|
HEIRS OF JUAN MALVAR and LOURDES MALVAR, Petitioners, - versus - THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
L.C. LOPEZ RESOURCES, INC., Respondents. |
G.R. No. 163208 Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, * carpio MORALES, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: |
x
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
Two conflicting resolutions were issued
on the same date in the same case. The
first resolution dismissed the case without prejudice for violation of the provision
against forum shopping. The other required the respondent (petitioner
herein) to comment. What is the effect, under the unique circumstances of this case, of these
twin resolutions?
This is the
question that the petitioners Heirs of Juan Valdez, Spouses Potenciano Malvar
and Lourdes Malvar (heirs and spouses
Malvar) pose for our consideration in
this Petition for Review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court after the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that CA-G.R. SP No. 76286 that the private respondent
(petitioner at the CA, and referred to herein as “Lopez Resources”) filed, was not effectively dismissed.
The heirs
and spouses Malvar seek to reverse the following resolutions in the following cases
filed by Lopez Resources before the CA:
(a) In
CA-G.R. SP No. 76286 -
(1)
Resolution dated
(2)
Resolution dated May 5, 2003[2]
(second May 5, 2003 Resolution) which
required the heirs and spouses Malvar to file their comment to CA-G.R. SP No.
76286 and Lopez Resources to rectify the deficiency in its non-forum shopping
certification;
(3)
Resolution dated August 1, 2003[3]
(August 1, 2003 Resolution) which clarified
the conflicting May 5, 2003 resolutions, directing the heirs and spouses Malvar
to file their comment on CA-G.R. SP No. 76286 within ten days, and Lopez
Resources to file its reply to the comment.
(4)
Resolution dated April 2, 2004[4]
(April 2, 2004 Resolution) which
denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the heirs and spouses Malvar of
the Resolution dated December 12, 2003 that granted them 10 days from notice to
file their comment; and
(b) In CA-G.R. SP No. 77615 -
(5)
Resolution dated
THE ANTECEDENTS
The controversy has its roots in Civil
Case No. 00-6015 (civil case)
entitled, “Manila Construction
Development Corporation of the
Lopez Resources went to the CA to
question the application of the order and writ that the RTC issued in the civil
case. Its petition for certiorari and prohibition was docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 76286 (first petition)
and was assigned to the Ninth Division.[9]
For the reasons detailed below, Lopez
Resources filed another similar petition (re-filed
petition) – docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77615 and assigned to the Seventh
Division[10] –
after the first petition was dismissed without prejudice.
Proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 76286
Lopez Resources filed this petition
for certiorari and prohibition before
the CA on April 3, 2003, alleging grave abuse of discretion and the commission
of acts without or in excess of jurisdiction by the RTC when it deprived Lopez
Resources of its property without due process of law; Lopez Resources was not a party in Civil Case
No. 00-6015 where the assailed order and writ were granted; also, the writ was enforced against Lopez
Resources’ property although this property was not a part of the land disputed
in the civil case.[11]
In its first action on the first
petition, the CA issued on
Lopez
Resources and the heirs and spouses Malvar received the resolution of dismissal
but the heirs and spouses Malvar’s co-respondents did not. Lopez Resources received the resolution on
CA records
show that the spouses Malvar’s co-respondents who did not receive the first
Because of the conflict in the
contents of the two
It was also brought to Our
attention by the Division Clerk, after scrutiny of the records, that there has
been a clerical error in what was supposed to be delivered as thin copies for
the three (3) thick copies of the Resolution We actually promulgated on May 5,
2003 x x x The inadvertently delivered thin copy of the said resolution
received by the petitioner’s counsel was the one dismissing the petition
without prejudice, and the same copy pertained to the draft resolution which We
did not approve. The copy of the resolution received by private respondent
Cristeta dela
The
foregoing explains why there is a re-filing of the petition with this Court,
because of the inadvertently delivered copy of the draft resolution received by
the petitioner, dismissing the case without prejudice. As such, the error needs to be rectified
since the petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77615 is actually the same as the
case at bar.[12]
The Ninth
Division duly furnished the ponente
of the re-filed petition (from the Seventh Division) a copy of its
The heirs
and spouses Malvar subsequently sought a reconsideration of another resolution
from the Ninth Division dated December 12, 2003 that, among others, granted
them 10 days to file their comment. The
CA denied the motion in its
Proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 77615
In response
to the first May 5, 2003 Resolution dismissing its petition without prejudice,
Lopez Resources opted to re-file on
In lieu
of comment,[13] the
heirs and spouses Malvar moved for the
dismissal of the petition on two grounds: first, the CA has no jurisdiction over
the re-filed petition as an exact petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 76286 was earlier
dismissed under the first May 5, 2003 Resolution and the dismissal had become
final; and second, even if the CA had jurisdiction, the re-filed
petition should be dismissed by reason of litis
pendentia because the appellate court has not terminated the proceedings in
the first petition.
Subsequently,
the CA[14]
resolved to cancel the raffle of CA-G.R. SP No. 77615[15]
since the first petition and the re-filed petition are one and the same. The CA
also ordered that the contents of the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 77615 to be
incorporated with the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 76286.
THE ISSUES
Dissatisfied
with the above CA resolutions and arguing that both cases should be dismissed,
the petitioners raise the following issues:
1. whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in CA-G.R.SP
No. 76286 when it issued on the same date the two conflicting
2. whether the
3.
whether the refiling of the same petition before the
CA constituted a palpable act of forum shopping justifying the dismissal of
both petitions.
THE COURT’S
RULING
We deny the petition for lack of merit.
The fact
that the Ninth Division of the CA committed a monumental error cannot be
erased. But the error was not in the
court’s intent on what to do with the forum shopping violation it found. In both resolutions, what is clear is that
the court intended to allow a rectification of the deficiency in Lopez
Resources’ non-forum shopping certification in view perhaps of what it
perceived to be the merits that the face of the petition showed. Thus, in the first
We have no
doubt that it was within the CA’s power
and prerogative to issue what either resolution decreed without committing an
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the first
That the CA
could also require the respondents to comment, with the obligation on the part
of the petitioner to undertake rectification, is not without support from
established jurisprudence. In several
cases,[16]
we allowed initiatory pleadings or petitions with initially defective
verifications and certifications of non-forum shopping on the ground of
substantial compliance.[17]
We reasoned that strict compliance with the requirement merely underscores its
mandatory nature, in that, it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements
altogether disregarded.[18]
Thus,
we have held that the subsequent submission of the required documents (such as
the secretary’s certificate) constituted substantial compliance with the procedural
rules that justified relaxation of the
requirements in the interest of justice.[19]
Thus,
either way, the CA would have been correct.
To our mind, it is important to make this determination to establish
that other than the CA’s mistake in
releasing two conflicting resolutions in the same case and on the same
date, the CA action was legally above board.
This determination is particularly material for purposes of the grave
abuse of discretion the petitioners impute against the Court of Appeals for
issuing two conflicting resolutions in initially acting on the case. In the absence of any showing that the twin
issuance was attended by partiality, or by hostility to one party as against another,
or in open and patent disregard of the applicable laws, no grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction exists in the CA
action. The twin issuance was, as the CA
Ninth Division admitted, the result of a mistake. The exercise of discretion in the CA’s action
came into play in the consideration of what action to take in light of the
deficiency in the petition’s certification against forum shopping. That a
resolution that was not intended to be issued, was issued, does not at all
involve an exercise of discretion, much less its abuse.
Because the mistake was on the part of the court, it
is axiomatic that none of the parties should suffer for the mistake. This is particularly true given that the
parties all acted pursuant to the resolution they respectively received. To be sure, Lopez Resources could have filed
a motion for reconsideration upon its receipt of the resolution of dismissal on
To look at
the matter from another perspective, the issuance of two conflicting
resolutions – one for dismissal, the other for the continuation of the case,
with one canceling out the other – can only mean that no definite, specific
determination was made by the court; at least, there was uncertainty on what the
court really intended to do. Under this
situation, we find it fallacious to conclude that one resolution lapsed to
finality while the other did not. In
legal effect, there was effectively no definite resolution that could have
lapsed to finality because of the mistake the court committed. This status continued until a clarification was
made by the issuing court.
Even
granting that the first May 5, 2003 Resolution became final and executory, the
rule on immutability of judgment does not apply in cases where what is to be
modified or altered involves: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) the
so-called nunc pro tunc entries which
cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void judgments [such as a dismissal
without prejudice that was not intended to be issued] and those where circumstances
transpire after the finality that render the execution or enforcement, as in
this case, of the judgment unjust or inequitable.[20] To be sure, the rule does not apply in cases
where a supervening event - such as the mistake undisputably committed by the
court (i.e., the unintended release of one of the resolutions, thus resulting
in the conflict and confusion) - took
place.[21]
Faced with
the mistake it committed, the CA readily acknowledged its lapse and acted to
rectify it through its
For all the
foregoing reasons and the fact the CA can issue such orders or resolutions necessary
in the exercise of its jurisdiction. we hold that the Ninth Division’s clarificatory
resolution of
The
question of whether Lopez Resources forum shopped when it re-filed its petition
is largely rendered moot and academic by the terms of the assailed May 5, 2003 order
which dismissed the case without prejudice.
Lopez Resources, who cannot be blamed for the CA’s mistake, only
followed what the assailed order allowed.
Thus, we cannot say that it forum shopped by filing another petition
while the first petition was pending.
Insofar as it was concerned, its first petition had been dismissed
without prejudice; hence, there was no bar, either by way of forum shopping, litis pendentia or res adjudicata, to
the petition it re-filed.[23] We note that it has not been lacking in good
faith in its dealing with the appellate court in this regard. After its re-filed petition and after receipt
of the August 1, 2003 Resolution of the Ninth Division, it immediately filed on
August 12, 2003 a Manifestation and Motion for Clarification to seek guidance on
which of the two petitions should subsist.
In an abundance of caution, it likewise filed on
As a final
note, we cannot help but be disturbed by the carelessness exhibited in the
handling of the conflicting
WHEREFORE, in light
of the foregoing, we hereby DENY the
petition and DIRECT the Court of
Appeals to resolve the petition for certiorari
and prohibition in CA-G.R. SP No. 76286 with utmost dispatch. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated
Additional Member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 512 date
[1]
Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
See pp.1-4 of herein private
respondent’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Application for the Issuance of a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction And/Or Temporary Restraining Order); rollo,
pp. 47-67.
[7]
The parties who filed
complaints-in-intervention (with application for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction) were North East Property
Ventures, Spouses Potenciano Malvar and Lourdes Malvar and Spouses Juan Valdez
and Apolinaria Valdez. The spouses
[8]
Rollo, p.48
[9]
Comprised of Associate Justice
Bernie Adefuin-de la Cruz, Associate Justice Perlita Tria-Tirona (both
retired), and Associate Justice Hakim Abdulwahid (as ponente).
[10]
Comprised of Associate Justice
Ruben T. Reyes (now a member of this Court), Associate Justice Elvi John
Asuncion and Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin.
[11]
Comment/Opposition (Re: Petition for Review dated
[12]
[13]
Comment on the Petition; id.,
pp. 74-84.
[14]
The Sixth Division to where the ponente,
Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now of the Supreme Court) transferred.
[15]
Resolution dated
[16] Vicar International
Construction, Inc. v. FEB Leasing and Finance Corp., G.R. No. 157195, April
22, 2005, 456 SCRA 588, 596-597; Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo,
G.R. No. 160455, May 9, 2005, 455 SCRA 328, 337; Huntington Steel Products,
Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158311, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 551, 559; General
Milling Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 153199, December 17, 2002, 394 SCRA 207, 209;
Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143377, February 20,
2001, 352 SCRA 334, 346; Loyola v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117186,
June 19, 1995, 245 SCRA 447, 483.
[17] Young v. Seng, G.R. No. 143464,
[18] Ibid,
citing Loyola v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16, pp. 483-484.
[19]
Wack-wack Golf &
Country Club v. NLRC, G.R. No. 149793, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 280, 294,
citing Jaro v. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 282 (2002).
[20]
Sacdalan v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 128967,
[21]
Natalia Realty Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126462,
[22] See:
Section 3, Rule 3 of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.
[23] Times Transit Co.,
Inc. v. Sotelo, G.R. No. 163786, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 587, 598, and Development
Bank of the Philippines v. La Campana Development Corp., G.R. No. 137694, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA
384, 392.
[24] Ulat-Marrero
v. Torio, Jr., A.M. No. P-01-1519,
[25]