Comment Opposition To Manifestation With Motion Densing.docx

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT th 5 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT DON CARLOS-KITAOTAO-DANGCAGAN 10th Judicial Region Don Carlos, Bukidnon HEIRS OF ALEJANDRO CAILING, Rep. by FLORENCIA O. CAILING Plaintiffs, -versus-

Civil Case No. 564017

FOR: ACCION REINDIVICATORIS WITH PRELIMINARY x------------------------------------------INJUNCTION SPOUSES JOVENCIO & ERLINDA ANDAM, SPOUSES MICHAEL & ANN REQUIRON, SPOUSES VICTORIO & HAZEL DELOS REYES, SPOUSES JOSEPH & LILING BALANDRA, SPOUSES JESUS & LUCENA BALANDRA, EDELYN DENSING & JOHN DOES Defendants. x-----------------------------------------x

COMMENT and/or OPPOSITION To Plaintiff’s Manifestation with Motion (to admit memorandum dated March 25, 2019)

[T]he bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. "Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of this thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.1 COME NOW, Defendants, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this comment and/or opposition to Plaintiffs’ Manifestation with Motion dated March 25, 2019, and respectfully state that: 1 CAROLINA B. VILLENA vs. ROMEO Z. RUPISAN and RODOLFO Z. RUPISAN, G.R. No. 167620, April 4, 2007

1. On March 25, 2019, 2019, Defendants received a copy of the Manifestation with Motion dated March 25, 2019 of the Plaintiffs which seeks the admission of its Memorandum which is attached to the said Manifestation with Motion; 2. As will be demonstrated below, the Manifestation with Motion deserves scant consideration since the same absolutely fail to demonstrate any justifiable ground to disregard the rules of procedure; THE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT DESERVE THE LIBERAL APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT 3. The plaintiff argued that the postman has been on sick leave for almost one month and as a consequence, plaintiffs’ counsel failed to submit its opposition to the formal offer as well as the memorandum on time; 4. First and foremost, the allegations averred by the plaintiff is self-serving and hollow. No evidence whatsoever was presented by the plaintiff of who is this postman. In addition, there was also no evidence to prove that said postman was on leave; 5. Also, should there be any truth to the explanation of the plaintiff, there is for sure other alternative in filing and service of its pleadings such as personal service and filing, or service and filing via private courier; 6. The explanations made by the plaintiff does not suffice the application of the liberality of the interpretation of the Rules of Court. Although, no less than our Supreme Court has held several times that rules should not be interpreted in a way that it will impair the substantial rights of the parties, our Supreme Court likewise held that rules must be followed to have an orderly administration of justice. 7. As held in one case, “[a]lthough 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 party who seeks to avail of certiorari must observe the rules thereon and nonobservance 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.2 (emphasis supplied) 8. The Supreme Court has invariably ruled that while "litigation is not a game of technicalities," it is equally important that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Should the failure to comply with court processes be the result of the plaintiff’s own fault, it is but logical that a plaintiff must suffer the consequences of his own heedlessness.3 9. Also, the case of Magsino vs. Ocampo4, citing various jurisprudence, extensively discussed the rule on the liberality of interpretation of the rules: The petitioner is further reminded that any "resort to a liberal application or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the wellsettled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice." It cannot be otherwise for him, for, as the Court aptly put it in Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation: Procedural requirements which have often been disparagingly labeled as mere technicalities have their own valid raison d’ etre in the orderly administration of justice. To summarily brush them aside may result in arbitrariness and injustice. The Court’s pronouncement in Garbo v. Court of Appeals is relevant: “Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus 2 CESAR NAGUIT, Petitioner, vs. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Respondent G.R. No. 188839June 22, 2015

3 SPOUSES SERGIO C. PASCUAL and EMMA SERVILLION PASCUAL, Petitioners vs. FIRST CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (BOHOL), INC., ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION and ATTY. ANTONIO P. ESPINOSA, Register of Deeds, Butuan City, Respondents G.R. No. 202597, February 8, 2017

4 G.R. No. 166944

August 18, 2014

enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. (emphasis supplied) Like all rules, procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. The rules were instituted to be faithfully complied with, and allowing them to be ignored or lightly dismissed to suit the convenience of a party like the petitioner was impermissible. Such rules, often derided as merely technical, are to be relaxed only in the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. Their liberal construction in exceptional situations should then rest on a showing of justifiable reasons and of at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with them. We have repeatedly emphasized this standard. In Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, (4th Division), for instance, we declared: The petitioners should be reminded that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. While the petitioners adverted to several jurisprudential rulings of this Court which set aside procedural rules, it is noted that there were underlying considerations in those cases which warranted a disregard of procedural technicalities to favor substantial justice. Here, there exists no such consideration. (emphasis supplied) The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their

nonobservance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. (emphasis supplied) Nor should the rules of procedure be held to be for the benefit of only one side of the litigation, for they have been instituted for the sake of all.” 10. The allegations stated by the plaintiff-appellant in its Manifestation with Motion cannot be, in any way, interpreted as compelling reasons in order to justify the exemption from the rules. Without giving a justifiably acceptable explanation, the present motion must be denied. 11. Also, in the case of Daaco vs. Yu5, the Supreme Court held that, [c]oncomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least promptly explain its failure to comply with the rules. Indeed, technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. These are provided to effect the prompt, proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of these rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. 12. The facts of the case do not warrant a liberal construction of the rules nor a treat the plaintiff-appellant with benevolence from the Court. Whatever circumstance the plaintiff-appellant is now is but a by-product of its negligence and lack of prudence. Considering that the plaintiff-appellant failed to offer sufficient justification for its failure to comply with a simple directive of the court, there is, therefore, no compelling reason why this Honorable Court would admit plaintiffs’ memorandum. If prudence, respect and diligence is given by the plaintiff-appellant to this Honorable Court, it would have followed its directive to the letter. 13. Sadly, the plaintiff-appellant’s disregard of the directive of the Court shows nothing more but abandonment of their cause; 14. Moreover, substantial justice is not only applicable to the plaintiff-appellant but as well as to the defendants-appellees. It is not a magical incantation that when invoked would brush aside the 5 G.R. No. 183398, June 22, 2015

procedural rules. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, Defendants most respectfully pray that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Manifestation with Motion (to admit memorandum) dated March 25, 2019 be DENIED;

OTHER RELIEF IN EQUITY IS LIKEWISE PRAYED FOR. Malaybalay City. March 28, 2019 LAGAMON AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Plaintiff nd 2 Floor, Jamstar Building Corner San Isidro-Judge P. Carillo Streets Barangay 5, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon Telephone Number (088) 813 3349 by: DENCE CRIS L. RONDON Member of the Bar Roll of Attorneys’ No. 67495 PTR No. 8154304/03 JAN. 2019/BUK. IBP O.R. No. 62183/04-JAN-2019/BUK. Tax Identification No. 496-556-017-000 MCLE Compliance No. 0011647

NOTICE THE CLERK OF COURT MCTC DON CARLOS-KITAOTAO-DANGCAGAN Don Carlos, Bukidnon ATTY. RAYMON CHARL O. GAMBOA Gamboa Law Office West Poblacion, Kalilangan, Bukidnon

Please submit the foregoing comment and/or opposition to

plaintiff’s Manifestation with Motion to the consideration of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof, sans appearance or further oral argument. Thank you. DENCE CRIS L. RONDON Copy furnished via private courier6 ATTY. RAYMON CHARL O. GAMBOA Gamboa Law Office West Poblacion, Kalilangan, Bukidnon EXPLANATION Personal filing and service hereof to plaintiffs’ counsel has been made via private courier7 due to impracticability of effecting personal service considering the distance of the addressees. DENCE CRIS L. RONDON

6Private courier was resorted since the same is faster compared to PhilPost and plaintiffs’ manifestation with motion was set on March 29, 2019. 7 Private courier was resorted since the same is faster compared to PhilPost and plaintiffs’ manifestation with motion was set on March 29, 2019.