SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 234728, October 03, 2018 ]

CITIBANK, N.A. VS. JOSE U. PUA AND BENJAMIN HANBEN U. PUA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 3,
2018 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 234728 - Citibank, N.A. vs. Jose U. Pua and Benjamin Hanben U. Pua

This resolves the Verified-Letter Complaint/Request for Investigation on the Issuance of

Resolution dated February 14, 2018 and Resolution dated April 23, 2018 in the case of
Citibank, N.A. v. Jose U. Pua and Benjamin Hanben U. Pua docketed as G.R. No. 234728,
pending before the Supreme Court, First Division" (Letter-Complaint)[1] dated July 17, 2018
filed by Citibank, N.A. (petitioner) through its counsel of record.

The February 14, 2018 Resolution[2] in part granted petitioner's motion for a thirty (30)-day
extension to file its petition for review on certiorari over the March 27, 2017 Decision and
October 5, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104053, and
without giving due course to the petition filed on December 4, 2017, directed respondents Jose
U. Pua and Benjamin U. Pua (respondents) to comment thereon within ten (10) days from
notice.

The April 23, 2018 Resolution[3] denied the petition and affirmed the CA's decision sustaining
the Regional Trial Court's ruling save for the award of attorney's fees which the appellate court
reduced.

In its Letter-Complaint, petitioner alleged that there may have been irregularities in the issuance
of the above-mentioned Resolutions in violation of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court
(Internal Rules) and petitioner's right to due process.[4]

Petitioner averred that the February 14, 2018 Resolution was belatedly sent out to the parties by
registered mail on June 20, 2018 in contravention of Section 8, Rule 11 and Section 10, Rule 13
of the Internal Rules. Petitioner also alleged that the personal receipt of a copy of the April 23,
2018 Resolution on June 25, 2018 by one Vedasto Bustamante, on behalf of respondents, prior
to its official release, was impermissible under Section 5, Rule 11 and Section 5, Rule 14 of the
same Rules, and suspicious as it supposedly appeared that respondents had been aware of the
Resolution two (2) days before it was officially released and sent by registered mail to petitioner
on June 27, 2018. Finally, petitioner asserted that the April 23, 2018 Resolution was
prematurely issued because respondents had not yet filed their Comment as required by the
February 14, 2018 Resolution.[5]

On August 1, 2018, the Court's First Division referred the Letter-Complaint to the Division
Clerk of Court (DCC) of the Court's First Division for investigation, report and recommendation
within ten (10) days from notice.[6]

On August 10, 2018, Acting Division Clerk of Court of the Court's First Division, Librada C.
Buena (ADCC), submitted her Investigation, Report and Recommendation.[7]

The ADCC stated that when the minutes of the First Division's February 14, 2018 session were
approved on March 15, 2018, some computers, including the unit used in formatting the
resolutions, had already been packed in boxes for transport to Baguio City for the Court's
Summer Session. At that time and before July 2, 2018, only one (1) lawyer and one (1) non-
lawyer were assigned to process minute resolutions prior to the release thereof and were
alternately assigned in Baguio. Two other lawyers in their office were assigned to process
decisions and extended resolutions; however, one of them was on maternity leave from March
26 to May 24, 2018. The ADCC explained that the processing of resolutions includes, among
others, the verification of the case number and title, the determination of the parties entitled to
receive them, and the checking for typographical errors.[8]

The ADCC further explained that in February, March, and April 2018, the First Division had a
total of 1,224; 988; and 1,290 items reported in the agenda, respectively. Excepting resolutions
for immediate release like referrals to the Raffle Committee or to other Divisions, the
processing of the February, March, and April minute resolutions started last May. The February
14, 2018 minute Resolution was processed on June 7, 2018 and was signed, recorded and
prepared for mailing on June 11, 2018. The mailing section of the Judicial Records Office (JRO)
received the Resolution on June 13, 2018, June 12, 2018 being a non-working holiday. Both
parties to the case received the Resolution, through their respective counsel, on June 26, 2018.
[9]

Anent the April 23, 2018 Resolution, the ADCC clarified that her office received the Resolution
on May 11, 2018, a Friday. It was then prepared and forwarded for processing on May 15, 2018.
After the Resolution had undergone processing, it was submitted to the Acting Division
Chairperson on June 11, 2018 for approval. Following its approval on June 22, 2018, a Friday,
the Resolution was transmitted to the mailing section, Docket Division of the JRO on June 25,
2018 at 10:05 a.m. At 1:45 p.m. on June 25, 2018, the envelope meant for respondents' counsel
was pulled out from the mailing section as said counsel's representative, Vedasto Bustamante
(Bustamante) came to the DCC's office, and at 1:50 p.m. of the same day, Bustamante
personally received the Resolution. On June 27, 2018, the mailing section forwarded the
envelope meant for petitioner's counsel to the Post Office, Manila, for posting via registered
mail. On July 5, 2018, petitioner's counsel received the Resolution.[10]

The ADCC submitted that no irregularities or anomalies attended the issuance of the February
14, 2018 and April 23, 2018 Resolutions. She averred that the sheer volume of work; the
situation that some members of the staff were alternately assigned in Baguio; the fact that she
had to stay in Baguio from April 1 to 25, 2018; and the inadequate number of personnel to do
the workload were some circumstances that would explain the timeline.[11]

The ADCC cited[12] Section 8, Rule 11 and Section 10, Rule 13 of the Internal Rules, which
petitioner referred to in its Letter- Complaint, to wit:

Rule 11, Section 8 states:

Sec. 8. Release of resolutions. - All resolutions shall be promptly released after the approval of
the minutes of any session by the Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson. Resolutions with
the following actions shall, however, be released immediately to the parties:

(a) directing the issuance of extraordinary writs;

(b) granting or denying motions for extension of time to file petitions or

subsequent pleadings, lifting of warrants of arrest or other motions of urgent
nature;

(c) granting applications for a temporary restraining order/status quo order/writ of

preliminary injunction;

(d) preventively suspending judges or court personnel; and

(e) directing any party, the Office of the Court Administrator, or any other official
or agency to submit a comment, a report or a recommendation within a non-
extendible period. (Emphasis ours)

Rule 13, Section 10 states:

Sec. 10. Authentication of decisions and resolutions. - All decisions, resolutions, and
other Court issuances shall be released to the parties concerned only after these shall
 have been authenticated by the Clerk of Court or Division Clerk of Court through a
bar code at the bottom of each page, which he or she shall personally affix, or by
other means to protect the authenticity and integrity of such document. They shall
also initial every page of per curiam decisions, minute resolutions, and unsigned
extended resolutions. (Emphasis ours)

The ADCC declared that contrary to petitioner's allegations, there was no contravention of
Section 8 of Rule 11 of the Internal Rules because the February 14, 2018 Resolution required
respondents to comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice, not "within a non-
extendible period." Furthermore, she affixed her initials on every page of the April 23, 2018
Resolution, by way of authentication, in compliance with the requirements of Section 10 of
Rule 13.[13]

The ADCC countered petitioner's argument that the belated mailing of the February 14, 2018
Resolution violated Section 10 of Rule 13 which requires that the Clerk of Court or the Division
Clerk of Court shall promulgate every decision or resolution within forty- eight hours from
receipt of the same from the Office of the Chief Justice.[14]

The ADCC pointed out that petitioner might have referred to Section 2, Rule 14 of the Internal
Rules which provides:

Sec. 2. Report of promulgation. - Within twenty-four hours from the promulgation of a decision
or resolution, the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court shall formally inform the Chief
Justice or the Division Chairperson of such promulgation.[15]

The ADCC proceeded to explain that the above-quoted rule refers to decisions and signed
resolutions as it mentions of promulgation, while the April 23, 2018 Resolution was an
unsigned extended resolution and as such was not promulgated; thus, it was not covered by said
rule.[16]

The ADCC further stated that the April 23, 2018 Resolution was transmitted to the mailing
section on June 25, 2018 at 10:05 a.m.; therefore, it was officially released as of that date and
time based on Section 5, Rule 11 of the Internal Rules, the pertinent part of which, states:

Sec. 5. Confidentiality of minutes prior to release. - x x x

A resolution is considered officially released once the envelope containing a

final copy of it addressed to the parties has been transmitted to the process
server for personal service or to the mailing section of the Judicial Records
Office. Only after its official release may a resolution be made available to the
public.[17] (Emphasis ours)

The ADCC further stated that, because the February 14, 2018 and April 23, 2018 Resolutions
are minute and unsigned extended resolutions, respectively, they are not covered by Section 5 of
Rule 14 which speaks of decisions or signed resolutions, thus:

Sec. 5 Service and dissemination of decisions and signed resolutions. - The Clerk of
Court or the Division Clerk of Court shall see to the service of authenticated copies
of the promulgated decision or signed resolution upon the parties in accordance with
the provisions of the Rules of Court, xxx.[18]

The ADCC likewise averred that allowing a party to the case or his/her/its counsel, or the
latter's representative to personally receive a copy of a particular resolution when they appear in
the DCC's office, is a common practice since time immemorial, given that it saves time and
resources in mailing the resolution and so long as the receiving party is willing to sign and
acknowledge receipt thereof, as in the case of Bustamante.[19]

The ADCC stressed that Bustamante did not receive respondent's copy of the April 23, 2018
Resolution prior to its release since the Resolution was officially released on June 25, 2018 at
10:05 a.m. while Bustamante received a copy thereof on even date at 1:50 p.m. Citing Section 9
in relation to Sections 2, 5 and 6, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, she pointed out that service of
court processes, including judgments, final orders, and resolutions, may be done either
personally or by registered mail. She also emphasized that under Section 11 of the same Rule,
personal service is the preferred mode of service. She declared that her office had no valid
reason not to release a duly approved and signed resolution to a party to the case or its
representative.[20]

The ADCC described as "erroneous and misleading" petitioner's allegation that respondents,
through Bustamante, had been aware of the April 23, 2018 Resolution as early as two (2) days
before it was officially released and sent by registered mail to petitioner's counsel on June 27,
2018. She reiterated that Bustamante personally received a copy of said Resolution after it was
officially released by her office to the mailing section for posting. She also clarified that the act
of officially releasing a resolution and the act of sending it out by registered mail are two (2)
different procedures, governed by different rules and acted upon by different offices. When the
mailing section of the JRO sent out the Resolution to petitioner's counsel via registered mail on
June 27, 2018 or two (2) days after it was released, the JRO acted in accordance with its
ministerial functions and the rules, and her office no longer had a hand in it.[21]

The ADCC thus submitted the following Findings/Recommendation:

With all due respect, the bare and unsubstantiated allegations of counsel for
petitioner that the issuance of the subject resolutions is "tainted with anomaly" or is
"highly suspicious" deserve no credence and must necessarily fail. Clearly, the
Office of the Clerk of Court - First Division, is mandated to release an unsigned
resolution upon its approval. The discretion whether or not a petition will be
dismissed, with or without a comment from the adverse party, is well within the
ambit of the Court and the Office of the Clerk of Court - First Division has no
authority to question the wisdom of the Honorable Court. Therefore, the instant
letter-complaint dated July 17, 2018 having no leg to stand on, we respectfully
recommend that this matter be laid to rest.[22]

Ruling of the Court

After a careful review of petitioner's Letter-Complaint and the ADCC's report, the Court finds
no merit in petitioner's allegation that irregularities attended the issuance of the February 14,
2018 and April 23, 2018 Resolutions.

The ADCC adequately explained why the February 14, 2018 Resolution was released only on
June 11, 2018. The manpower and logistical requirements of the Court's Baguio Session and the
sheer volume of court matters the DCC's office needed to attend to were indeed circumstances
that reasonably prevented the early release and service of the February 14, 2018 Resolution. The
Court finds none of these circumstances as indicating any irregularity or anomaly in the
issuance of said Resolution. The Court notes that there were three (3) months' worth of agenda
items to be attended to by the DCC's office beginning May 2018, following the Court's Baguio
Session. For February alone, there were 1,224 items reported in the agenda.

The Court agrees with the ADCC that the requirement under Section 8, Rule 11 of the Internal
Rules, for the immediate release of resolutions directing a party to submit a comment within a
non- extendible period, does not apply to the February 14, 2018 Resolution which did not
prescribe a non-extendible period for the filing of the respondents' comment. The Court also
notes the ADCC's attestation that:

It is [their] Office's established procedure to check the Agenda with Action

immediately upon receipt thereof to determine if there are court actions that require
prompt attention by the Division, purposely to comply with Rule 11, Sec. 8 of the
Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. The preparation and processing of resolutions
which are urgent in nature, e.g., issuance of extraordinary writs or requiring the
filing of a comment or report within a non-extendable period, takes precedence over
other minute resolutions and the staff concerned shall "drop everything" to forthwith
comply with the submission of the said resolutions for approval by the
Working/Acting Chairperson of the Division.[23]
As the ADCC pointed out in her report, an additional lawyer had been assigned to assist in
processing minute resolutions in the DCC's office on July 2, 2018.[24] The Court expects this to
contribute to a more expeditious release of minute resolutions.

As regards the April 23, 2018 Resolution, the ADCC attested that the same was transmitted to
the JRO's mailing section on June 25, 2018 at 10:05 a.m. It was, thus, on this date and at this
time that the April 23, 2018 Resolution was officially released by the DCC's office pursuant to
Section 5, Rule 11 of the Internal Rules. When Bustamante appeared in the DCC's office on
behalf of respondents' counsel, the envelope containing respondents' copy of the Resolution was
pulled out from the mailing section at 1:45 p.m., and was personally served on Bustamante at
1:50 p.m., both on June 25, 2018. Thus, contrary to petitioner's allegation, respondents received
the April 23, 2018 Resolution after it was released.

The ADCC was correct in stating that the act of releasing a resolution is different from the act of
mailing it to the parties. Under Section 5, Rule 11 of the Internal Rules, a resolution is released
when it is transmitted to the process server for personal service or to the JRO's mailing section.
Such transmittal was done, with respect to the April 23, 2018 Resolution, on June 25, 2018.
Thus, it was error for petitioner to conclude that the April 23, 2018 Resolution was released
only on June 27, 2018, when it was forwarded to the Post Office of Manila for mailing, and that
Bustamante personally received it prior to its release.

Sections 5, 6, 9 and 11 of Rule 13 under the Rules of Court state:

Sec. 5. Modes of service. — Service of pleadings motions, notices, orders,

judgments and other papers shall be made either personally or by mail.

Sec. 6. Personal service. — Service of the papers may be made by delivering

personally a copy to the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his
clerk or with a person having charge thereof. If no person is found in his office, or
his office is not known, or he has no office, then by leaving the copy, between the
hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party's or counsel's
residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then residing
therein.

Sec. 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or resolutions. — Judgments, final

orders or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail.
When a party summoned by publication has failed to appear in the action,
judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also by
publication at the expense of the prevailing party.

Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever practicable, the
service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except
with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be
accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done
personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
(Emphasis ours)

Based on the foregoing provisions, the personal service of the April 23, 2018 Resolution on
Bustamante, as the representative of respondents' counsel, was in order. Indeed, service of the
Court's Resolutions may be made by having the party's counsel personally receive them. Section
11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court in fact prioritizes personal service, whenever practicable, over
other modes of service. In this case, the personal service of the April 23, 2018 Resolution on
Bustamante was clearly practicable. There was no sense in mailing the Resolution to
respondents' counsel when it could already be received by its representative then present at the
DCC's office. Furthermore, the personal service on Bustamante saved the Court's time and
resources in mailing the Resolution. As the ADCC indicated in her report, her office had no
valid reason not to release a duly approved and signed resolution to a party to a case or its
representative, as in this case.[25]

The Court finds no merit in petitioner's allegation that the April 23, 2018 Resolution was
prematurely issued because respondents' comment had not been filed. Under Section 7,[26] 
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court has the discretion to require or allow the filing of such
comment. Furthermore, Section 5[27] of the same Rule provides  that the Court "may on its
own initiative deny the petition on the  ground that the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted
manifestly for  delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to  require
consideration." In fact, review under Rule 45 is discretionary; it is "not a matter of right but of
sound judicial discretion."[28] Verily, as the ADCC pointed out, the resolution of the case with
or without respondents' comment was well within the ambit of the Court's authority.

In addition to the foregoing, the Court notes that petitioner was in fact granted a thirty (30)-day
extension to file its petition. It was also not prohibited from filing a motion for reconsideration.
Moreover, the comment is a pleading to be filed by respondents, not petitioner. More
importantly, the April 23, 2018 Resolution had been based on the review of petitioner's
submissions and the assailed CA decision. It, thus, baffles the Court how petitioner could claim
that it was deprived of due process or that it was denied the right to be heard when the April 23,
2018 Resolution was issued without respondents' comment. Such claim is clearly unfounded.

In fine, the Court finds no irregularity in the issuance of the Resolutions dated February 14,
2018 and April 23, 2018 and accordingly agrees with the ADCC that the matter should be put to
rest.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner Citibank, N.A.'s Verified Letter-Complaint

dated July 17, 2018 is hereby DISMISSED.

Acting on petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated April 23, 2018 which
denied the petition for review on certiorari, and considering that there is no substantial
argument to warrant a modification of this Court's resolution, the Court further resolves to
DENY reconsideration with FINALITY.

The Court furthermore resolves to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION: (a) the respondents' motion
for leave (to file a comment to the motion for reconsideration dated July 20, 2018) and (b) the
respondents' comment (to the motion for reconsideration dated July 20,2018).

NO FURTHER pleadings or motions shall be entertained herein.

Let an ENTRY of judgment in this case be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." Reyes, Jr., Jose, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated October
1, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

[1] Rollo, pp. 2562-2568.

[2] Id. at 2551-2552.

[3] Id. at 2553-2561.

[4] Id. at 2565.

[5] Id. at 2565-2566.

[6] Id. at 2625.

[7] Id. at 2626-2633.

[8] Id. at 2627.



[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 2628.

[11] Id. at 2629.

[12] Id. at 2629-2630.

[13] Id. at 2630.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at 2631.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 2632.

[20] Id.

[21] Id. at 2632-2633.

[22] Id. at 2633.

[23] Id. at 2630.

[24] Id. at 2633.

[25] Id. at 2632.

[26] Section 7, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 7. Pleadings and documents that may be required; sanctions. — For purposes of
determining whether the petition should be dismissed or denied pursuant to section 5 of this
Rule, or where the petition is given due course under section 8 hereof, the Supreme Court may
require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem
necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate, and
impose the corresponding sanctions in case of non-filing or unauthorized filing of such
pleadings and documents or non-compliance with the conditions therefor.

[27] Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 5. Dismissal or denial of petition. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

[28]Section 6, Rule 45of the Rules of Court; Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167, 181 
(2016); Diesel Construction Company, Inc. v. Jollibee Foods Corp., 380 Phil. 813, 824 (2000).

(URES)
 Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: February 20, 2019

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Supreme Court E-Library