Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Second Judicial Region
Branch __
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

INIGO T. LITTAUA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 7488
-versus- FOR: RECONVEYANCE,
ANNULMENT OF MORTGAGE,
FORECLOSURE AND SALE AND
DAMAGES WITH APPLICATION
FOR TRO AND INJUNCTION
NESITAS L. TUMALIAUAN,
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK
And Sheriff SILVINO MALANA,
Defendants.

x----------------------------------x

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Petitioner through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honourable Court, most respectfully states and alleges that:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The plaintiff filed a complaint for Reconveyance, Annulment of
Mortgage, Foreclosure and Sale and Damages with Application
for TRO and Injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 7488, against
the defendants Nesitas Tumaliaun and Sheriff Silvino Malana
before Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court. Trial ensued and the
Court in an order dated April 29, 2011 granted the plaintiff’s
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Defendants filed for a Motion for Partial Reconsideration for the
issuance of the writ which was subsequently denied by the trial
court. Aggrieved, defendants filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 assailing the order dated April 29, 2011. The appellate
 court nullified and set aside the decision of the trial court. The
case was remanded to the trial court to conduct further
proceedings, including mediation, and to resolve the case with
dispatch. During the conduct of the pre-trial, the plaintiff and his
counsel failed to appear. On motion of the defendant’s counsel,
the Court dismissed the case.

2. On _______, herein plaintiff received the order of the Honourable

Court dated March 21, 2019 denying the plaintiff’s petition for
failure on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute;

3. With the kind indulgence of the Honourable Court, the plaintiff

seeks for the relief from judgment – to set aside the said order
that the petition be given due course on the following grounds:
a. The plaintiff stands to be unlawfully deprived, divested
and dispossessed of his proprietary and possessory rights of his
property through deceit and want of due process of law.
b. The plaintiff believes that he should not be divested and
dispossessed of the subject property without being completely
heard in a court that it believes to be the proper venue to listen
and decide on his complaint.
c. The plaintiff committed an excusable negligence when he
failed to appear in court for the pre-trial. True enough, it was
borne out of excusable neglect as he was in Manila due to
serious illness. Additionally, plaintiff engaged the services of a
new counsel, however, said counsel failed to appear for
unknown reasons after which plaintiff was not informed of the
hearing and status of the case. The reckless or gross negligence
of the counsel deprives the plaintiff of due process of law. In
the attached Affidavit of Merit denominated as ANNEX “A”, an
explanation of the excusable negligence is humbly presented
begging for the kindness of the court to loosen the tight rope of
technicality;

d. The plaintiff recognizes that the Honourable Court is not

oblivious of the rulings of the Supreme Court. With all due
respect, plaintiff humbly reminds if only to lay the solid grounds
why the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for, viz:
In Aguam v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 137672, May 31, 2000),
the Supreme Court held, to quote:
“The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A
litigation is not a game of technicalities." "Law suits, unlike
duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality,
 when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and
becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant
consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on
their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be
afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of
technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical
grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to
encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of
procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense;
rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override
substantial justice. It is a far better and more prudent course
of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford
the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of
justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and
cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually
resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.”

In another instance, the Supreme Court ruled:

“It was further emphasized that we allowed the filing of an

appeal in some cases where a stringent application of the rules
would have denied it, or when to do so would serve the demands
of substantial justice and in the exercise of our equity jurisdiction
(Serrano v. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA 179, as cited in United
Feature Syndicate vs. Munsingwear Creation, G.R. No. 76193,
November 9, 1989).

There are a strings of cases with similar accommodations to appeals

not filed on time. Petitioner sees no need to express them all in this
petition as it hopes the foregoing cases and explanations would suffice
to draw the compassion of the court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, petitioner

respectfully prays to the Honourable Court that the herein petition for
relief from judgment be granted – that the order dated March 21,
2020ss be set aside and permit the appeal to take its course.
Other reliefs or remedies deemed equitable and just are likewise
prayed for.

Respectfully submitted this