J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

TRIAL NOTE 0012 – THREE IMPORTANT DATES IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65; AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.

SOURCE: WILLIAM ENDELISEO BARROGA VS.  DATA CENTER COLLEGE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND  IFRED BACTAD (G.R. NO. 174158, 27 JUNE 2011,  DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECTS: CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL; TRANSFER; DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES. (BRIEF TITLE: BARROGA VS. DATA CENTER COLLEGE)

=================================

SUBJECT: WHAT ARE THE THREE MATERIAL DATES WHICH SHOULD BE STATED IN THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65?

THE  DATES WHEN THE NOTICE  OF THE JUDGMENT WAS RECEIVED, WHEN A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS FILED AND WHEN THE NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED.^[1][26]  THESE DATES SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE PETITION TO ENABLE THE REVIEWING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THE PETITION WAS FILED ON TIME.

The three material dates which should be stated in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are the dates when the notice of the judgment was received, when a motion for reconsideration was filed and when the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration was received.^[2][26]  These dates should be reflected in the petition to enable the reviewing court to determine if the petition was filed on time.^[3][27]  Indeed, petitioner’s petition before the CA stated only the date of his receipt of the NLRC’s Resolution denying his motion for partial reconsideration.  It failed to state when petitioner received the assailed NLRC Decision and when he filed his partial motion for reconsideration.  However, this omission is not at all fatal because these material dates are reflected in petitioner’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration attached as Annex “N” of the petition.  In Acaylar, Jr. v. Harayo,^[4][28] we held that failure to state these two dates in the petition may be excused if the same are evident from the records of the case.  It was further ruled by this Court that the more important material date which must be duly alleged in the petition is the date of receipt of the resolution of denial of the motion for reconsideration. In the case at bar, petitioner has duly complied with this rule.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SUBJECT:  SUPPOSE YOU FAIL TO ATTACH AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, WHAT SHOUD YOU DO?

SUBMIT IT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE C.A. DISMISSES YOUR PETITION. 

Next, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to attach an affidavit of service.  However, records show that petitioner timely rectified this omission by submitting the required affidavit of service even before the CA dismissed his petition.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SUBJECT: WHAT IS THE RULE ON WHAT DOCUMENTS TO ATTACH TO A CERTIORARI PETITION UNDER RULE 65?

THE RULES DO NOT SPECIFY THE DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOULD BE APPENDED TO THE PETITION EXCEPT THAT THEY SHOULD BE RELEVANT TO THE JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER OR RESOLUTION BEING ASSAILED.

Thirdly, petitioner’s failure to attach respondent’s motion for reconsideration to the assailed NLRC decision is not sufficient ground for the CA to outrightly dismiss his petition.  The issue that was raised in respondents’ motion for reconsideration is the propriety of the NLRC’s grant of overload honorarium in favor of petitioner.  This particular issue was not at all raised in petitioner’s petition for certiorari with the CA, therefore, there is no need for petitioner to append a copy of this motion to his petition.  Besides, as already mentioned, the denial of respondents’ motion for reconsideration has been assailed by respondents before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94205.  At any rate, the Rules do not specify the documents which should be appended  to the petition except that they should be relevant to the judgment, final order or resolution being assailed.  Petitioner is thus justified in attaching the documents which he believed are sufficient to make out a prima facie case.^[5][29]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SUBJECT: STATE THE JURISPRUDENCE  ON THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE?

The Court has time and again upheld the theory that the rules of procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice.^[6][30]  These are mere tools to expedite the decision or resolution of cases, hence, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.^[7][31]  The CA thus should not have outrightly dismissed petitioner’s petition based on these procedural lapses.

=================================

TRIAL NOTE 0011:  THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IS THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE. YOU MUST SHOW PROOF.

==========================================

SOURCE: FEB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION (NOW BPI LEASING CORPORATION) VS. SPOUSES SERGIO P. BAYLON AND MARITESS VILLENA-BAYLON, BG HAULER, INC., AND MANUEL Y. ESTILLOSO (G.R. NO. 181398, 29 JUNE 2011, CARPIO, J.) SUBJECTS: LIABILITY OF A REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICLE; ATTORNEY’S FEES. (BRIEF TITLE: FEB FINANCE VS. SPOUSES BAYLON)

==========================================

PRIOR TO TRIAL BE SURE YOU HAVE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CLIENT ON ATTORNEY’S FEES AND RELATED EXPENSES AND FEES. MAKE AND/OR KEEP ALL PERTINENT RECEIPTS. DURING TRIAL PRESENT THESE DOCUMENTS AS PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES. THE REASON IS THIS:

The award of attorney’s fees must have some factual, legal and equitable bases and cannot be left to speculations and conjectures.²⁵ Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence,²⁶ attorney’s fees as part of damages are awarded only in the instances enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.²⁷ Thus, the award of attorney’s fees is the exception rather than the rule. Attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.²⁸

WHAT WILL YOU SPECIFICALLY PROVE DURING TRIAL?

1. 1.               THAT THE ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE BASED ON FACTS AND NOT SPECULATIVE;

1. 2.               THAT THEY ARE LEGAL;

1. 3.               THAT THEYARE EQUITABLE.

HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT THEY ARE LEGAL?

THAT THEY ARE COVERED UNDER ART. 2208 OF THE CIVIL CODE BECAUSE ONLY IN INSTANCES COVERED UNDER SUCH PROVISION WILL ATTORNEYS FEES BE AWARDED.

WILL ATTORNEY’S FEES BE AWARDED EVERYTIME A PARTY WINS?

NO BECAUSE OF THE POLICY THAT NO PREMIUM SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE

* Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1006 dated 10 June 2011.

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2Rollo, pp. 31-48. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Aurora Santiago-Lagman, concurring.

3Id. at 50-52. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Monina Arevalo Zenarosa, concurring.

4Id. at 53-65. Penned by Judge Dorentino Z. Floresta.

5 Records (Vol. I), p. 8.

6Now BPI Leasing Corporation; records (Vol. II), pp. 14-24.

7 Rollo, pp. 86-89.

8 Records (Vol. I), p. 33.

9Id. at 10.

10Id. at 1-7.

11 Rollo, pp. 64-65.

12Id. at 47.

13Rollo, p. 99. BG Hauler and the driver filed in this Court (Third Division) a separate petition for review, which the Court denied in its Resolution dated 9 April 2008. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied with finality.

14AN ACT REGULATING THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FINANCING COMPANIES. Approved on 4 August 1969.

15AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5980, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE FINANCING COMPANY ACT. Approved on 26 February 1998. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8556 states:

SEC. 10. There is hereby inserted after Section 8 as renumbered, new Sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 to read as follows:

x x x

“SEC. 12. Liability of Lessors. ‒ Financing companies shall not be liable for loss, damage or injury caused by a motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel, equipment or other property leased to a third person or entity except where the motor vehicle, aircraft, vessel, equipment or other property is operated by the financing company, its employees or agents at the time of the loss, damage or injury.

x x x

16 G.R. No. 162267, 4 July 2008, 557 SCRA 141.

17 Rollo, p. 86 (back page); records (Vol. I), p. 123 (back page).

18Otherwise known as the “Land Transportation and Traffic Code.”

19Section 5 of RA 4136 reads:

SEC. 5. Compulsory registration of motor vehicles. ‒ (a) All motor vehicles and trailers of any type used or operated on or upon any highway of thePhilippines must be registered with the bureau of Land Transportation for the current year in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

x x x

(e) Encumbrances of motor vehicles.‒Mortgages, attachments, and other encumbrances of motor vehicles, in order to be valid against third parties must be recorded in the bureau. Voluntary transactions or voluntary encumbrances shall likewise be properly recorded on the face of all outstanding copies of the certificates of registration of the vehicle concerned.

Cancellation or foreclosure of such mortgages, attachments, and other encumbrances shall likewise be recorded, and in the absence of such cancellation, no certificate of registration shall be issued without the corresponding notation of mortgage, attachment and/or other encumbrances.

x x x

20Id.

21PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267, 4 July 2008, 557 SCRA 141; Equitable Leasing Corporation v. Suyom, 437 Phil. 244 (2002); First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91378, 9 June 1992, 209 SCRA 660.

22PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267, 4 July 2008, 557 SCRA 141, 154.

23 102 Phil. 103 (1957).

24Id. at 108-109.

25V.V. Soliven Realty Corp. v. Ong, 490 Phil. 229 (2005).

26Delos Santos v. Papa, G.R. No. 154427, 8 May 2009, 587 SCRA 385; Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical & Educational Center – Bicol Christian College of Medicine, 489 Phil. 380 (2005); Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146364, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 492.

27 Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;

(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff;

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid, just and demandable claim;

(6) In actions for legal support;

(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;

(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s liability laws;

(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;

(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

28Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation (LADECO) v. Angala, G.R. No. 153076, 21 June 2007, 525 SCRA 229.

TRIAL NOTE 0010: A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IS CONCLUSIVE AS THE TRUTHFULNESS OF ITS CONTENTS.

SOURCE:  SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND  BRIGIDA PALADA VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ (G.R. NO. 172227, 29 JUNE 2011,  DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECTS: VALIDITY OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE; NOTARIZED DOCUMENT. (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSE PALADA VS. SOLIDBANK).

==================================== 

WHEN YOU PRESENT A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT DURING TRIAL AND YOUR OPPONENT ATTACKS IT, YOU MAY ARGUE THAT A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IS CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF ITS CONTENTS ABSENT ANY CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.

As to the RTC’s finding that “the x x x bank acted in bad faith when it made it appear that the mortgage was executed by the [petitioners] on June 16, 1997, when the document was acknowledged before Atty. German, x x x when in truth and in fact, the [petitioners] executed said mortgage sometime in March, 1997 x x x,” we find the same without basis.  A careful perusal of the real estate mortgage contract would show that the bank did not make it appear that the real estate mortgage was executed on June 16, 1997, the same day that it was notarized, as the date of execution of the real estate mortgage contract was left blank.^[1][41]  And the mere fact that the date of execution was left blank does not prove bad faith.  Besides, any irregularity in the notarization or even the lack of notarization does not affect the validity of the document.  Absent any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents.^[2][42]

====================================  

YOU MAY FURTHER ARGUE AS RULED ABOVE:

–                     EVEN THE LACK OF NOTARIZATION DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENT.

–                     ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE NOTARIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY.