You are on page 1of 6

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
City of Manila
MARCELIA C. ITURRALDE,
TERESITA CABANILLA, and
HEIRS OF ERNEST
CABANILLA (as represented
by ROSALINDA C. VDA. DE
CABANILLA, ERNEST JOEL
CABANILLA, and JOMAR
CABANILLA),
Petitioners,
---versus---

CA-GR-SP No. 146364


For: Certiorari

HON. MARIA GILDA LOJAPANGILINAN, in her capacity


as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court Branch 76
of Quezon City,
Public Respondent,
GLORY
C.
TANCINCO,
REGINALD C. TANCINCO,
WILLIAM C. CABANILLA, and
EUNICE C. BUCSIT,
Private Respondents.
x-------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION

(to the Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 November 2016)

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, by and through the


undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits this Comment/Opposition to the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by the Petitioners, and in support
thereof most respectfully allege, to wit:
1. The Petition for Certiorari is arguably defective upon its face.
Petitioners
contend,
based
on
their
Motion
for
Page 1 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719

Reconsideration1, that the requirement as to the statement


of the full names and addresses of all the petitioners and
respondents was substantially complied with by indicating
the same in the attachments included in Petition for
Certioraris2 captions shows the complete identities of the
parties. Such contention, however, cannot bend an express
mandate of the Rules of Court, as well as of the 1999
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, to wit:
Sec. 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
provides:
Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect
of non-compliance with requirements. - The
petition shall contain the full names and actual
addresses
of
all
the
petitioners
and
respondents, a concise statement of the matters
involved, the factual background of the case, and the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. xxx
The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal of the petition. (n; Bar Matter No. 803, 21
July 1998). xxx (Emphasis supplied).

Sections 3(a) and 4 of the 1999 Internal


Rules of the Court of Appeals provide:
Section 3. What Should be Filed.
a. The petition shall contain the full names and
actual addresses of all the petitioners and
respondents, a concise statement of the matters
involved, the factual background of the case, and the
grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for. (Sec. 3,
Rule 46, RCP) xxx
Section 4. Effect of Non-compliance with
Requirements. The failure of petitioner to
comply with any of the foregoing requirements
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of
the petition. (Sec. 3, Rule 46, RCP) (Emphasis
supplied).

2. Petitioners, in their Motion for Reconsideration, rectified the


defects pointed out by the Honorable Court with regard to
1 Dated 22 November 2016
2 Dated 18 June 2010
Page 2 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719

their Petition for Certiorari3. Petitioners then filed,


simultaneously with the Motion for Reconsideration, an
Amended Petition for Certiorari, incorporating thereon the
rectified items reflected in the Motion for Reconsideration.
However, it should be pointed out that the same was
coursed through the Honorable Court, without obtaining
prior leave of court. Blacks Law Dictionary defines leave of
court as permission obtained from a court to take some
action which, without such permission, would not be
allowable; as, to sue a receiver, to file an amended
pleading, to plead several pleas.
3. The Motion for Reconsideration and the Amended Petition for
Certiorari may have amended the Counsel for Petitioners
IBP Receipt Number and MCLE Certificate of Exemption
Number, however, a glitch now exists as it appears that the
Counsel for Petitioners Professional Tax Receipt (PTR)
Number stated in both the foregoing is already outdated.
The Motion for Reconsideration and the Amended Petition for
Certiorari exhibits PTR No. 0432073; 1-12-14; Quezon City.
Such phenomenon can no longer be argued as a mere
oversight. It becomes incumbent upon the Petitioners to
impress upon the Honorable Court that technical errors will
no longer be committed, considering that the Honorable
Court sanctions the dismissal of the pleading if one suffers
from any defect.
4. The Honorable Court must be wary with the consistent
maneuver of the Petitioners to drift away with the Rules of
Procedure. The issue at hand is no longer an issue of a mere
oversight of technicalities laid down by the Rules of Court.
You can never make the same mistake twice because the
second time you make it, it's not a mistake, it's a choice
said by the famous author Steven Denn. The Supreme
Court, in Lanzaderas v Amethyst Security and General
Services, Inc.4, held that:
xxx Although 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 non-observance
3 Dated 18 June 2010
4 GR No. 143604, 20 June 2003.
Page 3 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719

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 partys substantial rights. Like all rules, they
are required to be followed except only for
compelling reasons. xxx

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court to DENY THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION dated 22 November 2016 filed by
the Petitioners for LACK OF MERIT.
Such other reliefs and remedies as are just and
equitable under the foregoing premises are equally prayed
for.
6 December 2016, Quezon City.
G.P. ANGELES & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Accused
th
6 Floor Penthouse West City Plaza Building
No. 66 West Avenue, Quezon City 1100
Tel Nos. 412-4465 / 376-2224 (Telefax)
Mobile Nos. 09175612080 / 09399038679
E-mail: gpa_staff@gpa-law.com.ph
By:

GALELEO P. ANGELES
Page 4 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719

Lifetime No. 05517/ Q.C.


PTR No. 2182471 / 01-06-16 / Q.C.
Roll No. 46286
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0011482

THEENA C. MARTINEZ
IBP No. 1026779 / January 26, 2016 / Isabela
PTR NO. 2209115 / 1-8-16 /Quezon City
Roll No. 63484
MCLE Compliance No. V-0012301/ 04/14/2019

CRISTINE E. PASCUAL-BELLO
IBP No. 1008608 / 01-12-16 / CALMANA
PTR No. 2059103 / 01-12-16 / CALOOCAN
Roll No. 63772
MCLE Compliance No. V-0004175

COPY FURNISHED:

(RET.) JUDGE PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE


Counsel for Petitioners
Unit 205 ACRE Building, No. 137 Malakas St.
1100 Central, Quezon City

HON. MARIA GILDA LOJA-PANGILINAN


Page 5 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719

Public Respondent
Regional Trial Court Br. 76
Quezon City Justice Hall Building
Quezon City

WRITTEN EXPLANATION
Due to the distance and lack of messengerial services
at the present time, the filing and service of the foregoing
pleading to the other party was made through registered
mail in lieu of the preferred mode of personal service. This
explanation is made in compliance to the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.

THEENA C. MARTINEZ

Page 6 of 6
010-1A-CA/COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO MR/ATD
PS 0719