Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
City of Manila

MARCELIA C. ITURRALDE,
TERESITA CABANILLA, and
HEIRS OF ERNEST
CABANILLA (as represented
by ROSALINDA C. VDA. DE
CABANILLA, ERNEST JOEL
CABANILLA, and JOMAR
CABANILLA),
Petitioners,

---versus--- CA-GR-SP No. 146364


For: Certiorari

HON. MARIA GILDA LOJA-


PANGILINAN, in her capacity
as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court Branch 76
of Quezon City,
Public Respondent,

GLORY C. TANCINCO,
REGINALD C. TANCINCO,
WILLIAM C. CABANILLA, and
EUNICE C. BUCSIT,
Private Respondents.
x-------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
(to the Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 November 2016)

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, by and through the


undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits this Comment/Opposition to the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the Petitioners, and in support
thereof most respectfully allege, to wit:

1. The Petition for Certiorari is arguably defective


upon its face. Petitioners’ contend, based on their Motion for

Page 1 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719
Reconsideration1, that the requirement as to the statement
of the full names and addresses of all the petitioners and
respondents was substantially complied with by indicating
the same in the attachments included in Petition for
Certiorari’s2 captions shows the complete identities of the
parties. Such contention, however, cannot bend an express
mandate of the Rules of Court, as well as of the 1999
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, to wit:

Sec. 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court


provides:

Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect


of non-compliance with requirements. - The
petition shall contain the full names and actual
addresses of all the petitioners and
respondents, a concise statement of the matters
involved, the factual background of the case, and the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. xxx

The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the


requirements shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition. (n; Bar Matter No. 803, 21
July 1998). xxx (Emphasis supplied).

Sections 3(a) and 4 of the 1999 Internal


Rules of the Court of Appeals provide:

Section 3. What Should be Filed. —

a. The petition shall contain the full names and


actual addresses of all the petitioners and
respondents, a concise statement of the matters
involved, the factual background of the case, and the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. (Sec. 3,
Rule 46, RCP) xxx

Section 4. Effect of Non-compliance with


Requirements. — The failure of petitioner to
comply with any of the foregoing requirements
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of
the petition. (Sec. 3, Rule 46, RCP) (Emphasis
supplied).

1 Dated 22 November 2016


2 Dated 18 June 2010
Page 2 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719
2. Petitioners, in their Motion for Reconsideration,
rectified the defects pointed out by the Honorable Court with
regard to their Petition for Certiorari3. Petitioners then filed,
simultaneously with the Motion for Reconsideration, an
Amended Petition for Certiorari, incorporating thereon the
rectified items reflected in the Motion for Reconsideration.
However, it should be pointed out that the same was
coursed through the Honorable Court, without obtaining
prior leave of court. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “leave of
court” as permission obtained from a court to take some
action which, without such permission, would not be
allowable; as, to sue a receiver, to file an amended
pleading, to plead several pleas.

3. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Amended


Petition for Certiorari may have amended the Counsel for
Petitioners’ IBP Receipt Number and MCLE Certificate of
Exemption Number, however, a glitch now exists as it
appears that the Counsel for Petitioners’ Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) Number stated in both the foregoing is already
outdated. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Amended
Petition for Certiorari exhibits PTR No. 0432073; 1-12-14;
Quezon City. Such phenomenon can no longer be argued as
a mere oversight. It becomes incumbent upon the
Petitioners to impress upon the Honorable Court that
technical errors will no longer be committed, considering
that the Honorable Court sanctions the dismissal of the
pleading if one suffers from any defect.

4. The Honorable Court must be wary with the


consistent maneuver of the Petitioners to drift away with the
Rules of Procedure. The issue at hand is no longer an issue
of a mere oversight of technicalities laid down by the Rules
of Court. “You can never make the same mistake twice
because the second time you make it, it's not a mistake, it's
a choice” said by the famous author Steven Denn. The
Supreme Court, in Lanzaderas v Amethyst Security and
General Services, Inc.4, held that:

xxx Although technical rules of procedure are


not ends in themselves, they are necessary,
however, for an effective and expeditious
administration of justice. It is settled that a

3 Dated 18 June 2010


4 GR No. 143604, 20 June 2003.
Page 3 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719
party who seeks to avail of certiorari must
observe the rules thereon and non-observance
of said rules may not be brushed aside as
"mere technicality." While litigation is not a
game of technicalities, and that the rules of
procedure should not be enforced strictly at
the cost of substantial justice, still it does not
follow that the Rules of Court may be ignored
at will and at random to the prejudice of the
orderly presentation, assessment and just
resolution of the issues. Procedural rules
should not be belittled or dismissed simply
because they may have resulted in prejudice to
a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they
are required to be followed except only for
compelling reasons. xxx

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most


respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to DENY THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION dated 22 November
2016 filed by the Petitioners for LACK OF MERIT.

Such other reliefs and remedies as are just and


equitable under the foregoing premises are equally prayed
for.

6 December 2016, Quezon City.

G.P. ANGELES & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE


Counsel for the Accused
6 Floor Penthouse West City Plaza Building
th

No. 66 West Avenue, Quezon City 1100


Tel Nos. 412-4465 / 376-2224 (Telefax)
Mobile Nos. 09175612080 / 09399038679
E-mail: gpa_staff@gpa-law.com.ph

By:

Page 4 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719
GALELEO P. ANGELES
Lifetime No. 05517/ Q.C.
PTR No. 2182471 / 01-06-16 / Q.C.
Roll No. 46286
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0011482

THEENA C. MARTINEZ
IBP No. 1026779 / January 26, 2016 / Isabela
PTR NO. 2209115 / 1-8-16 /Quezon City
Roll No. 63484
MCLE Compliance No. V-0012301/ 04/14/2019

CRISTINE E. PASCUAL-BELLO
IBP No. 1008608 / 01-12-16 / CALMANA
PTR No. 2059103 / 01-12-16 / CALOOCAN
Roll No. 63772
MCLE Compliance No. V-0004175

COPY FURNISHED:

(RET.) JUDGE PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE


Counsel for Petitioners
Unit 205 ACRE Building, No. 137 Malakas St.
1100 Central, Quezon City

HON. MARIA GILDA LOJA-PANGILINAN


Public Respondent
Regional Trial Court Br. 76
Quezon City Justice Hall Building
Quezon City

Page 5 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719
WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Due to the distance and lack of messengerial services


at the present time, the filing and service of the foregoing
pleading to the other party was made through registered
mail in lieu of the preferred mode of personal service. This
explanation is made in compliance to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.

THEENA C. MARTINEZ

Page 6 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719

S-ar putea să vă placă și