CASE 2017-0015: RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, LUCINIA F. GUYAMIN, and EILEEN G. GATARIN, VS. JACINTO G. FLORES and MAXIMO G. FLORES, represented by RAMON G. FLORES, (G.R. No. 202189 25 APRIL 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (DEFENSE MUST BE BASED ON MERITS NOT TECHNICALITIES) (BRIEF TITLE: GUYAMIN ET AL VS GATARIN ET AL.)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The May 23, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 92924 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
PETITIONERS STAYED IN RESPONDENTS’ LAND OUT OF THE LATER’S TOLERANCE. RESPONDENTS FILED CASE TO OUST PETITIONERS AFTER MEDIATION FAILED. PETITIONERS WERE DECLARED IN DEFAULT BUT THEY FILED AN ANSWER THOUGH LATE AND RESPONDENTS FILED A REPLY. RESPONDENTS FAILED TO FILE A FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE BUT DESPITE THIS, THE LOWER COURT STILL ISSUED A DECISION WHICH WAS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS.
PETITIONERS RAISED THE DEFENSE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN FAULT SINCE THEY FILED AN ANSWER AND RESPONDENTS IN FACT FILED A REPLY AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE RESPONDENT FAILED TO FILE A FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE. IS PETITIONER CORRECT?
NO. PETITIONERS’ DEFENSES ARE PURELY TECHNICAL AND NOT BASED ON MERITS.
PETITIONERS RAISED PURELY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS AND NOTHING MORE. IN OTHER WORDS, PETITIONERS AIM TO WIN THEIR CASE NOT ON THE MERIT, BUT ON PURE TECHNICALITY.
“To repeat, this Court will not waste its precious time and energy in a futile exercise where the result would be for naught; petitioners will not be indulged when it appears that they have no valid claim in the first place. Quite the contrary, the Court must give respondents the justice they deserve. As owners of the subject property who have been deprived of the use thereof for so many years owing to petitioners’ continued occupation, and after all these years of giving unconditionally to the petitioners who are their relatives, respondents must now enjoy the fruits of their ownership.”
“The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice, but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts, in rendering justice, have always been, as they in fact ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. As applied to the instant case, in the language of then Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, technicalities ‘should give way to the realities of the situation’ .22 (Emphasis supplied)”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 