FIRST
DIVISION
PUROK BAGONG SILANG G.R. No. 135092
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioner,
Present:
-
versus - PANGANIBAN,
C.J., Chairperson,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
HON.
EVANGELINE S. CALLEJO, SR., and
YUIPCO, in her capacity as CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 29,
KAIMO,
NOEMI KAIMO,
CARLOS
KAIMO, HENEDINA
KAIMO-BRINGAS,
ROGELIO
KAIMO,
VENECIO KAIMO,
FLORIDA
KAIMO-CLEREGO,
DEGRACIA KAIMO, and Promulgated:
JOSE NOLAN KAIMO,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before
the Court is a Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order to enjoin Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco, Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 29, from enforcing the writ of demolition she issued in Civil
Case No. 3203.
The antecedents are as follows:
Lydia, Victoria, Noemi, Carlos,
Rogelio, Venecio, Degracia and Jose Nolan, all surnamed Kaimo, and their
siblings, Henedina Kaimo Bringas and Florida Kaimo Clerego, were the co-owners
of three parcels of land located in Kaskag, Surigao City, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-4283, 4284 and 4285. However, about 400 private individuals
constructed their houses and other improvements on the property. In 1982, the
occupants formed an association known as the Purok Bagong Silang Association,
Inc. (PBSAI).
The Kaimos filed a Complaint in the
RTC of Surigao City for the recovery of possession of real property, damages
and attorney’s fees against 64 occupants.[1] The case was docketed as Civil Case
No. 3203.
In
their answer to the complaint, most of the defendants declared that the subject
property was classified as timberland and, as such, part of the public domain;
thus, the plaintiffs had no cause of action against them. Seven other defendants alleged in their
answer that they had stopped paying rentals to plaintiffs at P10.00 a
month when they discovered that the property was timberland.
After
due proceedings, the trial court rendered judgment on
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants, and the Court hereby condemns and orders:
(1). The defendants, as well as their agents, representatives and [assignees-in-interest], to vacate immediately from the parcels of land in question, and to restore the peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiffs;
(2). The
defendants to pay plaintiffs in solidum P15,000.00 as reimbursement of
litigation expenses and another sum of P10,000.00 as reimbursement for
attorney’s fees, as well as moral damages in the sum of P30,000.00;
(3). Defendants
Eduardo Cuizon, Dionie Gersano, Emel Jamero, Eladia Marapao, Manuel Mustajo,
Victor Tubal, Carlos Ausa and Ruben Babatayon (each of them) to pay plaintiffs
monthly rental of P10.00 from January 1979 until they shall vacate and
turn over the area in question to the plaintiffs.
In the execution of the judgment herein by ousting the defendants from the parcels of land in question, the plaintiffs shall and must relocate the above three (3) parcels of land by a license (sic) geodetic engineer so that only those defendants who are found occupying and within the area of the three (3) parcels of land in question as relocated shall be ordered ousted therefrom and the defendants or those who are found to be occupying portions outside the boundaries of the above-described parcels of land should not be molested.
Consequently, the defendants’ counterclaim is, as it is, hereby DISMISSED, with costs against them.
SO ORDERED.[2]
The
defendants did not appeal the decision. Consequently,
it became final and executory. On motion
of the plaintiffs, the court issued an Order for the issuance of the writ.[3] Some of the defendants’ personal properties were
levied upon, but the latter refused to remove their houses and improvements on
the property and vacate the same despite demands. On motion of the plaintiffs, the court issued
an Alias Writ of Execution. The Deputy
Sheriff failed to cause the eviction of the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a Motion before the
trial court for a special order authorizing the Deputy Sheriff to demolish the
houses and other improvements on the property.[4] The
court granted the motion and issued a Special Order on
As gleaned from the reports of the four
deputy sheriffs, the defendants refused to remove their houses and vacate the
property despite their receipt of copies of the court’s Special Order. This time, the plaintiffs filed a Motion dated
During the hearing, the parties
agreed that the three parcels of land would be relocated by a geodetic engineer
to be appointed by the court. On
1. To relocate the three (3) parcels of land subject-matter of this case and determine which houses are within the said property;
2. To submit his report immediately after the completion of the relocation survey for approval by this Court;
3. To allow Sheriffs Samuel Basco, Juan Gonzaga
and Bonifacio Betito to be present during the relocation of the property.[7]
The Engineer complied, and submitted
his report on
Meanwhile, the PBSAI and the defendants
in Civil Case No. 3203, as petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari with this Court wherein they
raised the following issues:
1. Whether the execution of the decision dated August 15, 1985 of the lower court can be done by a mere motion or by an independent civil action;
2. Whether or not Plaintiffs must relocate the three (3) parcels of land by a licensed geodetic engineer so that only those defendants who are found occupying and within the area of the three (3) parcels of land in question as relocated shall be ordered ousted therefrom and the defendants or those who are found to be occupying portions outside the boundaries of the three (3) parcels of land in question shall not be molested; and,
3. Whether
defendants are covered by Executive Order No. 82, as modified by Memorandum
Order No. 68 dated
The
case was docketed as G.R. No. 121262.
However, the Court resolved to dismiss the petition for failure of
petitioners to comply with Revised Circular No. 1-88 and to submit a verified
statement of their receipt of the RTC’s Order dated
On
motion of the plaintiffs, the trial court issued an Order on
WHEREFORE, the judgment in this case being final and executory and for failure of the defendants to comply with the Special Order dated June 22, 1995, let a Writ of Demolition be issued for the demolition of all buildings, houses, structures or improvements found within or inside Lot Nos. 474-B-2-C-6-D-5, 474-B-2-C-6-D-6, and 474-B-2-C-6-D-2, covered by TCT Nos. 4283, 4284 and 4285.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On
May 25, 1998, the trial court issued a Writ of Demolition ordering the Ex-Officio
Sheriff to demolish all the improvements, buildings, houses and structures erected
by the defendants found within or inside Lot Nos. 474-B-2-C-6-D-5,
474-B-2-C-6-D-6 and 474-B-2-C-6-D-2 covered by TCT Nos. 4283, 4284 and 4285,
belonging to plaintiffs.[13] The Ex-Officio
Sheriff prepared and signed a Notice of Demolition to the defendants stating
that all buildings, structures, houses and improvements on the subject property
would be demolished between
Please take notice that[,] by virtue of the Court Order dated May 15, 1998 issued by the Honorable Evangeline S. Yuipco, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Surigao City in the above-entitled case, the undersigned Ex-Officio Sheriff of Surigao del Norte, Surigao City, thru her legal deputies, on the 15th day of June 1998, between 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and soon thereafter shall proceed to BAGONG SILANG, Surigao City, then and there to DEMOLISH all buildings, houses, structures or improvements found within or inside Lot Nos. 474-B-2-C-6-D-5[;] TCT Nos. 4283, 4284 and 4285, and to place Lydia Kaimo, et al. (plaintiffs) in possession of the lots in question.
It is requested that all of you be
present in the said lot on the date and hours above-stated.[14]
However, the Deputy Sheriff served
copies of said notice not only on the defendants but also on 309[15] other
individuals (who were not defendants in
Civil Case No. 3203) whose houses stood on the plaintiffs’ property. The Ex-Officio Sheriff informed the trial
court of the service of the copies of the Notice of Demolition in a Progress
Report on
This
prompted eight of the defendants below, namely, Eduardo Cuizon, Dionie Gersano,
Emel Jamero, Eladio Marapao, Manuel Mustajo, Victor Tubal, Carlos Ausa and
Ruben Babatayon, to file a Petition for Certiorari
in the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. No. 48121. They raised the following issues in their
petition:
1. Whether the respondent Judge has acted with
grave abuse of discretion and in excess of her jurisdiction amounting to lack
thereof when she issued the questioned Order dated
2. Whether the Decision dated
3. Whether the execution of the writ of
demolition dated
The
appellate court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on
The Deputy Sheriff tried to implement
on two occasions the Writ of Demolition issued by the trial court to no avail. On July 1, 1998, the Deputy Sheriff, this
time accompanied by 50 members of the PNP Reserve Unit, some Geodetic Engineers
and laborers, tried to implement the writ.
However, the residents, armed with steel bars, sticks, and other deadly weapons
blocked the way of the sheriff and his escorts.
Again, the Deputy Sheriff failed to implement the Writ of Demolition
because he was shown a copy of the temporary restraining order issued by the CA
in CA-G.R. No. 48121. The Deputy Sheriff
opted to stop altogether the demolition of the houses and structures in the plaintiffs’
property.
The PBSAI approved a Resolution authorizing
the filing of a petition before this Court or any court or administrative body
in behalf of its 309 members whose houses and structures the Deputy Sheriff
earlier threatened to demolish.
On
private respondents. It claimed that the
respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or
lack of jurisdiction when she issued the May 15, 1998 Order, and Writ of
Demolition dated May 25, 1998 ordering the demolition of the houses and
structures of 309 of its members who were not defendants in Civil Case No.
3203.
The
petitioner also alleged that not being a party to Civil Case No. 3203, it cannot
appeal from the said questioned Order dated May 15, 1998 of the respondent
Judge, and that it had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy therefrom in the
ordinary course of law except through the filing of the petition.[19]
Petitioner prayed that:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant Petition be given due course and that pending determination of the merits of this Petition, a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order be issued against RESPONDENT JUDGE restraining her from further proceedings in the premises, and after due deliberation of the issues involved herein, a Writ of Prohibition be issued commanding the RESPONDENT JUDGE to desist absolutely from further proceeding with the implementation of its questioned Order dated May 15, 1998 and its Writ of Demolition dated May 25, 1998 against the houses, structures or improvements owned by the members of PETITIONER Association who are not parties to Civil Case No. 3203, with costs.
PETITIONER Association further pray
for such other relief or remedy that may be deem[ed] just and equitable in the
premises.[20]
In
their Comment on the petition, the private respondents averred that: (1) the 65 defendants in Civil Case No.
3203, not the petitioner, are the real parties-in-interest to assail the May
15, 1998 Order and May 25, 1998 Writ of Demolition of the respondent Judge; (2)
eight of the defendants below, who were the petitioners in CA-G.R. No. 48121,
are guilty of forum-shopping; (3) the service of the copies of the notice of demolition
on persons who were not the defendants below was of no consequence because, as stated
in the decision of the court and the notice of demolition issued in Civil
Case No. 3203, only the houses and improvements of the defendants below found
in the properties of the plaintiffs were to be demolished by the Deputy Sheriff.
The
threshold issues for resolution are: (1) whether the petitioner is the real
party-in-interest in this case; (2) whether the petition filed in this Court is
appropriate; and (3) whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the May 25,
1998 Writ of Demolition.
The
petition is dismissed.
On
the first issue, the rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended
by the real parties-in-interest and in the name of the real party-in-interest.[21] The party whose legal right has been invaded
or infringed or who sustained an injury is the only one who can maintain the
action;[22]
or the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. He must appear to be the present owner of the
right sought to be enforced.[23] An association has the legal personality to
represent its members and the outcome of the case will affect their vital
interests.[24] Thus, in Executive
Secretary v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court ruled that the modern view is
that an association has standing to complain an injury to its members. This view focuses the legal identity of an
association with that of its members. An
association has standing to file suit for its members despite its lack of
direct interest if its members are affected by the action; similarly, an
organization has standing to assert the concern of its constituents.
We,
however, note that petitioner sought relief from this Court for a writ of
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is
also within the competence of the CA or the RTC, it is in either of these
courts that the specific action for the issuance of such writ must be
proscribed unless special and important laws are clearly and specifically set
forth in the petition. The reason for
this is that the Court is a court of last resort and must so remain if it is to
satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and
immemorial tradition. It cannot and
should not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first instance. Its original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary
writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where serious and
important reasons exist therefor.[26]
Petitioner
has not alleged, in its petition, any special and important reasons why it
sought relief from this Court for a writ of prohibition before seeking relief
in the respondent court or the CA.
On
the third issue, petitioner failed to establish that the respondent Judge
committed grave abuse of her discretion in issuing the
NOW THEREFORE, we command you to demolish the improvements, buildings, houses, and structures erected by the defendants found within or inside Lot Nos. 474-B-2-C-6-D-5, 474-B-2-C-6-D-6, and 474-B-2-C-6-D-2 covered by TCT Nos. 4283, 4284, and 4285, belonging to the plaintiffs located at Bagong Silang, Barangay Washington, Surigao City.
This Writ shall be returned by you
to this Court, within ten (10) days from the date of receipt hereof, together
with your proceedings indorsed hereon.[27]
What precipitated the complaint of the
petitioner’s 309 members who were not the defendants in Civil Case No. 3203 was
the Notice of Demolition issued by the Ex-Officio Sheriff, copies of which were
served on all 309 members who were not parties in Civil Case No. 3203. It declared that the houses and improvements
of the defendants, as well as the houses and structures of persons occupying
and/or squatting in the property of the respondents, would be demolished. The Notice of Demolition of the Ex-Officio Sheriff
was based on the
WHEREFORE, and for being meritorious, the aforesaid motion is hereby GRANTED. As a consequence thereof, a Special Order is issued ordering each of the defendants, their agents, or representatives or other persons acting in their behalf or occupying or squatting on subject properties, to demolish or remove their respective improvements themselves not later than sixty (60) days from receipt of this Special Order.
Serve a copy of this order to each of the defendants and their counsel Atty. Villaluz and to be enforced by the Sheriffs Juan Gonzaga, Samuel Basco, and Bonifacio Betito of this Court. The setting of his opposition on June 30 is cancelled.
SO
ORDERED. (Underscoring supplied)[28]
As
worded, the order of the respondent Judge deviated from her decision that only
the defendants would be evicted from the property. Clearly, the June 22, 1995 Order of the respondent
Judge and the Notice of Demolition of the Ex-Officio Sheriff cannot be enforced
against the 309 members of the petitioner who were not parties in Civil Case
No. 3203 because only the parties in said case are bound by the decision and
the concomitant orders therein.
Strangers to the case are not bound by the decision in Civil Case No.
3203 or the proceedings taken therein.[29]
Thus,
the 309 members of the petitioner who were not parties in Civil Case No. 3203
but whose houses and structures were threatened to be demolished by the Ex-Officio
Sheriff had the right to complain and seek
relief from the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, from respondent court, or from
the CA.
Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial
or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from
further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
A writ of prohibition is an
extraordinary writ. It may be issued only
in the absence of a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Indeed, in Esquivel v. Hon. Ombudsman,[30] this Court ruled that:
x x
x [A] writ of prohibition will not be issued against an inferior court unless
the attention of the court whose proceedings are sought to be stayed has been
called to the alleged lack or excess of jurisdiction. The foundation of this rule is the respect
and consideration due to the lower court and the expediency of preventing
unnecessary litigation; it cannot be presumed that the lower court would not
properly rule on a jurisdictional objection if it were property presented to
it. x x x[31]
(citations omitted)
The petitioner and/or its 309 members
who were not parties in Civil Case No. 3203 had a speedy, adequate, and plain
remedy in the course of law. They had
the right to request the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff to refrain from causing
the demolition of their houses and improvements on the subject property since
they were not the defendants in Civil Case No. 3203. They even failed to file a Motion Ex Abundante Cautelam before the respondent
Judge for her to amend the May 25, 1998 Writ of Demolition so as to exclude
therefrom their houses and improvements.
They could have filed a petition for certiorari
against the respondents with the CA for the nullification of the May 25, 1998
Writ of Demolition and for prohibition to enjoin the private respondents from
implementing said Writ since they were not the defendants in Civil Case No.
3203.
Moreover, there was no urgency for the
petitioner or its 309 members to file their petition in this Court considering
that, earlier, on July 1, 1998, the CA had already issued a temporary
restraining order in CA-G.R. No. 48121, on the basis of which the Ex-Officio Sheriff
stopped implementing the May 25, 1998 Writ of Demolition issued by the
respondent Judge.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the
petition is DENIED on procedural
grounds and for lack of merit. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
[1]
EDUARDO CUIZON, JUANITA GAYASO, DIONIE GERSANO, EMEL JAMERO, HERMIS
MIRABUENA, MELER OJOL, JUANITO TARIL, TRESTAN AZARCON, MARITO PALOMO, ELADIA
MARAPAO, GAMILITO GARALLO, BARBARA IBALLE, ALEX VIRTUDAZO, MANUEL MUSTAJO,
CRESENCIO ARREZA, ROBERTO DOLORIEL, EMILIANO ABAD, DOMINGO BUKID, ESPOSO
TINAMBACAN, VICTOR TUBAL, ALFONSO MANTILLA, JUANITO HERCAN, ANTONIO DANDAN,
CLEMENTE SIMBIT, ROMUALDO ECLEO, DOMINGO TERO, CUSTODIO CALIWATAN, JOVITO
LINGATONG, JOSEFINO TABITA, ALFREDO BARACA, ARTEMIO DANTEL, CARLITO GASTA,
JOVISIO BUSAL, RICO CABELO, CIPRIANO PLAZA, TOMAS SANCHEZ, HERMINIO GUIMARY,
MESIAS QUIBAN, MR. ESPALDON, LEONIDES AMPARO, ERNESTO EBUNA, ADELA REYNA, PC
SGT. SAMOREN, CHARLITO TABAYON, NORBERTO BESING, GRACIANO TERO, JUANITO SITOY,
LORNA CARUANA, REYNALDO LOAYON, ALYAS BOHOL, DIOSCORO NAVARRO, CRESENCIO
PERTACORTA, ERLINDA ESCALANTE EDULAN, TERESITA ARREZA, W. MASAYA, CARLOS AUSA,
GLORIA IRIN, RUBEN BABATAYON, EDITO BONGGATE, C. ANTALLAN, CAROL LAAG, J.
DAQUIT, P. LINAYA, and PEDRO ORAIS. (Rollo, pp. 6-7, 25)
[2]
Id. at 49-50.
[3]
[4]
[5] WHEREFORE, and
for being meritorious, the aforesaid motion is hereby GRANTED. As a consequence thereof, a Special Order is
issued ordering each of the defendants, their agents or representatives or
other persons acting in their behalf, or occupying or squatting on subject
properties, to demolish or remove their respective improvements themselves (sic)
not later than sixty (60) days from receipt of this Special Order.
Serve a copy of this order to each of the
defendants and their counsel[,] Atty. Villaluz, and to be enforced by the
Sheriffs Juan Gonzaga, Samuel Basco and Bonifacio Betito of this Court. The setting of his opposition on June 30 is
cancelled.
SO ORDERED.
(
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] BONIFACIO MALIGMAT, ESMERALDO
AMPER, TERESA GATO, MANUEL LACIA, PEDRO PARNADA, CHARLIE MENGASCA, MAMERTO GOLOAN,
CLAUDIO ASUMEN, SAMUEL PURACAN, FULGENCIO PURACAN, ROSEMARY LABIAL, WILLIE
MEDINA/MIMIE, LOURDES BONONO, EDUARDO GONZALES, ROMUALDO ELIOT, FELISA CATUBORAN,
EXUPERIO OREJAS, ANTONIO DALIDA, CANDELARIA TOROTORO, PABLITO ENAO, CONCORDIA
FERMELAN, MYRNA PIODO, PETE ROJO, RODRIGO MATABARAN, ANGELITO ELLAR,
MARIBETH/CHITO VILLACANTOL, PETER DEJOLDE, ANTONIO LAMANITO, VIRGILIO RESAS,
VICENTE JIMENEZ, RICO RESULLAR, LEO - LEO’S SHOP, VICTOR RESULLAR, VIRGIE
BULADACO, MOHAMAD GUNTING, LALO SANTISAS, FELOMENA SANTISAS, ARTURO AGUILA,
ORTIZ, MAMERTO SUMAMPONG, FELIPE ALCORADA, FRANCISCO GUHITIA, RHC BLDG., DAY
CARE CENTER, PENYAY BASADRE, LILIBETH PLAZA, GOMERCINDO GALIGAO, VIRGIE GESTA,
FELIPE GALIMAN, FLORCITA DELIMA, RONNIE LIZA, EDUARDO GALANG, ANGEL ELIMANCO,
AMADA MONGADO, JAIME ESCALANTE, AVELINA RANGAS, WINNIE MAQUISO, ALAN CATIN,
JOVITA, EFREN MONGADO, ROSARIO GABATO, PANFILO MAIQUE, ELMA BATUHAN, DORA SITOY,
CARLITO LIBARNES, MARIETTA CASUERA, LINDA GESTA, YOLANDA ARNUCO, NONITA LOPEZ,
PACUNIO GUIMARUS, LEONORA CASTARDO, TOMAS SANCHEZ, CATIENZA, LEONARDO PIEDAD,
GABIE AMPER, ALEX GALES, JUANITO GERCAN, FELIPE JARANTA, RUDY SANCHEZ,
NATIVIDAD BACO, FRANCISCO MONDALLA, PRIMITIVO ATENDEDO, LITO BETO, ROBERTO
AUSIN, RACQUEL LOAYON, LOLOY SAMPAGA, MANUELA TALINGTING, CABALLO, TRESTRAM
AZARCON, ROGELIO CATACUTAN, DODONG BESAMO, ATTY. SESINANDO VILLALUZ, SR., ROSE
RESTIDE MALIGNAT, ESTEBAN BADIOLA, ARTURO BOLAKIA, ALEJANDRO ALIPAO, QUIRINO
SAMONTINA, ANTONIO DALIDA, JIMMY BANCOYO, CARLOS CRESPO, PEDRO CRESPO, NICOLAS
CRESPO, ANNABELLE PERIL, JESSIE REYES, ADOLFO BOLABOG, NATING GUHITING, MARIO
VILLAROZA, MAXIMO GALAGAR, OPTATO ELEDIA, JUANITO GAKIT, CAROL LAAG, CELSO
BASADRE, CARLITO ANTALLAN, certain GESTA, LUISITO GONGOTE, FAUSTINO MANLIGUEZ,
GLECERIO OREJAS, CAROL LAAG, ALBERTO ALAPAG, QUINTINA GONO, MERCEDES
MONTESCLAROS, TEOFILO TAPIA, NOGALIZA,
ALBERTO AUDITOR, DOMINGO BUKID, LOPE EQUIBAL, JESUS MERIDA, ANTONIO
BECERRA, RICARDO TOBIA, DARIO YSALINA,
LILY EGUNA, ANA BARCOS, CORNELIO
MESOLER, PENYAY ORTIZ, ASTERA MESIAS, FLORENCIO GESTA, JACINTO MESIAS, RUBEN
VALENZUELA, MOISES PAQUIT, LOURDES REPUTANA, JOEL BEYOYO, CARLOS AUSA, SILVERIO
MABOLIS, JUANITA LLAMERA, certain PASYON, DEQUIÑO, MARIO ESPALDON, RAMON
VILLACORTA, JAIME SIMBIT, BENIDA JAMA, SALES JAMERO, NERIO EDER, EDUARDO
CUIZON, SR., TEODORA RECUIRRA, VICTOR TOBAL, SAMUEL ESPINOZA, CARMELA MUSTAJO,
LADIA MARAPAO, ROMY GORILLO, ROSALINO SATUROS, NIMFA LONGOS, ANECIA P. DE LA
CRUZ, ARNALDO BEDO, CIPRIANO CRESPO, ALEX HONTILA, POLICARPIO FABIO, LEO A. CANALES, ROMY POBE, JOSE
CAVITE, NICOLAS CRESPO, JAIME ENOYA, RICARDO VITOR, BRENDA BAUTISTA, PATIMO
SALDE, BONIFACIO CANDA, JOHNNY PACTORAYAN, PEDRO ALMINE, DIVINA ESPERE, SENCIO
GESTA, ANITA LLANDUAN, LEONIDISA AMPARO, TEOPANES PAQUEO, JR., NICK NAJIAL,
VIRGINIA ORTIZ, RUPERTO ACERTO, SATURNINO PAMALERIO, ANTONIO GEBANA, FELIX
ORTIZ, JULES CAYAMANA, CHARLITO ESPENIDO, PROTACIO ODTOJAN, ELEUTERIO CULMENAS,
BOY NAPALAN, BING DUMAGTOY, LOLONG PENOLOS, ANDRES BENIDICTO, JERRY ELIMANCO,
BENJAMIN GALUMPAG, NITA TERIK, MIGUEL CULTA, MARLENE PANAGITON, BONIFACIO MIPAÑA,
ROMEO GILLO, BOY ECLEO, DESIRIO DAGAHOYA, LOLONG CURATA, PANCASIO DOLIGOL,
DEONISIO BUSAL, ANTONIO DANDAN, JULIETA NOCALLOS, CLEMENTE SIMBIT, AQUILINO
NAPAROTA, EMILIANO ABAD, GUARDA TUBAON, MARTINIANO YANDRA, GAGA DOE, DEMETRIO
MADAMBA, NUMERIANO EDRADAN, GAVINETE HOWIE, BOYET ESPEJON, MANDO VIRAY,
VICTORINO CONFESSOR, DOMINADO ESPERRAGO, GARDO EDRADAN, HERNANDO “DODONG”
LASIA, ARNEL CONDAT & CECILIA CONDAT, CLARO LAURINO, MARLO JASON, ANTONIO
LAMANILAO, ROSENDA MONDOÑEDO, CAPISTRANO ASILO, APOLINAR ROMARATE, CRISPIN MOSOL
& NELIE MOZON, GODOFREDO BRIONES, AMBROCIO AMORES, DOMINGO TORMENTO,
FERDINAND BALLOS, LARRY VILLAROSA, VICTORIK ANCOB, DAVID ACIDO, PEDRO VARGARRA,
ERNESTO ALAAN, BIENVENIDO & CORAZON FLORINO, VICTOR & MILA JUANITE,
ROLANDO MORALES, PACITA JUTILO, AGRIPINA PERTACORTA, RONALDO GRAVINO, CELINA
BALBADA, DINA RANGAS, EXALTACION ESCALANTE, FERNANDO LOPEZ, MARCELINO CEBAJES,
PEDRO MALVACIAS, CANDELARI PIEDAD, ANTEPAS DEQUIÑO, ALEJANDRO ESTORIA, CIRILO
ANDOYON, ANITA FERMILAN, HAYDE FABROA, RODRIGO WINES, MR. GIPALA, GINA ENSOMO,
ALICIA ECOBEN, MEDING PUTONG, SEGUNDINO
EBUÑA, ISIDRO PATOSA, JUAN PAQUIL, GIL CONALES, VERONICO TUMULAK, HILARION
SARABIA, SEVERO FIGURON, ANALYN
CONVICTO, ANGELITO ABI-ABI, FELIX MESIAS, ALEX ALVAREZ, ROGELIO TUBAON, BELEN
DOMO, ARTEMIO DANIEL, FERMILAN, EDDIE AMPER, ALBERTO ALAPAG, EFREN ALMIS,
MAKATINGKI SANCOPAN, RICO FERNANDEZ, MANUEL EDILLOR, BOY HAUSEN, MIRABONA,
BERNABE NALAM, VIRGINIA ROBLES, CATALINO GESTA, PABLO MENARDO, HERMAN MURILLO,
PACENCIO IGNALIG, CALIB LUISMA, LISA BALBERIA, ALEX VERTUDAZO, NORA GIPAL,
NERIE LAPARAN, CARLITO VASQUEZ, FELIX LUMUBAO, ROSITA ESMERALDA, FELIPE
PERTACORTA, NAPOLEON LIMPOT, APOLONIO MACALOS, and ALLEN ORBITA. (Id. at 74-80)
[16] Rollo, pp. 73-80.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
[22] Baliwag Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 80447, January 31, 1989, 169 SCRA 849, 854.
[23] Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 143377, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 334, 350.
[24] Chinese Flour Importers Association v.
PRISCO, 89 Phil. 439, 461 (1951).
[25] G.R.
No. 131719,
[26] Page-Tenorio v. Tenorio, G.R. No. 138490,
November 24, 2004, 443 SCRA 560, 566-567.
[27]
[28]
[29]
See Rodil Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 422 Phil. 388, 402 (2001); Santana-Cruz
v. Court of Appeals, 414 Phil. 47, 67 (2001); Malayang Samahan Ng Mga Manggagawa Sa M. Greenfield, G.R. No. 113907, April 20, 2001, 357 SCRA 77,
97.
[30] 437 Phil. 702, 715 (2002).
[31]