SARMIENTO v.

ZARATAN
G.R. No 167471, February 5, 2007
Chico-Nazario, J.:
FACTS:
On September 2, 2002, petitioner Gliceria Sarmiento filed an ejectment case against respondent
Emerita Zaratan in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City Branch 36. The MTC
rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner on March 31, 2003.
Thereafter, the respondent filed her notice of appeal which was raffled to the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 223. The RTC directed the respondent to submit her
memorandum and the petitioner to file a reply memorandum within 15 days of receipt. The
respondent’s counsel received the notice on May 19, 2003 and had until June 3, 2003 to file the
reply memorandum. The respondent’s counsel filed for a Motion for Extension of Time of five
days on June 3, 2003, but the motion remained unacted. The respondent filed the Memorandum
on June 9, 2003, six days beyond the expiration of the aforementioned fifteen-day period. Citing
the inaction within the period provided by the law, the RTC dismissed the appeal.
In accordance with the Order, the petitioner filed a Motion for Immediate Execution, while the
respondent moved for the Reconsideration. Both motions were denied by the RTC on July 31,
2003. With regard to the defendant-appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court did not
acknowledge the Motion for Extension of Time because it did not contain a Notice of Hearing as
required by the Rules of Court. With regard to the Motion for Immediate Execution, the court
asserts execution of a judgment in an ejectment case, must be sought with the inferior court
which rendered the same.
Petitioner moved for Reconsideration while the respondent filed for a Motion for Clarification.
On August 27, 2003, the RTC granted reconsideration for the petitioner’s Motion for Immediate
Execution, noting Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court which stated that the judgment of
RTC against the defendant is immediately executory. With regard to the petitioner’s Motion for
Clarification, the court noted that the issues raised have already been dealt with in the July 31,
2003 Order and is, therefore, denied.
The aggrieved respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was
granted in a decision dated August 17, 2004. This decision nullified the June 19, 2003 and July
31, 2003 Orders of the RTC and reinstated the respondent’s appeal. On September 13, 2004, the
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration followed by a Motion for inhibition of the members
of the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals on September 30, 2004. Both motions were
denied for lack of merit on March 10, 2005.
ISSUES:

1. Whether respondent’s petition for certiorari should have been dismissed in the first
place;
 2. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent’s
motion for extension;

3. Whether it is Section 19 of Rule 7 that applies, and not Section 21; and

4. Whether the Court of Appeals Justices should have inhibited themselves from further
proceeding with the subject case.

RULING:

1. No. The requirement of verification assures the truthfulness and correctness of the
allegations, but it is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings. Non-compliance
of the requirement of verification does not make the petition fatally defective. Moreover,
the alleged defects were inconsequential typographical errors which does not justify the
dismissal of the petition because it does not show intent to evade the need for proper
verification and certification.

2. Yes. The suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case as it does not affect the
substantive rights of petitioner. Moreover, the motion for extension of time is an ex parte
motion which are usually made in the absence and without the knowledge of the other
party. The Court also upheld that cases shall be determined on the merits rather than
technicalities, noting that every party-litigant shall be given the opportunity to a proper
and just determination of their cause, free from constraints and technicalities.

3. Yes. The Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court is the applicable provision rather
than Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court affirms the decision
of the Court of Appeals that the execution pending appeal was premature and that the
issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal is misplaced. The RTC Order did not
determine its judgment based on merits but on the technicalities of the respondent’s
appeal.

4. No. The inhibition must be supported by clear and factual evidence of the prejudice.
The Court did not find valid reasons or circumstances that will allow the inhibition of the
judges because the petitioner failed to provide just causes that proved the bias and
prejudice of the judges in question.

HENCE, the Supreme Court denied the instant petition. The Decision made on August 17, 2004
and the CA Resolution dated March 10, 2005 are affirmed.