and the cancellation of petitioners' transfer
certificates of title.10
In their Answer, petitioners denied non-payment of just

compensation. They presented certifications issued by
the Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank) that the
amounts of P80,359.37 and P95,691.49 had been
deposited as payments in the name of Larrazabal
Enterprises.11 They added that since they had paid, the

cancellation of Larrazabal Enterprises' transfer
certificates of title, the subdivision of the parcels, and
the issuance of emancipation patents in their favor were
all properly made.12
In his October 15, 1999 Decision,13 Regional Adjudicator

Felixberto M. Diloy (Regional Adjudicator Diloy) noted
that there was nothing in the records to show that just
compensation was fixed or paid for the parcels.14 Hence,

he ruled in favor of Larrazabal Enterprises and ordered
that it be restored to ownership of the lots.15
Petitioners appealed to the DARAB. In its September 16,
2008 Decision,16 the DARAB reversed the Decision of
Regional Adjudicator Diloy.17 It ruled that Larrazabal

Enterprises' action, which was filed in 1999, was already
barred by prescription and laches, as the assailed
Emancipation Patents were issued in 1988.18 It likewise

gave credence to the certificates issued by Landbank,
which confirmed the payment of just compensation.19
Larrazabal Enterprises filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
In its September 30, 2009 Resolution,20 the DARAB

reversed its own decision and granted Larrazabal
Enterprises' Motion for Reconsideration.21 It justified its

ruling by saying that Larrazabal Enterprises had been
denied due process when the parcels were taken from it
without having been given just compensation.22
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review before the

Court of Appeals. In its assailed September 30, 2010
Resolution,23 the Court of Appeals dismissed their

Petition for the following formal errors:
a. the name of Raymundo Claros Codilla

was indicated in the Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition for
Review as one of the petitioners, but in
the Petition for Review and in the
Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping, his name was no
longer indicated[;]
b. the Verification and Certification of Non-

Forum Shopping failed to show any
competent evidence of identity of the
petitioners, Alfonso Singson Cortal,
Juanito Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla,
Cenon Baseles, Felimon Almacin
Batoon, Rodrigo Panilag Cabonillas,

Generoso Pepito Longakit, Exopiro
Limgas Cabonillas, Jose Panilag
Cabonillas, Avelino Panilag Cabonillas,
Ricardo Estrera German and Victoria
Rosales, at least one current
identification document issued by an
official agency bearing the photographs
and signatures of petitioners, in
violation of Sec. 2.(2) Rule IV of the
Rules of Notarial Practice[;]
c. petitioners failed to attach the copy of

the Complaint filed by respondent Inaki
A. Larrazabal Enterprises before the
Office of the Regional Adjudicator,
Tacloban City, docketed as DARAB Case
No. E.O. No. 288 (sic); and
d. counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Norjue

I. Juego did not indicate the place of
issue of his [Integrated Bar of the
Philippines] number.24
Following the dismissal of their Petition for Review,

petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In its
assailed September 7, 2011 Resolution,25 the Court of

Appeals denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Thus, this Petition was filed.

For resolution of this Court is the sole issue of whether
August-2017 or not the dismissal of petitioners' appeal was justified
Jurisprudence by the errors noted by the Court of Appeals.

It was not.
G.R. No. 187160,
August 09, 2017 - I
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee, v. ERLINDA Appeal is the remedy available to a litigant seeking to

A. SISON @ reverse or modify a judgment on the merits of a case.26
"MARGARITA S. The right to appeal is not constitutional or natural, and is
AGUILAR," Appellant.
not part of due process27 but is a mere statutory

privilege.28 Thus, it must be availed in keeping with the

G.R. No. 220002,
manner set by law and is lost by a litigant who does not
August 02, 2017 -
comply with the rules.29
EUGENIO M. GOMEZ,

Petitioner, v.
Nevertheless, appeal has been recognized as an
CROSSWORLD
important part of our judicial system and courts have
MARINE SERVICES,
been advised by the Supreme Court to cautiously
INC., GOLDEN
proceed to avoid inordinately denying litigants this
SHIPPING COMPANY
S.A., AND ELEAZAR right.30
DIAZ, Respondents.

II
G.R. No. 185597,
August 02, 2017 - Procedural rules "are tools designed to facilitate the
JOHN E.R. REYES AND adjudication of cases [so] [c]ourts and litigants alike are
MERWIN JOSEPH thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules."31 They

REYES, Petitioners, v. provide a system for forestalling arbitrariness, caprice,
ORICO DOCTOLERO, despotism, or whimsicality in dispute settlement. Thus,
ROMEO AVILA, they are not to be ignored to suit the interests of a
GRANDEUR SECURITY party.32 Their disregard cannot be justified by a
AND SERVICES
sweeping reliance on a "policy of liberal construction."33
CORPORATION, AND
MAKATI CINEMA
Still, this Court has stressed that every party litigant
SQUARE, must be afforded the fullest opportunity to properly
Respondents.
ventilate and argue his or her case, "free from the

constraints of technicalities."34 Rule 1, Section 6 of the

G.R. No. 188307,
Rules of Court expressly stipulates their liberal
August 02, 2017 -
construction to the extent that justice is better served:
MULTINATIONAL
VILLAGE Section 6. Construction. - These Rules shall
HOMEOWNERS' be liberally construed in order to promote
ASSOCIATION, INC., their objective of securing a just, speedy and
RAMON MAGBOO, inexpensive disposition of every action and
JIMMY DEL MUNDO, proceeding.
CARLOS RAPAY, AND Procedural rules may be relaxed for the most persuasive
DR. JOSEFINA of reasons so as to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
TIOPIANCO, commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
PETITIONERS, VS. not complying with the procedure prescribed.35 This
ARNEL M. GACUTAN, Court has noted that a strict application of the rules
RAFAEL TEYLAN, should not amount to straight-jacketing the
EDMUND T.
administration of justice36 and that the principles of
HERNANDEZ, DANILO
justice and equity must not be sacrificed for a stern
ARANETA, MIGUEL
application of the rules of procedure.37 In Obut v. Court
DAVID, JOLIE R.
of Appeals:38
PELAYO, BOBBY D.
YUTADCO, DANIEL We cannot look with favor on a course of
TENORIO, MICHAEL action which would place the administration
KHO, AND DANILO of justice in a straightjacket for then the
CAMBEL, result would be a poor kind of justice if there
Respondents. would be justice at all. Verily, judicial orders,

such as the one subject of this petition, are
G.R. No. 217777, issued to be obeyed. nonetheless a non-
August 16, 2017 - compliance is to be dealt with as the
PRISCILLA Z. ORBE, circumstances attending the case may
Petitioner, v. LEONORA warrant. What should guide judicial action is
O. MIARAL, the principle that a party-litigant is to be
Respondent. given the fullest opportunity to establish the

merits of his complaint or defense rather than
G.R. Nos. 144760- for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property
61, August 02, 2017 -
on technicalities.39 (Emphasis supplied)
EVELYN L. MIRANDA,
Petitioner, v. Nevertheless, alluding to the "interest of substantial
SANDIGANBAYAN AND justice" should not automatically compel the suspension
THE OMBUDSMAN, of procedural rules.40 While they may have occasionally
Respondents.; G.R. been suspended, it remains basic policy that the Rules of
Nos. 167311-12 - Court are to be faithfully observed. A bare invocation of
EVELYN L. MIRANDA, substantial justice cannot override the standard strict
Petitioner, v. implementation of procedural rules.41 In Spouses
SANDIGANBAYAN AND
Bergonia v. Court of Appeals:42
THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, The petitioners ought to be reminded that the
Respondents.; G.R. bare invocation of "the interest of substantial
Nos. 167316-17 - justice" is not a magic wand that will
VENANCIO R. NAVA, automatically compel this Court to suspend

Petitioner, v. HON. procedural rules. Procedural rules. are not to
SANDIGANBAYAN 4TH be belittled or dismissed simply because their
DIVISION AND THE non observance may have resulted in
PEOPLE OF THE prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like
PHILIPPINES, all rules, they are required to be followed
Respondents.; G.R. except only for the most persuasive of
Nos. 167625-26 - reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve
PRIMO C. OBENZA, a litigant of an injustice not commensurate
Petitioner, v. with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
SANDIGANBAYAN AND complying with the procedure prescribed.43
THE PEOPLE OF THE (Emphasis supplied)
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents. In Barnes v. Padilla,44 this Court relaxed the 15-day

period to perfect an appeal to serve substantial justice;
A.C. No. 11149 and identified situations justifying a liberal application of

(Formerly CBD Case procedural rules:
No. 13-3709), August

[T]his Court has relaxed this rule in order to
15, 2017 - LAURENCE
serve substantial justice considering (a)
D. PUNLA AND
matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b)
MARILYN SANTOS,
the existence of special or compelling
Complainants, v. ATTY.
circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d)
ELEONOR MARAVILLA-
a cause not entirely attributable to the fault
ONA, Respondent.
or negligence of the party favored by the

suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any

A.M. No. RTJ-10-
showing that the review sought is merely
2219, August 01,
frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party
2017 - OFFICE OF THE
will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.45
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, A petition for review filed out of time was entertained by
Complainant, v.
this Court in Yong Chan Kim v. People46 as it considered
RETIRED JUDGE
the strict application of the rules as unjustly depriving
PABLO R. CHAVEZ,
the accused of his liberty. It appeared that no party
FORMER PRESIDING
stood to suffer substantial injury if the accused were to
JUDGE, REGIONAL
be extended an opportunity to be heard.47
TRIAL COURT,

BRANCH 87,
Telan v. Court of Appeals48 gave due course to a
ROSARIO, BATANGAS,
belatedly filed petition. Finding that the petitioners were
ATTY. TEOFILO A.
DIMACULANGAN, JR., assisted by someone who misrepresented himself to be a

CLERK OF COURT VI, lawyer, it held that denying an opportunity for relief to
MR. ARMANDO petitioners, despite the misrepresentation, was
ERMELITO M. tantamount to depriving them of their right to counsel.49
MARQUEZ, COURT It underscored that in criminal cases, the right to
INTERPRETER III, MS. counsel is immutable as its denial could amount to a
EDITHA E. BAGSIC, peremptory deprivation of a person's life, liberty, or
COURT INTERPRETER
property.50 It stated that the right to counsel was just as
III, AND MR. DAVID
important in civil cases:51
CAGUIMBAL,
PROCESS SERVER, There is no reason why the rule in criminal
ALL OF REGIONAL cases has to be different from that in civil
TRIAL COURT, cases. The preeminent right to due process of
BRANCH 87, law applies not only to life and liberty but
ROSARIO, BATANGAS, also to property. There can be no fair hearing
Respondents.; A.M. unless a party, who is in danger of losing his
No. 12-7-130-RTC - house in which he and his family live and in
RE: UNDATED which he has established a modest means of
ANONYMOUS LETTER- livelihood, is given the right to be heard by
COMPLAINT AGAINST himself and counsel.52
THE PRESIDING
JUDGE, CLERK OF III
COURT AND COURT
STENOGRAPHER OF Judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are
THE REGIONAL TRIAL appealed to the Court of Appeals through petitions for
COURT, BRANCH 87, review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
ROSARIO, BATANGAS. Procedure. Rule 43 was adopted in order to provide

uniform rules on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies.53
G.R. No. 186050,
August 01, 2017 - Rule 43 appeals shall be taken through the filing of a
ARTHUR BALAO, verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals,54
WINSTON BALAO, within 15 days from notice of the appealed action.55
NONETTE BALAO,
JONILYN BALAO- Rule 43, Section 6 specifies the required contents of Rule
STRUGAR, AND 43 petitions:
BEVERLY LONGID,
Petitioners, v. Section 6. Contents of the Petition. - The
EDUARDO ERMITA, petition for review shall (a) state the full
GILBERTO TEODORO, names of the parties to the case, without
RONALDO PUNO, impleading the court or agencies either as

NORBERTO petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a
GONZALES, GEN. concise statement of the facts and issues
ALEXANDER YANO, involved and the grounds relied upon for the
GEN. JESUS review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly
VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. legible duplicate original or a certified true
REYNALDO MAPAGU, copy of the award, judgment, final order or
LT. P/DIR. EDGARDO resolution appealed from, together with
DOROMAL, MAJ. GEN. certified true copies of such material portions
ISAGANI CACHUELA, of the record referred to therein and other
COMMANDING supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn
OFFICER OF THE AFP- certification against forum shopping as
ISU BASED IN provided in the last paragraph of Section 2,
BAGUIO CITY, PSS Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific
EUGENE MARTIN, AND material dates showing that it was filed within
SEVERAL JOHN DOES, the period fixed herein.
Respondents.; G.R.
Rule 43, Section 7 stipulates that failure to comply with
No. 186059 -
these requisites may be sufficient ground for dismissing
SECRETARY EDUARDO
the appeal:
ERMITA,SECRETARY
GILBERTOTEODORO,SECRETARY Section 7. Effect of Failure to Comply with
RONALDOPUNO,SECRETARY Requirements. The failure of the petitioner to
NORBERTOGONZALES, comply with any of the foregoing
GEN. ALEXANDER requirements regarding the payment of the
YANO, P/DGEN. JESUS docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for
VERZOSA, BRIG. GEN. costs, proof of service of the petition, and the
REYNALDO MAPAGU, contents of and the documents which should
MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI accompany the petition shall be sufficient
CACHUELA, AND POL. ground for the dismissal thereof.
SR. SUPT. EUGENE

IV
MARTIN, Petitioners,

v. ARTHUR BALAO,
In its assailed September 30, 2010 Resolution, the Court
WINSTON BALAO,
of Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal for purely formal
NONETTE BALAO,
JONILYN BALAO- defects and without discussing the merits of the case:56
STRUGAR, AND
After a cursory examination of the instant
BEVERLY LONGID,
Petition for Review filed by petitioner under
Respondents.

A.C. No. 11504, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules in Civil Procedure,

August 01, 2017 - the same reveals the following defects:
ARIEL G. PALACIOS,
a. the name of Raymundo Claros Codilla
FOR AND IN BEHALF
was indicated in the Motion for
OF THE AFP
Extension of Time to File Petition for
RETIREMENT AND
Review as one of the petitioners, but in
SEPARATION
the Petition for Review and in the
BENEFITS SYSTEM
Verification and Certification of Non
(AFP-RSBS),
Forum Shopping, his name was no
Complainant, v. ATTY.
longer indicated[;]
BIENVENIDO BRAULIO

M. AMORA, JR.,
b. the Verification and Certification of Non-
Respondent.
Forum Shopping failed to show any

competent evidence of identity of the

G.R. No. 221493,
petitioners, Alfonso Singson Cortal,
August 02, 2017 -
Juanito Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla,
STERLING PAPER
Cenon Baseles, Felimon Almacin
PRODUCTS
Batoon, Rodrigo Panilag Cabonillas,
ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Generoso Pepito Longakit, Exopiro
Petitioner, v. KMM-
Limgas Cabonillas, Jose Panilag
KATIPUNAN AND
Cabonillas, Avelino Panilag Cabonillas.
RAYMOND Z.
Ricardo Estrera German and Victoria
ESPONGA,
Rosales, at least one current
Respondents.
identification document issued by an

official agency bearing the photographs

G.R. No. 222095,
and signatures of petitioners, in
August 07, 2017 - IN
violation of Sec. 2.(2) Rule IV of the
THE MATTER OF
Rules of Notarial Practice[;]
PETITION FOR

CANCELLATION OF
c. petitioners failed to attach the copy of
CERTIFICATES OF
the Complaint filed by respondent Inaki
LIVE BIRTH OF
A. Larrazabal Enterprises before the
YUHARES JAN
Office of the Regional Adjudicator,
BARCELOTE
Tacloban City, docketed as DARAB Case
TINITIGAN AND AVEE
No. E.O. No. 288 (sic); and
KYNNA NOELLE

BARCELOTE
d. counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Norjue
TINITIGAN - JONNA
I. Juego did not indicate the place of
KARLA BAGUIO
BARCELOTE, issue of his [Integrated Bar of the

Petitioner, v. Philippines] number.57
REPUBLIC OF THE
Contrary to the Court of Appeals' conclusion, this Court
PHILIPPINES, RICKY
does not consider these defects to have been so fatal as
O. TINITIGAN, AND
to peremptorily deny petitioners the opportunity to fully
LOCAL CIVIL
ventilate their case on appeal.
REGISTRAR, DAVAO

CITY, Respondents.
IV.A
G.R. No. 216161,
Rule 7, Sections 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

August 09, 2017 -
Procedure articulate the basic rules concerning the
COMMISSIONER OF
verification of pleadings and their accompaniment by a
INTERNAL REVENUE,
certification of non-forum shopping:
Petitioner, v.
PHILIPPINE
Section 4. Verification. - Except when
ALUMINUM WHEELS,
otherwise specifically required by law or rule,
INC., Respondent.
pleadings need not be under oath, verified or

accompanied by affidavit.
G.R. No. 189942,

August 09, 2017 -

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the
ADTEL, INC. AND/OR
affiant has read the pleading and that the
REYNALDO T. CASAS,
allegations therein are true and correct of his
Petitioners, v.
knowledge and belief.
MARIJOY A. VALDEZ,

Respondent. A pleading required to be verified which

contains a verification based on "information

G.R. No. 228887,
and belief," or upon "knowledge, information
August 02, 2017 -
and belief," or lacks a proper verification,
PEOPLE OF THE
shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

Appellee, v.
Section 5. Certification Against Forum
DOMINADOR
Shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party
UDTOHAN Y JOSE,
shall certify under oath in the complaint or
Accused-Appellant.
other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for

relief, or in a sworn certification annexed

G.R. No. 215999, thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
August 16, 2017 -
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced
SPS. FELIX A. CHUA
any action or filed any claim involving the
AND CARMEN L.
CHUA, JAMES B. same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-

HERRERA, EDUARDO judicial agency and, to the best of his
L. ALMENDRAS, MILA knowledge, no such other action or claim is
NG ROXAS, EUGENE pending therein; (b) if there is such other
C. LEE, EDICER H. pending action or claim, a complete
ALMENDRAS, statement of the present status thereof; and
BENEDICT C. LEE, (c) if he should thereafter learn that the
LOURDES C. NG, same or similar action or claim has been filed
LUCENA INDUSTRIAL or is pending, he shall report that fact within
CORPORATION, five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
LUCENA GRAND his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
CENTRAL TERMINAL, has been filed.
INC., REPRESENTED
BY FELIX A. CHUA, Failure to comply with the foregoing

Petitioners, v. UNITED requirements shall not be curable by mere
COCONUT PLANTERS amendment of the complaint or other
BANK, ASSET POOL A initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
(SPV-AMC), REVERE dismissal of the case without prejudice,
REALTY AND unless otherwise provided, upon motion and
DEVELOPMENT after hearing. The submission of a false
CORPORATION, JOSE certification or non-compliance with any of
C. GO AND THE the undertakings therein shall constitute
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS indirect contempt of court, without prejudice
OF LUCENA CITY, to the corresponding administrative and
Respondents. criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his

counsel clearly constitute willful and
G.R. No. 224302, deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
August 08, 2017 - ground for summary dismissal with prejudice
HON. PHILIP A. and shall constitute direct contempt, as well
AGUINALDO, HON. as a cause for administrative sanctions.
REYNALDO A.
An affiant verifies a pleading to indicate that he or she
ALHAMBRA, HON.
has read it and that to his or her knowledge and belief,
DANILO S. CRUZ,
its allegations are true and correct and that it has been
HON. BENJAMIN T.
prepared in good faith and not out of mere
POZON, HON.
speculation.58 Jurisprudence has considered the lack of
SALVADOR V.
verification as a mere formal, rather than a jurisdictional,
TIMBANG, JR., and the
defect that is not fatal. Thus, courts may order the
INTEGRATED BAR OF
correction of a pleading or act on an unverified pleading,
THE PHILIPPINES
(IBP), Petitioners, v. if the circumstances would warrant the dispensing of the

HIS EXCELLENCY procedural requirement to serve the ends of justice.59
PRESIDENT BENIGNO
SIMEON C. AQUINO
Altres v. Empleo,60 outlined the differences "between
III, HON. EXECUTIVE
non-compliance with the requirement on or submission
SECRETARY PAQUITO
of defective verification, and noncompliance with the
N. OCHOA, HON.
requirement on or submission of defective certification
MICHAEL FREDERICK
against forum shopping":
L. MUSNGI, HON. MA.

GERALDINE FAITH A. 1) A distinction must be made between non-
ECONG, HON. DANILO compliance with the requirement on or
S. SANDOVAL, HON. submission of defective verification, and non-
WILHELMINA B. compliance with the requirement on or
JORGE-WAGAN, HON. submission of defective certification against

ROSANA FE ROMERO- forum shopping.
MAGLAYA, HON.
MERIANTHE PACITA 2) As to verification, non-compliance

M. ZURAEK, HON. therewith or a defect therein does not
ELMO M. ALAMEDA, necessarily render the pleading fatally
and HON. VICTORIA defective, The court may order its submission
C. FERNANDEZ- or correction or act on the pleading if the

BERNARDO, attending circumstances are such that strict
Respondents.; compliance with the Rule may be dispensed
JUDICIAL AND BAR with in order that the ends of justice may be
COUNCIL, Intervenor. served thereby.
A.C. No. 10562, 3) Verification is deemed substantially
August 01, 2017 - complied with when one who has ample
JEAN MARIE S. knowledge to swear to the truth of the
BOERS, Complainant, allegations in the complaint or petition signs
v. ATTY. ROMEO the verification, and when matters alleged in
CALUBAQUIB, the petition nave been made in good faith or

Respondent. are true and correct.
G.R. No. 226345, 4) As to certification against forum shopping,
August 02, 2017 - non-compliance therewith or a defect therein,

PIONEER INSURANCE unlike in verification, is generally not curable
AND SURETY by its subsequent submission or correction
CORPORATION, thereof, unless there is a need to relax the
Petitioner, v. APL CO. Rule on the ground of "substantial

PTE. LTD., compliance" or presence of "special
Respondent. circumstances or compelling reasons".
G.R. No. 211966, 5) The certification against forum shopping

August 07, 2017 - must be signed by all the plaintiffs or
JOSE AUDIE petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who
ABAGATNAN, did not sign will be dropped as parties to the
JOSEPHINE A. PARCE, case. Under reasonable or justifiable
JIMMY ABAGATNAN, circumstances, however, as when all the
JOHN ABAGATNAN, plaintiffs or petitioners share a common
JENALYN A. DE LEON, interest and invoke a common cause of action
JOEY ABAGATNAN, or defense, the signature of only one of them
JOJIE ABAGATNAN, in the certification against forum shopping
AND JOY ABAGATNAN, substantially complies with the Rule.
Petitioners, v.
SPOUSES JONATHAN 6) Finally, the certification against forum

CLARITO AND ELSA shopping must be executed by the party-
CLARITO, pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for
Respondents. reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-

pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a
G.R. No. 206468, Special Power of Attorney designating his
August 02, 2017 - counsel of record to sign on his behalf.61
JUDITH D. DARINES (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
AND JOYCE D.
Thus, in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development
DARINES, Petitioners,
v. EDUARDO Corporation,62 this Court gave due course to a petition
QUIÑONES AND even if the verification and certification against forum
ROLANDO QUITAN, shopping were not signed by all of the parties.63 Though
Respondents. there were 25 petitioners in Torres, this Court held that

the signatures of just two (2) of them in the verification
G.R. No. 185559, were suitable, substantial compliance considering that
August 02, 2017 - they were "unquestionably real parties in interest, who
JOSE G. TAN AND undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to
ORENCIO C. swear to the truth of the allegations in the Petition."64
LUZURIAGA, On the lacking signatures in the certificate of non-forum
Petitioners, v. ROMEO shopping, this Court noted that the petitioners have
H. VALERIANO, shown that "there was reasonable cause for the failure of
Respondent. some of them to sign the certification against forum

shopping, and that the outright dismissal of the Petition
G.R. No. 217993, would defeat the administration of justice."65
August 09, 2017 -
MANUEL R.
In Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile,66 this Court held that
BAKUNAWA III,
the signing by only one (1) of the 22 petitioners on the
Petitioner, v. NORA
certificate of non-forum shopping67 was substantial
REYES BAKUNAWA,
compliance as the petitioners had a common interest in
Respondent.
the property involved, they being relatives and co-

owners of that property.68
A.M. No. P-09-2649

[Formerly A.M. No.

09-5-219-RTC], Cavile69 was echoed in Heirs of Agapito Olarte v. Office
August 01, 2017 - of the President,70 where the certification of non-forum

OFFICE OF THE shopping, signed by only two (2) of four (4)
COURT petitioners,71 was condoned considering that the
ADMINISTRATOR, petitioners shared a common interest over the lot
Complainant, v. subject of that case.72
EDUARDO T. UMBLAS,

LEGAL RESEARCHER,
In the same vein, the inclusion of Raymundo Claros
AND ATTY. RIZALINA
Codilla (Codilla) in the Motion for Extension of Time to
G. BALTAZARAQUINO,
File Petition for Review but not in the Petition for Review
CLERK OF COURT IV,
and in the verification and certificate of non-forum
BOTH OF THE
shopping73 should not have been fatal to petitioners'
REGIONAL TRIAL
appeal. The defective verification amounted to a mere
COURT, BRANCH 33,
formal defect that was neither jurisdictional nor fatal and
BALLESTEROS
for which a simple correction could have been ordered by
CAGAYAN,
the Court of Appeals.74 Petitioners here, too, are acting
Respondents.
out of a common interest. Even assuming that a strict

application of the rules must be maintained, the Court of

G.R. No. 227309,
Appeals could just as easily have merely dropped Codilla
August 16, 2017 -
as a party instead of peremptorily and indiscriminately
PEOPLE OF THE
foreclosing any further chance at relief to those who had
Appellee, v. JOCELYN affixed their signatures.75
CARLIT Y GAWAT,
Accused-Appellant. IV.B
G.R. No. 216491, Equally not fatal to petitioners' appeal was their
August 23, 2017 - supposed failure to show competent evidence of
THE HEIRS OF PETER identities in their petition's verification and certification

DONTON, THROUGH of non-forum shopping.
THEIR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE, Rule IV, Section 2(b)(2) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial

FELIPE G. CAPULONG, Practice76 stipulates that a notary public is not to
Petitioners, v. DUANE perform a notarial act if the signatory to the document
STIER AND EMILY subject to notarization is not personally known to the
MAGGAY, notary or otherwise identified through a competent
Respondents. evidence of identity:
SECTION 2. Prohibitions. - . . .
G.R. No. 222711,

August 23, 2017 - LEY
. . . .
CONSTRUCTION AND

DEVELOPMENT
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act
CORPORATION,
if the person involved as signatory to the
REPRESENTED BY ITS
instrument or document -
PRESIDENT, JANET C.

LEY, Petitioner, v.
. . . .
MARVIN MEDEL

SEDANO, DOING
(2) is not personally known to the
BUSINESS UNDER
notary public or otherwise identified by
THE NAME AND STYLE
"LOLA TABA LOLO the notary public through competent
evidence of identity as defined by these
PATO PALENGKE AT
Rules.
PALUTO SA SEASIDE,"
Respondent.; MARVIN
Competent evidence of identity enables the notary to
MEDEL SEDANO,
"verify the genuineness of the signature of the
DOING BUSINESS
acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document
UNDER THE NAME
is the party's free act and deed."77 Rule II, Section 12 of
AND STYLE "LOLA
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice elaborates on what is
TABA LOLO PATO
"competent evidence of identity":
PALENGKE AT PALUTO
SA SEASIDE," Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. -
Respondent (THIRD- The phrase "competent evidence of identity"
PARTY PLAINTIFF), refers to the identification of an individual
VS. PHILIPPINE based on:
NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION (a) at least one current identification
CORPORATION, document issued by an official
Respondent (THIRD- agency bearing the photograph and

PARTY DEFENDANT). signature of the individual, such as

but not limited to, passport, driver's
G.R. No. 222561, license, Professional Regulations
August 30, 2017 - Commission ID, National Bureau of
PEOPLE OF THE Investigation clearance, police
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- clearance, postal ID, voter's ID,
Appellee, v. Barangay certification, Government
JONATHAN TICA Y Service and Insurance System (GSIS)
EPANTO, Accused- ecard, Social Security System (SSS)
Appellant. card, Philhealth card, senior citizen

card, Overseas Workers Welfare
G.R. No. 187257, Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID,
August 08, 2017 - seaman's book, alien certificate of
REPUBLIC OF THE registration/immigrant certificate of
PHILIPPINES, registration, government office ID,
REPRESENTED BY THE certification from the National Council
OFFICE OF THE for the Welfare of Disabled Persons
SOLICITOR GENERAL (NCWDP), Department of Social
(OSG) AS THE Welfare and Development (DSWD)
PEOPLE'S TRIBUNE, certification; or
AND THE NATIONAL
POWER BOARD, (b) the oath or affirmation of one
Petitioners, v. HON. credible witness not privy to the
LUISITO G. CORTEZ, instrument, document or transaction
PRESIDING JUDGE, who is personally known to the
REGIONAL TRIAL notary public and who personally
COURT, BRANCH 84, knows the individual, or of two
QUEZON CITY, ABNER credible witnesses neither of whom is
P. ELERIA, MELITO B. privy to the instrument, document or
LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR transaction who each personally
EMPLOYEES knows the individual and shows to
CONSOLIDATED the notary public documentary
UNION (NECU), AND
identification.78
NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES
AND WORKERS
As is evident from Rule IV, Section 2(b)(2) of the 2004
UNION (NEWU),
Rules on Notarial Practice, the need for a competent
Respondents.; G.R.
evidence of identity is not an absolute requirement. It is
No. 187776 -
ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, imperative only when the signatory is not personally

IN HIS CAPACITY AS known to the notary.79 When the signatory is personally
SECRETARY OF THE known to the notary, the presentation of competent
DEPARTMENT OF evidence of identity is a superfluity.
BUDGET AND
MANAGEMENT AND
Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Zaulda,80 which concerned the
MEMBER OF THE
Court of Appeals' prior determination that a senior
BOARD OF
citizen card is not among the competent evidence of
DIRECTORS OF THE
identity recognized in the 2004 Rules on Notarial
NATIONAL POWER
Practice, referred to the more basic consideration that a
CORPORATION,
defect in a pleading's verification is merely formal, and
Petitioner, v. HON.
not jurisdictional or otherwise fatal:
LUISITO G. CORTEZ,
PRESIDING JUDGE, Even assuming that a photocopy of
REGIONAL TRIAL competent evidence of identity was indeed

COURT, BRANCH 84, required, non-attachment thereof would not
QUEZON CITY, ABNER render the petition fatally defective. It has
P. ELERIA, MELITO B. been consistently held that verification is
LUPANGCO, NAPOCOR merely a formal, not jurisdictional,

EMPLOYEES requirement, affecting merely the form of the
CONSOLIDATED pleading such that non-compliance therewith
UNION AND NAPOCOR does not render the pleading fatally
EMPLOYEES AND defective. It is simply intended to provide an

WORKERS UNION, assurance that the allegations are true and
Respondents. correct and not a product of the imagination

or a matter of speculation, and that the
A.M. No. RTJ-10- pleading is filed in good faith. The court may
2223 (Formerly A.M. in fact order the correction of the pleading
OCA IPI No. 08-3003- verification is lacking or it may act on the
RTJ), August 30, 2017 pleading although it may not have been
- MS. FLORITA PALMA verified, where it is made evident that strict
AND MS. FILIPINA compliance with the rules may be dispensed
MERCADO, so that the ends of justice may be served.81

Complainants, v. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
JUDGE GEORGE E.
OMELIO, REGIONAL In Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Dela Cruz,82
TRIAL COURT, BR. 14, the petitioner bewailed the notary public's failure to
DAVAO CITY (THEN "indicate that the affiants were personally known to the
OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL notary public, [or to] identify the affiants through
COURT IN CITIES, competent evidence of identity other than their

BR.4, DAVAO CITY), community tax certificate."83
JUDGE VIRGILIO G.
MURCIA, MUNICIPAL The petitioner's objection, while correctly pointing out a

TRIAL COURT IN deficiency, failed to convince this Court that a fatal
CITIES, BR. 2, AND defect existed:
CLERK OF COURT MA.

[T]he defect is a technical and minor one; the
FLORIDA C. OMELIO,
respondents did file the required verification
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
and certification of non-forum shopping with
COURT IN CITIES,
all the respondents properly participating,
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
marred only by a glitch in the evidence of
OF COURT, BOTH OF
their identity. In the interest of justice, this
THE ISLAND GARDEN
minor defect should not defeat their petition
CITY OF SAMAL,
and is one that we can overlook in the
Respondents.

interest of substantial justice[.]84
G.R. No. 178379,

In this case, the Court of Appeals' bare reference to
August 22, 2017 -
petitioners' inadequate proof of identity does not justify
CRISPIN S.
the outright denial of their appeal. The Court of Appeals
FRONDOZO,* DANILO
failed to absolutely discount the possibility that
M. PEREZ, JOSE A.
petitioners may have been personally known to the
ZAFRA, ARTURO B.
notary public, especially considering that, by that
VITO, CESAR S. CRUZ,
advanced stage in litigating their claims, they must have
NAZARIO C. DELA
already verified several pleadings, likely before the same
CRUZ, AND LUISITO
notary public.
R. DILOY, Petitioners,

v. MANILA ELECTRIC
It is true that the notary public failed to categorically
COMPANY,
indicate that petitioners were personally known to
Respondent.
him.85Coca-Cola demonstrates, however, that even if

this were the case, the notary public's lapse is not fatal.
A.C. No. 11616
While the circumstances were concededly less than ideal,
[Formerly CBD Case
Coca-Cola did not obsess on how only community tax
No. 08-2141], August
certificates were indicated in the verification and
23, 2017 - LITO V.
BUENVIAJE, certification of non forum shopping.86
MELCHOR G. This Court elects to be liberal here, as it was in Coca-
MAGDAMO, Cola. Even conceding the lapses noted by the Court of
Respondent. Appeals, petitioners had not gotten themselves into an

irremediable predicament. This Court repeats that,
A.C. No. 6980, ultimately, a defective verification is merely a formal and
August 30, 2017 - not a fatal, jurisdictional defect, which could have very
CESAR O. STA. ANA, easily been ordered corrected.87 As to the defective
CRISTINA M. STA. certification of non-forum shopping, the greater cause of
ANA AND ESTHER justice should have impelled the Court of Appeals, as this
STA. ANA-SILVERIO,
Court implored in Altres v. Empleo,88 to have at least
Complainants, v. ATTY.
enabled petitioners to rectify their lapse, rather than
ANTONIO JOSE F.
completely deny them a chance at exhaustive litigation
CORTES, Respondent.
by a mere stroke of its pen.
A.C. No. 7253,

IV.C
August 29, 2017 -

ATTY. PLARIDEL C.
Rule 43, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
NAVA II, Complainant,
states that a verified petition for review must "be
v. PROSECUTOR
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a
OFELIA M. D. ARTUZ,*
certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or
Respondent.; A.M. No.
resolution appealed from, together with certified true
MTJ-08-1717]
copies of such material portions of the record referred to
(FORMERLY OCA IPI
therein and other supporting papers."89
NO. 07-1911-MTJ) -

ATTY. PLARIDEL C.
In Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission,90
NAVA II, Complainant,
this Court faulted the Court of Appeals for dismissing a
v. JUDGE OFELIA M.
Rule 65 petition on account of failure to include in the
D. ARTUZ, MUNICIPAL
petition a copy of the Complaint initially brought before
TRIAL COURT IN
the Labor Arbiter. Referencing Rule 65's own requirement
CITIES OF ILOILO
that the petition shall be "accompanied by a certified
CITY, BRANCH 5,
true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject
Respondent.
thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant

and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non

A.C. No. 10253,
August 22, 2017 - forum shopping,"91 this Court explained that appending
RAFAEL PADILLA, a copy of an original complaint is not even required:
The Rules do not specify the precise
GLENN SAMSON,
documents, pleadings or parts of the records
Respondent.
that should be appended to the petition other

than the judgment, final order, or resolution

G.R. No. 198146,
being assailed. The Rules only state that such
August 08, 2017 -
POWER SECTOR documents, pleadings or records should be

ASSETS AND relevant or pertinent to the assailed
LIABILITIES resolution, judgment or orders; as such, the
MANAGEMENT initial determination of which pleading,
CORPORATION, document or parts of the records are relevant
Petitioner, v. to the assailed order, resolution, or judgment,
COMMISSIONER OF falls upon the petitioner.92
INTERNAL,
Given this Rule's generic reference to "copies of all
Respondent.

pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
G.R. No. 225442, thereto,"93 this Court explained that:
August 08, 2017 -

The [Court of Appeals] will ultimately
SAMAHAN NG MGA
determine if the supporting documents are
PROGRESIBONG
sufficient to even make out a prima facie
KABATAAN (SPARK),
case. If the [Court of Appeals] was of the
JOANNE ROSE SACE
view that the petitioner should have
LIM, JOHN ARVIN
submitted other pleadings, documents or
NAVARRO
portions of the records to enable it to
BUENAAGUA, RONEL
determine whether the petition was sufficient
BACCUTAN, MARK LEO
in substance, it should have accorded the
DELOS REYES, AND
petitioner, in the interest of substantial
CLARISSA JOYCE
justice, a chance to submit the same instead
VILLEGAS, MINOR,
of dismissing the petition outright. Clearly,
FOR HERSELF AND AS
this is the better policy.94
REPRESENTED BY HER
FATHER, JULIAN
Quintano was echoed in Panaga v. Court of Appeals.95
VILLEGAS, JR.,
There, a petition for certiorari was dismissed by the
Petitioners, v.
Court of Appeals for failure to include an affidavit of
QUEZON CITY, AS
proof of service and after appending only the decisions
REPRESENTED BY
of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations
MAYOR HERBERT
Commission.96 This Court explained that the petition's
BAUTISTA, CITY OF
annexes sufficed as the Labor Arbiter's decision already
MANILA, AS
recounted the material allegations in the pleadings of the
REPRESENTED BY
parties and wo4ld have been enough for the Court of
MAYOR JOSEPH
Appeals to determine whether there was a prima facie
ESTRADA, AND
case.97
NAVOTAS CITY, AS

REPRESENTED BY
Quintano was further echoed in Valenzuela v. Caltex
MAYOR JOHN REY
TIANGCO, Philippines, Inc.,98 where this Court stated that "the

Respondents. failure to submit certain documents, assuming there was

such a failure on respondent's part, does not
G.R. No. 190004, automatically warrant outright dismissal of its
August 08, 2017 -
petition."99
LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES,
Quintano equally holds true here, Though Quintano was
Petitioner, v. EUGENIO
concerned with a Rule 65 petition and this case with a
DALAUTA,
Rule 43 petition, the crucial procedural rule here is
Respondent.
substantially the same as that in which Quintano hinged.

As with Rule 65's generic reference to "copies of all

G.R. No. 218911,
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent
August 23, 2017 -
thereto,"100 Rule 43 also only references "material
PEOPLE OF THE
portions of the record referred to . . . and other
supporting papers."101
Appellee, v.

LEONARDO SIAPNO,
To be sure, the determination of what is sufficiently
Accused-Appellant.
pertinent to require inclusion in a pleading is not a

whimsical exercise. Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora

G.R. No. 221732,
laid down guideposts for determining the necessity of the
August 23, 2017 -
pleadings or parts of the records. It also clarified that
FERNANDO U. JUAN,
even if a pertinent document was missing, its
Petitioner, v. ROBERTO
subsequent submission was no less fatal:
U. JUAN
(SUBSTITUTED BY First, not all pleadings and parts of case
HIS SON JEFFREY C. records are required to be attached to the
JUAN) AND petition, Only those which are relevant and
LAUNDROMATIC pertinent must accompany it. The test of
CORPORATION, relevancy is whether the document in
Respondents. question will support the material allegations

in the petition, whether said document will
G.R. No. 222821, make out a prima facie case of grave abuse
August 09, 2017 - of discretion as to convince the court to give
NORTH GREENHILLS due course to the petition.
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioner, v. ATTY. Second, even if a docurnent is relevant and

NARCISO MORALES, pertinent to the petition, it need not be
Respondent. appended if it is shown that the contents

thereof can also [be] found in another
G.R. No. 227878, document already attached to the petition.

August 09, 2017 - Thus, if the material allegations in a position
PEOPLE OF THE paper are summarized in a questioned
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- judgment, it will suffice that only a certified
Appellee, v. GERALDO true copy of the judgment is attached.
SANTILLAN Y
VILLANUEVA AND Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading

EUGENE BORROMEO Y or part of the case record may still be given
NATIVIDAD, Accused- due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed)
Appellants. upon showing that petitioner later submitted

the documents required, or that it will serve
G.R. No. 211222, the higher interest of justice that the case be
August 07, 2017 - decided on the merits.102 (Citations omitted,
ALLAN S. CU, emphasis supplied)
Petitioner, v. SMALL
BUSINESS Here, petitioners' failure to attach a copy of the
GUARANTEE AND complaint originally filed by Larrazabal Enterprises

before the DARAB should not have been fatal to their
FINANCE
CORPORATION Rule 43 petition. Its inclusion was not absolutely
required, as it was certainly not the award, judgment,
THROUGH MR.
HECTOR M. final order or resolution appealed from.103 If, in the
OLMEDILLO, Court of Appeals' judgment, it was a material document,
Respondent. the more prudent course of action would have been to

afford petitioners time to adduce it, not to make a
G.R. No. 186329, justit1cation out of it for dispossessing petitioners of
August 02, 2017 - DR. relief.
FRISCO M.
MALABANAN, IV.D
Petitioner, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Through Bar Matter No. 287, this court required the
Respondent.; G.R. inclusion of the number and date of [lawyers'] official
Nos. 186584-86, receipt indicating payment of their annual membership
August 2, 2017 - dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the
ABUSAMA current year; in lieu of this, a lawyer may indicate his or

MANGUDADATU ALID, her lifetime membership number:104
Petitioner, v. THE
Effective August 1, 1985, all lawyers shall
HON.
indiqate in all pleadings, motions and papers
SANDIGANBAYAN -
signed and filed by them in any Court in the
1st DIVISION, OFFICE
OF THE SPECIAL Philippines, the number and date of their

PROSECUTOR, HON. official receipt indicating payment of their
SECRETARY OF THE annual membership dves to the Integrated
DEPARTMENT OF Bar of the Philippines for the current year;
AGRICULTURE, provided, however, that such official receipt
Respondents.; G.R. number and date for any year may be availed
No. 198598, August 2, of and indicated in all such pleadings,
2017 - ABUSAMA M. motions and papers filed by them in court up
ALID, Petitioner, v. to the end of the month of February of the
PEOPLE OF THE next succeeding year. 105
PHILIPPINES,
Indicating the place of issue of the official receipt is not
Respondent.
even a requirement. While its inclusion may certainly

G.R. No. 223366, have been desirable and would have allowed for a more
consummate disclosure of information, its non inclusion
August 01, 2017 -
ws certainly not fatal. As with the other procedural
NATIONAL
TRANSMISSION lapses considered by the Court of Appeals, its non-
inclusion could have very easily been remedied by the
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. Court of Appeals' prudent allowance of time and
OROVILLE opportunity to petitioners and their counsel.
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, V
Respondent.
This Court entertains no doubt that petitioners' Petition

G.R. No. 226679, for Review, which the Court of Appeals discarded, falls
within the exceptions to the customary strict application
August 15, 2017 -
of procedural rules. This Court has previously overlooked
SALVADOR ESTIPONA,
JR. Y ASUELA, more compelling procedural lapse, such as the period for
filing pleadings and appeals. The Court of Appeals was
Petitioner, v. HON.
FRANK E. LOBRIGO, harsh in denying petitioners the opportunity to
PRESIDING JUDGE OF exhaustively ventilate and arsue their case.
THE REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT, BRANCH 3, Rather than dwelling on procedural minutiae, the Court
of Appeals shoqld have been impelled by the greater
LEGAZPI CITY, ALBAY,
interest of justice. It should have enabled a better
AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, consideration of the intricate issues of the application of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, social justice,
Respondents.
expropriation, and just compensation. The reversals of

rulins at the level of the DARAB could have been taken
G.R. No. 219500, as an indication that the matters at stake were far from
August 09, 2017 - being so plain that they should be ignored on mere
MAMERTO DY, technicalities. The better part of its discretion dictated a
Petitioner, v. MARIA solicitous stance towards petitioners.
LOURDES ROSELL
ALDEA, Respondent. The present Petition must be gnmt d. The Court of

Appeals must give due course to petitioners' appeal to
G.R. No. 217965, enable a better appreciation of the myriad substantive
August 08, 2017 - issues which have otherwise not been pleaded and
CONFEDERATION OF litigated before this Court by the parties.
COCONUT FARMERS
ORGANIZATIONS OF WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is

THE PHILIPPINES, GRANTED. The assailed September 30, 2010 and
INC. (CCFOP), September 7, 2011 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner, v. HIS in CA-G.R. SP No. 04659 are REVERSED and SET
EXCELLENCY ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is ordered to give due
PRESIDENT BENIGNO course to the petition subject of CA-G.R. SP No. 04659.
SIMEON C. AQUINO
III, ACTING SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER
RICHARD ROGER Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Martires, and

AMURAO OF THE Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON
Endnotes:
GOOD GOVERNMENT
(PCGG), CHAIRMAN
1Obut v. Court of Appeals, 162 Phil. 731, 744
CESAR L. VILLANUEVA
OF THE GOVERNANCE (1976) [Per J. Muñoz-Palma, First Division].
COMMISSION FOR
GOCCS (GCG), AND 2Rollo, pp. 13-26.
SECRETARY LEILA M.
DE LIMA OF THE 3 Id. at 27-29. The Resolution was penned by

DEPARTMENT OF Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and
JUSTICE, concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L.
Respondents. Delos Santos and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. of

the Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals,
A.M. No. MTJ-17- Cebu City.
1900 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 13-2585-MTJ],

August 09, 2017 - 4 Id. at 30-31. The Resolution was penned by

ARNEL MENDOZA, Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and
Complainant, v. HON. concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L.
MARCOS C. DIASEN, Delos Santos and Ramon Paul L. Hernando of
JR., ACTING the Special Former Twentieth Division, Court
PRESIDING JUDGE, of Appeals, Cebu City.
METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, BR. 62, 5 Id. at 28-29.
MAKATI CITY,

Respondent. 6 Id. at 31.
G.R. No. 217764,

7 Id. at 61, DARAB Decision.
August 07, 2017 -

ANTONIETA LUCIDO
8 Id. at 61-62, DARAB Decision.
@ TONYAY, Petitioner,
v. PEOPLE OF THE
9 Id. at 49, DARAB Decision.
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

10 Id. at 49-50, DARAB Decision.
A.M. No. P-16-3424
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. 11 Id. at 64-65, DARAB Decision.
No. 11-3666-P],
August 07, 2017 - 12 Id. at 50, DARAB Decision.
GLORIA

SERDONCILLO,
13 Id. at 49-54, The Decision was penned by
Complainant, v.
Regional Adjudicator Felixberto M. Diloy.
SHERIFF NESTOR M.

LANZADERAS,
14 Id. at 51-52, Office of the Regional
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 37, Adjudicator Decision.
GENERAL SANTOS
15 Id. at 53-54, Office of the Regional

CITY, Respondent.

Adjudicator Decision.
G.R. No. 199710,
August 02, 2017 - 16 Id. at 59-66. The Decision was penned by

PEOPLE OF THE Assistant Secretary Augusto P. Quijano and
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- concurred in by Assistant Secretary Edgar A.
Appellee, v. PO3 Igano, Assistant Secretary Delfin B. Samson,
and Assistant Secretary Patricia Rualo-Bello
JULIETO BORJA, of the DARAB. Secretary Nasser C.

Accused-Appellant. Pangandaman, Undersecretary Gerundio C.

Madueño, and Undersecretary Renato F.
G.R. No. 228248, Herrera did not sign the Decision.
August 09, 2017 -
PEOPLE OF THE 17 Id. at 66.
Appellee, v. ROMEO 18 Id. at 62.
DE GUZMAN Y DE

CASTRO, Accused-
19 Id. at 65.
Appellant.

20 Id. at 71-76.
G.R. No. 228894,

August 07, 2017 -

21 Id. at 75-76.
PEOPLE OF THE
22 Id. at 73-75.
Appellee, v. JOHN
PAUL CERALDE Y
RAMOS, Accused- 23 Id. at 27-29.
Appellant.

24 Id. at 28-29.
A.C. No. 8903,
August 30, 2017 - 25 Id. at 30-31.
EDIGARDO V.

BONDOC,
26Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 245 Phil. 49,
62 (1988) [Per, J. Navasa, First Division]; see
OLIMPIO R. DATU,
also Association of Integrated Security Force
Respondent.
of Bislig (AISFB) - ALU v. Court of Appeals,

505 Phil. 10, 18 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,

G.R. No. 201665,
Second Division] citing Sawadjaan v. Court of
August 30, 2017 -
Appeals, 498 Phil. 552 (2005) [Per J. Chico
EDISON (BATAAN)
Nazario, En Banc).
COGENERATION

CORPORATION,
27Tropical Homes, Inc. v. National Housing
Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF Authority, 236 Phil. 580, 587 (1987) [Per J.
INTERNAL REVENUE, Gutierrez, En Banc]; see also Polintan v.
Respondent.; G.R. No. People of the Philippines, 604 Phil. 42, 47
201668, August 30, (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]; Yu v.
2017 - REPUBLIC OF Samson-Tatad, 651 Phil. 431, 436 (2011)

THE PHILIPPINES, [Per J. Brion, Third Division] citing Philips
REPRESENTED BY THE Seafood (Philippines) Corporation v. Board of
COMMISSIONER OF Investments, 597 Phil. 649 (2009) [Per J.
INTERNAL REVENUE, Tinga, Second Division]; Balagtas Multi-
Petitioner, v. EDISON Purpose Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of
(BATAAN) Appeals, 536 Phil. 511, 522 (2006) [Per J.
COGENERATION Azcuna, Second Division].
CORPORATION,
Respondent. 28Spouses Plopenio v. Department of

Agrarian Reform, 690 Phil. 126, 131 (2012)
A.C. No. 10245, [Per J. Sereno, Second Division]; R Transport
August 16, 2017 - Corporation v. Philippine Hawk Transport
ELIBENA A. CABILES, Corporation, 510 Phil. 130, 135-136 ( 2005)
Complainant, v. ATTY. [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
LEANDRO S. CEDO,
Respondent. 29Tropical Homes, Inc. v. National Housing

Authority, 236 Phil. 580, 587 (1987) [Per J.

G.R. No. 188144,
Gutierrez, En Banc]; see also Bejarasco, Jr.
August 30, 2017 - F.F.
v. People of the Philippines, 656 Phil. 337,
CRUZ & COMPANY,
341 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division];
INC., Petitioner, v.
Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation v.
PHILIPPINE IRON
Icao, 724 Phil. 646, 656 (2014) [Per C.J.
CONSTRUCTION AND
Sereno, First Division].
MARINE WORKS, INC.,

AND/OR ANCHOR
30National Waterworks and Sewerage
METALS CORP.,
Authority v. Municipality of Libmanan, 186
Respondents.; G.R.
Phil. 79, 84 (1980) [Per J. De Castro, First
NO. 188301 -
Division].
PHILIPPINE IRON

CONSTRUCTION AND
31Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780,
MARINE WORKS, INC.,
784 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division].
AND/OR ANCHOR

METALS CORP.,
32Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 597, 605
Petitioners, v. F.F.
CRUZ & COMPANY, (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
INC., Respondent.
33Land Bank of the Phiiippines v. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 221636, July 11, 2016

G.R. No. 201806, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?

August 14, 2017 - file=/jurisprudence/2016/july2016/221636.pdf>
NORTH SEA MARINE [Per J. Jardeleza, Third Division].
SERVICES
CORPORATION, MS. 34A-One Feeds, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 188

ROSALINDA CERDINA Phil. 577, 580 (1980) [Per J. De Castro, First
AND/OR CARNIVAL Division].
CRUISE LINES,
Petitioners, v. 35Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses Bautista,

SANTIAGO S.
491 Phil. 476, 483 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr.,
ENRIQUEZ,
Second Division]; Asia United Bank v.
Respondent.
Goodland Company, Inc., 650 Phil. 174, 185

(2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division]

G.R. No. 210209,
citing Sebastian v. Hon. Morales, 445 Phil.
August 09, 2017 -
595, (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second
CATHAY LAND, INC.
Division); Sy v. Local Government of Quezon
AND CATHAY METAL
City, 710 Phil. 549, 557 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-
CORPORATION,
Bernabe, Second Division].
Petitioners, v. AYALA

LAND, INC., AVIDA 36Obut v. Court of Appeals, 162 Phil. 731,

LAND CORPORATION
744 (1976) [Per J. Muñoz-Palma, First
AND LAGUNA
Division].
TECHNOPARK, INC.,

Respondents.
37Paredes v. Verano, 535 Phil. 274, 289

(2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division] citing

G.R. No. 188027,
RULES OF COURT, Rule I, sec. 6, Obut v.
August 09, 2017 -
Court of Appeals, 162 Phil. 731 (1976) (Per J.
SWIRE REALTY
Muñoz-Palma, First Division], Heirs of the
DEVELOPMENT
Late F. Nuguidvda. De Habarer v. Court of
CORPORATION,
Appeals, 192 Phil. 61 (1981) [Per J.
Petitioner, v.
Teehankee, First Division], Al-Amanah Islamic
SPECIALTY
Investment Bank of the Philippines v.
CONTRACTS GENERAL
Celebrity Travel and Tours, Inc., 479 Phil.
AND CONSTRUCTION
1041 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second
SERVICES, INC. AND
Division].
JOSE JAVELLANA,

Respondents.
38 162 Phil. 731 (1976) [Per J. Muñoz-Palma,

First Division].
G.R. No. 195457,
August 16, 2017 - 39 Id. at 744.
READ-RITE
PHILIPPINES, INC., 40Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 412,

Petitioner, v. GINA G.
417 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
FRANCISCO,
Division].
MAXIMINO H. REYES,

LUCIA E. MACHADO,
41 Id.
IRENE G. ABANILLA,

EDNA L. GUAVES,
42 680 Phil. 334 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second
ARLENE FRANCISCO,
Division].
JOSEPHINE V.

TRINIDAD, MARILYN
43Spouses Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, 680
E. AMPARO, SOLITA F.
SANTOS, ELLEN T. Phil. 334, 343 (2012) (Per J. Reyes, Second
CASTILLO, ROSALIE Division] citing Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,
VALDEABELLA, 386 Phil. 412 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban,
MARITA E. RIVERA, Third Division].
JULITA M. MAGNO,
44 482 Phil. 903 (2004) [Per J. Austria-

MARCIA P. DELA
TORRE, ELENA Martinez, Second Division].
ANGCAHAN, ESTER H.
REYES, CORAZON 45Barnes v. Padilla, 482 Phil. 903, 914-915

ARMADILLA, IRMA A. (2004) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second
PEREGRINO, DELFIN Division] citing Sanchez v. Court of Appeals,
D. DUBAN, AMANCIA 452 Phil. 665 (2003) [Per J. Bellosillo, En
PRADO, CECILIA D. Banc].
NABUA, DANNY A.
CABUCOY, ELIZABETH 46 257 Phil. 283 (1989) [Per J. Padilla,

R. REVELLAME,
Second Division].
ELVIRA R. MAGNO,
GIERLYN R. 47 Id. at 292.
MARASIGAN, JOHN

JOSEPH R. MAGNO,
48 279 Phil. 587 (1991) [Per J. Sarmiento,
LODELYN P. CASTILLO,
Second Division].
JUSTINA TORTOSA,

LENY M. ZARENO,
49 Id. at 595-596.
LOIDA E. ESTOMATA,
MA. BASILIA DE LA
ROSA, MA. GRACIA 50 Id. at 594.
DE GUZMAN, MA.
NENITA G. CASTILLO, 51 Id.
MERCEDARIO A.

MARTINEZ, NORA M. 52 Id. at 598.
PAVELON, PRECILLA

D. MAGBITANG,
53Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development
RAQUEL CABUCOY,
Corporation, 435 Phil. 836, 844 (2002) [Per
REGAL M. ALFARO,
J. Panganiban, Third Division].
RIZA UMANDAP,

ROSALITA R.
54 RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 5.
MANLUNAS,
ROSEMARIE C. LEYVA,
55 RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 4:
ROSSANA M. YUMOL,
SENETA SERENO,
VILMA R. MANALO, Section 4. Period of appeal. - The appeal shall

YOLANDA Y. be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice
MANGAOANG, GLORIA of the award, judgment, final order or
BARSOLASCO AND resolution, or from the date of its last
NENA M. REYES, publication, if publication is required by law
Respondents. for its effectivity, or of the denial of

petitioner's motion for new trial or
G.R. No. 211004, reconsideration duly filed in accordance with
August 23, 2017 - the governing law of the court or agency a
QUEEN ERRIKA L. quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration
SADDI, Petitioner, v. shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the
MARICRIS payment of the full amount of the docket fee
RENOMERON, before the expiration of the reglementary
Respondent. period, the Court of Appeals may grant an

additional period of fifteen (15) days only
G.R. No. 223592, within which to file the petition for review. No
August 07, 2017 - further extension shall be granted except for
EQUITABLE the most compelling reason and in no case to
INSURANCE exceed fifteen (15) days.
CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. 56Rollo, p. 16.
TRANSMODAL
INTERNATIONAL, 57 Id. at 7-8.
INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 221857, 58 In the matter of the change of name of

August 16, 2017 - Antonina B. Oshita v. Republic, 125 Phil.
JESUS O. TYPOCO, 1098, 1100 (1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc];
JR., Petitioner, v. see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, 410 Phil. 483,
PEOPLE OF THE 492 (200l) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First Division]
PHILIPPINES, citing Robern Development Corporation v.
Respondent.; G.R. No. Quintain, 373 Phil. 773 (1999) [Per J.
222020 - NOEL D. Panganiban, En Banc]; Medada v. Heirs of
REYES, Petitioner, v. Antonio Consing, 681 Phil, 536, 545 (2012)
PEOPLE OF THE [Per J. Reyes, Second Division] citing
PHILIPPINES, Republic v. Coalbrine International
Respondent. Philippines, Inc., 631 Phil. 487 (2010) [Per J.

Peralta, Third Division].
G.R. No. 223731,
August 30, 2017 - 59 In the mattttr of the change of name of

ROBELITO MALINIS
Antonina B. Oshita v. Republic, 125 Phil.
TALAROC, Petitioner,
1098, 1101 (1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc]
v. ARPAPHIL
see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, 410 Phil. 483,
SHIPPING
492 (2001) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First
CORPORATION,
Division] citing Robern Development
EPIDAURUS S.A.,
Corporation v. Quintain, 373 Phil. 773 (1999)
AND/OR NATIVIDAD
[Per J. Panganihan, En Banc].
PAPPAS, Respondents.

60 594 Phil. 246 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-

G.R. No. 224204,
Morales, En Banc].
August 30, 2017 -

PHILIPPINE VETERANS
61Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246,261-262
BANK, Petitioner, v.
(2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].
SPOUSES RAMON AND

ANNABELLE SABADO,
62 477 Phil. 540 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban,
Respondents.

First Division].
G.R. No. 224225,
63 Id. at 543.
August 14, 2017 -

NORMA I. BARING,
Petitioner, v. ELENA 64 Id. at 550.
LOAN AND CREDIT
COMPANY, INC., 65 Id. at 55.
Respondent.

66 448 Phil. 302 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third
G.R. No. 211845,
Division].
August 09, 2017 -

PEN DEVELOPMENT
67 Id. at 310.
CORPORATION AND

LAS BRISAS RESORT

68 Id. at 311.
CORPORATION,

Petitioners, v.
69 448 Phil. 302 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third
MARTINEZ LEYBA,
INC., Respondent. Division].
70 499 Phil. 562, 567-569 (2005) [Per J.

G.R. No. 215454,
August 09, 2017 - Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
HEIRS OF SPOUSES
CORAZON P. DE 71Heirs of Agapito Olarte v. Office of the

GUZMAN AND President, 499 Phil. 562, 564 (2005) [Per J.
FORTUNATO DE Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
GUZMAN,
REPRESENTED BY 72 Id. at 568-569.
JENIE JANE DE
GUZMAN-CARPIO, 73Rollo, p. 7.
Petitioners, v. HEIRS

OF MARCELIANO
74In the matter of the change of name of
BANDONG,
Antonina B. Oshita v. Republic, 125 Phil.
REPRESENTED BY
1098, 1101 (1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc)
REGINA Z. BANDONG,
See also Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, 410 Phil. 483,
Respondents.
492 (2001) [Per C.J. Davide, Jr., First

Division] citing Robern Development

G.R. No. 201478,
Corporation v. Quintain, 373 Phil. 773 (1999)
August 23, 2017 -
[Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
PEOPLE OF THE

75Altres v. Empleo, 594 Phil. 246, 260 (2008)
Appellee, v. PAROK
LUMUDAG Y RACMAN [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].
@ AKMAD, Accused-
76 Adm. Matter No. 02-8-13-SC (2004).
Appellant.

G.R. No. 210669, 77Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan, 592 Phil. 219,

August 01, 2017 - HI- 227 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, First Division]
LON citing Bernardo v. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8 (2002)
MANUFACTURING, [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
COMMISSION ON 78 Adm. Matter No. 02-8-13-SC (2008).
AUDIT, Respondent.

79Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation,
A.C. No. 8574,
Inc., 760 Phil. 779, 786 (2015) [Per J.
August 16, 2017 -
Peralta, Third Division].
CARMELO IRINGAN,

80 729 Phil. 639 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza,
CLAYTON B.
Third Division].
GUMANGAN,

Respondent.
81 Id. at 650.
G.R. No. 196342,
82 622 Phil. 886 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second

August 08, 2017 -
PEOPLE OF THE Division].
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. NOEL GO 83 Id. at 898.
CAOILI ALIAS "BOY
TAGALOG", 84 Id. at 900.
Respondent.; G.R. No.

196848, August 8, 85Rollo, p. 46.
2017 - NOEL GO

CAOILI, Petitioner, v.
86Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Dela
PEOPLE OF THE
Cruz, 622. Phil. 886, 898 (2009) [Per J,
PHILIPPINES,
Brion, Second Division].
Respondent.

87Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Zaulda, 729 Phil.

G.R. No. 230696,
August 30, 2017 - 639, 650 (2014) [Per J. Mendoza, Third
WILLIAM R. Division].
WENCESLAO,
88 594 Phil. 246 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-

VIVENCIO B.
RODRIGO, JR., NOEL Morales, En Banc].
N. DAMIASAN,
VIRGILIO B. 89 RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 6,

CRISTOBAL, JEMYLITO Emphasis supplied.
M. APIAG, JOVENAL P.
ATAG, ARNULFO S. 90Quintano v. National Labor Relations

DASCO, CARLITO E. Commission, 487 Phil. 412, 424 (2004) [Per
INFANTE, ALFREDO T. J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
VISAYA, JAMES M.
REAL, RENATO A. 91 RULES OF COURT, Rule 6, sec. 1 and 2

GUINGUE, ZACARIAS
state:
G. TALABOC, JR.,

GEORGE N. TAGUIAM,
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - . . .
RANDY D.

ABRENCILLO,
The petition shall be accompanied by a
MELECIO B.
certified true copy of the judgment, order or
QUINIMON, CESAR B.
resolution subject thereof, copies of all
JARANILLA, RIZALDE
pleadings and documents relevant and
R. BARILE, HERICO A.
pertinent thereto, and a swom certification of
BUENAVENTE, JERSON
non-forum shopping all provided in the third
A. TATOY, MICHAEL L.
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
CASIANO, FELIX M.

DINIAY, PEDRO DELA

Section 2. Petition for prohibition. - . . .
CRUZ, JR., JHOSEL

BOY G. ABAYON,
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by
AUGUSTO L. OCENAR,
a certified true copy of the judgment, order
MARIO M. FUNELAS,
or resolution subject thereof, copies of all
AND AVELINO T.
pleadings and documents relevant and
QUIÑONES,
pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of
Petitioners, v. MAKATI
non-forum shopping as provided in the third
DEVELOPMENT
paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
CORPORATION,

DANTE ABANDO AND

92Quintano v. National Labor Relations
COURT OF APPEALS,
Commission, 487 Phil. 412, 424 (2004) [Per
Respondents.
J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
G.R. No. 227734,

93 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 1 and 2.
August 09, 2017 -

ROMEO ALBA,
94Quintano v. National Labor Relations
Petitioner, v.
CONRADO G. Commission, 487 Phil. 412, 424 (2004) [Per
J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
ESPINOSA, ET AL.,
Respondents. 95 534 Phil. 809 (2006) (Per J. Carpio-

Morales, Third Division.].
G.R. No. 208471,
August 02, 2017 - 96 Id. at 812.
PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- 97 Id. at 815-816.
Appellee, v. ERNESTO

SAGANA Y DE
98 653 Phil. 187 (2010) (Per J. Villarama, Jr.,
GUZMAN, Accused-
Third Division].
Appellant.

99Valenzuela v. Caltex Philippines, 653 Phil.

G.R. No. 207396,
August 09, 2017 - 187, 197, (2010) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third
PEOPLE OF THE Division].
100 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 1 and 2.
Appellee, v. DELIA
SAUNAR, Accused-
Appellant. 101 RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 6.
OCA IPI No. 10- 102Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora, 529

3423-P, August 22,
Phil. 718, 728 (2006) [Per J. Austria-
2017 - JUDGE RAMON Martinez, First Division].
V. EFONDO,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL 103 RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, sec. 6.
COURT OF GOA,

CAMARINES SUR,
104Intestate Estate of Jose Uy v. Atty.
Complainant, v. EDEN
Maghari, 768 Phil. 10, 23-24 (2015) [Per J.
D. FAVORITO, CLERK
Leonen, En Banc].
OF COURT II,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL
105 OCA Circ. No. 10-85 (1985).
COURT, GOA,
CAMARINES SUR,

Respondent.; A.M. No.

P-11-2889 [FORMERLY

OCA IPI No. 10-10-

117-MTC FINANCIAL Back to Home | Back to Main
AUDIT CONDUCTED
IN THE MTC OF GOA,
CAMARINES SUR] -
OFFICE OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, v. EDEN
D. FAVORITO, CLERK
OF COURT II,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT, GOA,
CAMARINES SUR,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 197297,

August 02, 2017 -
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
DANILO GO AND
AMORLINA GO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 185420,

August 29, 2017 -
LANAO DEL NORTE
ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC.,
AS REPRESENTED BY
ITS GENERAL
MANAGER ENGR.
RESNOL C. TORRES,
Petitioner, v.
PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT OF
LANAO DEL NORTE,
AS REPRESENTED BY
ITS GOVERNOR HON.
MOHAMAD KHALID Q.
DIMAPORO AND ITS
PROVINCIAL
TREASURER, MILDRED
J. HINGCO,
PROVINCIAL
ASSESSOR, NATIONAL
ELECTRIFICATION
ADMINISTRATION
(NEA), AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATOR
HON. EDITA S.
BUENO, POWER
SECTOR ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES
MANAGEMENT
(PSALM), AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT AND CEO
HON. JOSE C.
IBAZETA,
DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY (DOE), AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY HON.
ANGELO T. REYES,
THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT (COA), AS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN HON.
REYNALDO A. VILLAR,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 224631,

August 23, 2017 -
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, v. RUPERTO
RUBILLAR, JR. Y
GABERON, Accused-
Appellant.
G.R. No. 221991,

August 30, 2017 -
JOSELITO PERALTA Y
ZARENO, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 222430,

August 30, 2017 -
TRANSGLOBAL
MARITIME AGENCY,
INC., GOODWOOD
SHIPMANAGEMENT
PTE., LTD. AND/OR
MICHAEL ESTANIEL,
Petitioners, v.
VICENTE D. CHUA,
JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 180447,

August 23, 2017 -
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, v.
FERNANDO
GERONIMO Y
AGUSTINE, ALIAS
"NANDING
BAKULAW", Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 193625,

August 30, 2017 -
AICHI FORGING
COMPANY OF ASIA,
COURT OF TAX
APPEALS - EN BANC
AND COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 191615,

August 02, 2017 -
VICTORIA P. CABRAL,
Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF
FLORENCIO ADOLFO
AND HEIRS OF ELIAS
POLICARPIO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 218592,

August 02, 2017 -
CHRISTOPHER FIANZA
A.K.A. "TOPEL,"
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 185894,

August 30, 2017 -
BELO MEDICAL
GROUP, INC.,
Petitioner, v. JOSE L.
SANTOS AND
VICTORIA G. BELO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 197654,

August 30, 2017 -
MERCURY DRUG
CORPORATION AND
ROLANDO J. DEL
ROSARIO, Petitioners,
v. SPOUSES RICHARD
Y. HUANG & CARMEN

G. HUANG, AND
STEPHEN G. HUANG,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 205483,

August 23, 2017 -
MARIO MAGAT, SR.,
MARIO S. MAGAT, JR.
MARIO S. MAGAT, III,
MA. MARGARITA M.
ESTAVILLA, MA.
MARJORIE S. MAGAT,
ALL SUBSTITUTE
PARTIES AND HEIRS
OF THE DECEASED
PARTY, JULIANA S.
MAGAT, Petitioners, v.
TANTRADE
CORPORATION AND
PABLO S. BORJA, JR.,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 180745,

August 30, 2017 -
ALBERTA DE JOYA
IGLESIAS, Petitioner,
v. THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN,
GEORGE M. JEREOS,
ROBERTO G.
GEOTINA, JUAN T.
TAN, KRISTINE
MORALES, AND
ALBERTO LINA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 205638,

August 23, 2017 -
DEE HWA LIONG

FOUNDATION
MEDICAL CENTER
AND ANTHONY DEE,
Petitioners, v.
ASIAMED SUPPLIES
AND EQUIPMENT
CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 203943,

August 30, 2017 -
MAGSAYSAY
MARITIME
CORPORATION/EDUARDO
MANESE AND
PRINCESS CRUISE
LINES, LTD.,
Petitioners, v.
CYNTHIA DE JESUS,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 202364,

August 30, 2017 -
ARTURO C. CALUBAD,
Petitioner, v.
RICARCEN
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 199107,

August 30, 2017 -
ALFONSO SINGSON
CORTAL, JUANITO
SINGSON CORTAL,
NENITA CODILLA,
GENEROSO PEPITO
LONGAKIT, PONCIANA
BATOON, AND
GREGORIA SABROSO,
Petitioners, v. INAKI
A. LARRAZABAL
ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY
INAKI P. LARRAZABAL,
JR., THE HONORABLE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO. VIII, TACLOBAN
CITY AND THE
HONORABLE
SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM,
QUEZON CITY IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION
BOARD (DARAB),
Respondents.

G.R. No. 208314,

August 23, 2017 -
ANTONIO B.
MANANSALA,
Petitioner, v. MARLOW
NAVIGATION PHILS.,
INC./MARLOW
NAVIGATION CO.
LTD./CYPRUS,
AND/OR EILEEN
MORALES,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 214771,

August 09, 2017 -
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, v. RUBEN
"ROBIN" BONGBONGA
Y NALOS, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 196564,

August 07, 2017 -
GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM (GSIS),
Petitioner, v. ALBERT
M. VELASCO,
Respondent.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

Singson v. Larrazabal

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Singson v. Larrazabal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Singson v. Larrazabal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/10/2021 G.R. No.

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

August 2017 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017 - ALFONSO SINGSON

AND THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

G.R. No. 199107, August 30, 2017

ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON

Procedural rules must be faithfully followed and dutifully

straightjacket."1 An inordinate fixation on technicalities

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under

7, 20114 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-­G.R.

The assailed Court of Appeals September 30, 2010

inclusion of the original Complaint filed by the adverse

party, now private respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal

The assailed Court of Appeals September 7, 2011

Private respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises

8.7466 hectares and covered by TCT No. 16178.7

In 1988, these three (3) parcels were placed under the

Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of Presidential Decree

beneficiaries, petitioners included.8

In 1999, Larrazabal Enterprises filed its Action for

Adjudication Board (DARAB).9 It assailed the cancellation

In their Answer, petitioners denied non-payment of just

Enterprises.11 They added that since they had paid, the

all properly made.12

In his October 15, 1999 Decision,13 Regional Adjudicator

compensation was fixed or paid for the parcels.14 Hence,

that it be restored to ownership of the lots.15

Petitioners appealed to the DARAB. In its September 16,

2008 Decision,16 the DARAB reversed the Decision of

Regional Adjudicator Diloy.17 It ruled that Larrazabal

Emancipation Patents were issued in 1988.18 It likewise

which confirmed the payment of just compensation.19

Larrazabal Enterprises filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

In its September 30, 2009 Resolution,20 the DARAB

Enterprises' Motion for Reconsideration.21 It justified its

without having been given just compensation.22

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review before the

Resolution,23 the Court of Appeals dismissed their

a. the name of Raymundo Claros Codilla

b. the Verification and Certification of Non-

Batoon, Rodrigo Panilag Cabonillas,

c. petitioners failed to attach the copy of

d. counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Norjue

Following the dismissal of their Petition for Review,

assailed September 7, 2011 Resolution,25 the Court of

Thus, this Petition was filed.

Jurisprudence by the errors noted by the Court of Appeals.

G.R. No. 187160,

August 09, 2017 - I

Appellee, v. ERLINDA Appeal is the remedy available to a litigant seeking to

privilege.28 Thus, it must be availed in keeping with the

G.R. No. 185597,

MERWIN JOSEPH thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules."31 They

constraints of technicalities."34 Rule 1, Section 6 of the

THE PEOPLE OF THE

7, 20114 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.