Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
ROMEO B. RAMIREZ,
Represented by: Atty-In-Fact
-Versus
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Respondents.
X-----------------------------------------------X
The NINE (9) RESPONDENTS are, (1) Retired Court of Appeals (C.A.) 8th Division,
Associate Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO; (2) Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG, Presiding
Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 128, and was formerly the
Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, who rendered
the herein DECISION being assailed; (3) Retired Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, former
Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121; (4) Judge
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE, Presiding Judge of Quezon City, Regional Trial
Court (RTC) Branch 106, and was formerly the Presiding Judge of Quezon City Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 32, who instantaneously dismissed the Plaintiff-Respondents first
Complaint despite vigorous objection of the Defendant-Petitioner; (5) Judge ALMA
CRISPINA C. LACORTE, Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
Branch 51, who issued a Writ of Execution prior to an ORDER for the release of such; (6)
Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent, with office
address at Medina Law Offi ce, 3rd Floor Doa Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza Rizal cor. Gen Luna St.,
Caloocan City;(7) Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, with office address at Suite 402,
JR. Bldg., 1520 Quezon Avenue, South Triangle, Quezon City;(8) Sheriff III ARNIEL S.
APOSTOL, of Caloocan City, MeTC Branch 51; and (9) Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen A.
Salvador, of legal age, Filipino, married and resident of No. 83, Malolos Ave., Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City, where summons and other court processes may be served upon their
respective addresses.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
This Petition for Certiorari seeks a review and annulment of the October 25, 2005
DECISION [Annex-4] of Caloocan City MeTC-branch 51, rendered by its former Presiding
Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, the decreetal portion of which is quoted hereunder as follows;
To pay the plaintiff the remaining balance of the purchase price in the
amount of Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 220,000.00).
2.
3.
To pay the Plaintiff the amount of Php 20,000.00 as attorneys fees, and
4.
SO ORDERED.
Caloocan City, Metro Manila, October 25, 2005.
(sgd)ELEANOR R. KWONG
Presiding Judge
The aforesaid Decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City
and was raffled to Branch 121, presided by Judge Adoracion Angeles who affirmed the
MeTC Decision and dismissed the appeal in its March 30, 2006 Decision [Annex-5]. The
RTC decision was then elevated to the Court of Appeals which upheld and sustained the
same in its January 10, 2007 Decision [Annex-6], CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, through the
ponencia of Justice Renato Dacudao.
However, the Defendant as well as his 3rd Counsel Atty. Ricardo Barba, was not
furnished and did not receive any copy of the C.A.s January 10, 2007 Decision/Resolution,
thus, neither Motion for Reconsideration was filed, nor elevated the case to the Supreme
Court. Consequently, the assailed Decision became final and executory and was eventually
recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment on February 01, 2007.[Annex-7]
Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan City MeTC-51, now presided by
Judge Alma Crispina Collado-Lacorte, who issued the June 20, 2008 ORDER [Annex-8],
granting plaintiffs Motion for the Execution of judgment.
[I n view of that June 20, 2008 ORDER, Petitioner would like to raise in
particular, a very significant issue, that PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that June 20,
2008 ORDER, granting Plaintiffs Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution,
there w as already a WRIT OF EXECUTION dated June 19, 2008 [Annex-9] that
HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???..., by the same trial courts new Presiding
Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte, herself, ordering Sheriff III Arniel Apostol,
to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment penned by former MTC-51 presiding
Judge Eleanor R. Kw ong.]
Thus, by virtue of that June 19, 2008 Writ of Execution, (issued in advance, ahead of
the ORDER for the issuance of such),
analyzing and understanding the contents o f the Writ of Execution, had even mistakenly
identified Judge Eleanor R. Kwong as the one who issued the Writ of Execution ), then and
there, hurriedly prepared a Sheriffs Notice / Demand to Pay [Annex-10] and immediately
served it to Romeo B. Ramirez, demanding the immediate payment of THREE HUNDRED
EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P382,000.00), of which the same is hereby (word for
word using exactly the same format) quoted hereunder for quick and easy reference;
November 14
__________________,
2008
(SGD.) ARNIEL S. APOSTOL
Sheriff III
attached: Writ of Execution
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Upon receipt of the Sheriffs Notice, Petitioner hurriedly contacted his counsel Atty.
Ricardo Barba, just to find out that the latter was already suffering a seriously bad health
condition due to old age and that NO copy of CA Decision was also received by him.
Because of that development, Petitioner having a clear conscience and in good faith,
found it hard and difficult to accept the unfounded decision and injustices that were
deliberately inflicted upon him, thereafter sought again another legal assistance and hired the
services of his 4th Private Lawyer, Atty. Oscar I. Mercado who was recommended to him by
his relative as a more competent and efficient private lawyer who can best represent him in
court and help obtain the true justice the he deserves. Unfortunately, all Manifestations and
Motions for Reconsideration to stop and set aside the Sheriffs Notice/Demand to Pay, and
other legal actions and remedies available under the rules of court, being submitted and filed
by his 4th counsel Atty. Mercado were time and again being DENIED by MeTC-51 of
Caloocan City.
Due to the seemingly hopeless and desperate situation and his inability to produce
the huge amount being demanded from him, Ramirez started to experience the feeling of
shyness and timidity not only among his friends, neighbors, and relatives, but more so to his
family particularly to his oldest daughter whose hard earned money from working as OFW in
Japan will be simply lost and gone. Petitioner Ramirez felt extreme embarrassment, deep
worry and fear leading to sleepless nights causing him to suffer serious anxiety and stress,
thus resulting for him to live a daily life suffering from severe headache, loss of appetite and
frequent rise of blood pressure, which extremely affected both of his eyes, thereby requiring
him to undergo series of eye treatment and surgery under Dr. Joel R. Castro, M.D. DBPO, of
Clinica Viras with clinic address at Rm. 201, Doa Consolacion Bldg., Gen. Santos Ave.,
Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City.(as already manifested on pages 5 & 6 of Petitioners
August 19, 2011, Amended Complaint submitted and filed at the Office of the
Supreme Court Administrator.)
Left with no more recourse, being financially drained and nothing left except poor
health and deteriorating physical condition, his family brought him to their hometown in
4
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro to hide away from extreme humiliation and shame, and to hopefully
recuperate from his disconcertment. Unfortunately, the emotional feeling of having been
victimized by the unjust decisions rendered by all the Justices who ruled out against him and
in favor of the real culprit Respondent Carmen Salvador who victoriously emerged despite
deliberately committing the unlawful acts of fraud and deceit, turned out into a horrible
nightmare he couldnt get through with, that ultimately dragged him into living an
immeasurable worst kind of life full of sorrow, agony and pain which nobody could possibly
imagine.
In the course of time, his hypertensive cardiovascular disease worsened even more
with frequent incidents of blood pressure rising higher. His family decided to bring him back
again here in Manila on the 2nd week of March 2015, but few days later, he suffered stroke
and sudden brain attack. Though he was immediately rushed and confined at the Intensive
Care Unit (ICU) of the New Era General Hospital, yet, Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan
result showed enormous damage in his brain which eventually caused his untimely death on
April 1, 2015, at the age of 69.
Fortunately, being a true Christian and devoted follower of our Lord and Savior Christ
Jesus, his sincere devotion and prayer without ceasing night and day ( while still alive in Roxas,
Oriental Mindoro), was finally answered by the Almighty God, the Most High Judge who paved
His way to divinely intervene by anointing a SERVANT from this globally proclaimed
Nation of Servants as declared to the world on March 27, 2009, by Hong Kongs author &
award-winning columnist Chip Tsao, which even caused furious anger and irritation not only
to millions of Filipinos around the world but also to Philippine government officials who
demanded public apology both from Hongkong online magazine and the Chinese
writer/journalist who himself remained defiant and unapologetic, thus made him the
Philippines public enemy No.1. In fairness to Tsao, perhaps his silence may probably
suggest that he was not aware with what he actually wrote, for being unconscious that it was
not actually his own doing but of an unseen force that only used him as an instrument to write
down a prophecy that has been fulfilled.
Thus, on October 29, 2010, while solitarily celebrating his 50th Golden Birthday, inside
his newly-constructed room of worship atop the roof of their rented 2-storey house located
in one of the biggest squatters area beside Manila Memorial Park in Sitio Target, Bgy. BF
Homes, Paraaque City, undersigned Petitioners representative, popularly known among his
friends and relatives as Brother LOUIE was finally blessed and gifted with divine
knowledge and wisdom, to be an instrument of Peace and ADVOCATE of Love, Obedience,
U nity, Integrity & Excellence, (LOUIE), and was subsequently anointed to be the
SERVANT tasked to defend and to fight for the constitutional rights of the numerous victims
of injustices, in order that TRUTH, JUSTICE and EQUITY may in the end prevail.
Hence, the hereto attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated August 8, 2011,
executed by Romeo Ramirez, appointing and constituting undersigned Bro. LOUIE, to be
the formers legal counsel, representative & Attorney-in-fact, of which the same was officially
noted by the Caloocan City MeTC-51, on its April 16, 2012 ORDER.
By virtue of the aforesaid SPA, undersigned Petitioners representative, by himself
prepared, submitted and filed through the Office of Supreme Court Administrator, his August
19, 2011, 45-pages Verified Amended Complaint Against the Unfounded Decision of
Caloocan City MeTC-51, which was subsequently given due course and eventually ripened
into an Administrative Matter for Agenda, with OCA -I.P.I. No. 11-3730-RTJ. (Narciso Luisito
A. Ordoa vs. 1) Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, Branch 128, Regional Trial Court [RTC],
Caloocan City; 2) Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale, Branch 106, RTC, Quezon City; 3) Judge
Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Branch 51, RTC, Caloocan City; and 4) Sheriff III Arniel S.
Apostol, Branch 51, Metropolitan Trial Court [MeTC], Caloocan City).
Contrary to what Atty. Diones said, Petitioner ended up again being ignored, blamed,
criticized and scolded like little kid by someone who attended to him at the PAO Special
Appealed Cases division, who explicitly said; e h, wala na ito , this case a lready
attain finality, patay na ang kaso nasa a rchive na kasi na-enter na sa Book of
Judgment. 2007 pa pala, PINAL na a ng Desisyon ng KORTE at wa la na sa
itinakdang panahon para mai-apela pa ito sa Supreme Court. Wala nang
magagawa pa ang sinuman tungkol diyan. Tanggapin nyo na lang ang pagkatalo
ninyo at huwag na kayo guma wa pa ng kung a nu-ano, lalo ka na, (referring to
me), hindi ka naman pala abogado, na gmamagaling ka pa, gagastos lang kayo at
maaabala tayo pare-pareho,
Left with no other choice, Petitioner again earnestly prayed and sought Divine
assistance and guidance from the Most High Judge to intervene and have his August 19,
2011 Amended Complaint, be given due course by the highest Tribunal of our land.
After THREE (3) years of waiting, finally on September 15, 2014, upon inquiry made
by the undersigned at the Office of Court Administrators Legal Office, regarding the
update/status of his self-initiated August 19, 2011 Amended Complaint, he was informed
and furnished with a Notice of Resolution, dated November 18, 2013, [Annex-13] which
is hereby reproduced hereunder, for quick and easy reference;
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November
18, 2013 which reads as follows:
OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ (Narciso Luisito A. Ordoa vs. Judge Eleanor R.
Kwong, Regional Trial Court, Branch 128, Caloocan City; Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City; Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City; and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 51 Caloocan City).- Considering the amended complaint against the alleged
unfounded decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City in Civil Case
No. 03-27338 ( Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez) dated August 15, 2011 (with
Enclosures) of Narciso Luisito A. Ordoa against Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary
Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol relative to Civil Case
No. 03-27338, entitled Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, the Court resolves to
NOTE:
(1)
(2)
The Court further resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator in the attached Report
dated August 28, 2013 (Annex A). Accordingly, the instant administrative complaint against
Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte and Sheriff
III Arniel S. Apostol is DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for utter lack of merit.
BERSAMIN, J., on leave; CARPIO, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1597 dated
November 12, 2013.
Very truly yours,
(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
RESOLUTION
With all due respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, but just for clarification and for
the record, Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, is NOT a Presiding Judge of Regional Trial
Court, (RTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City, as stated in the notice of resolution, but she is the new
Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, (MTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City;
In view of the aforesaid Notice of Resolution, Petitioner respectfully concurs with the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court
Administrator in their August 28, 2013 REPORT, accordingly recommending that, the
instant administrative complaint against the respondent Judges be DISMISSED, on the basis
that the Complaint is judicial in nature; and likewise, with their EVALUATION, that the
correctness of a decision cannot be challenged in an administrative complaint against
the judge who rendered it; and that, an administrative complaint is not the proper
remedy where
judicial recourse
Recommendation, was likewise, ADOPTED and APPROVED in the November 18, 2013,
Resolution of the Supreme Courts First Division.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, as provided
for under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and, Petition for Annulment of
Judgment due to Lack of Jurisdiction and Extrinsic Fraud as provided for under Rule 47 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby submitted and filed as a judicial recourse to
rectify and correct the Judgment in the October 25, 2005 DECISION, that was rendered with
anomaly and partiality by Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51,
penned by its former Presiding Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG.
TIMELINESS OF PETITION
While it may be argued that this Petition for Certiorari is dismissible for being filed out
of time, as provided for under Section 4, Rule 65, Petitioner humbly begs for this Honorable
Supreme Court to kindly consider and take into account the mitigating EVENTS, and
underlying CIRCUMSTANCES previously explained, as well as the vital ISSUES and
essential FACTS which shall be discussed henceforth. In the interest of substantial Justice,
let this Petition be given due course and be acted upon its merit. Furthermore, it has long
been settled already and was held in several cases, that;
the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid
technical sense. Rules on procedure are used only to secure, not
override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the
rules is made, then their aim would be defeated. (Arse nio Reyes Jr.
vs. C.A. et al. G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000)
Howbeit, should this Petition for Review on Certiorari still be found dismissible
for being filed out of time, Petitioner invokes Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure and New Rules of Court, Revised and Approved on October 3, 2000,
which provides TWO (2) VALID GROUNDS for the ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT,
namely;
1.) LACK OF JURISDICTION; and 2.) EXTRINSIC FRAUD
9
It further states that if based on EXTRINSIC FRAUD, the period for filing such action,
is within FOUR (4) YEARS from its discovery (Sec. 3, Rule 47).
It bears stressing then, that this Petition is hinged not only for a review on Certiorari,
but also on the grounds of Lack of Jurisdiction and Extrinsic Fraud, which were the
primary reasons that prompted herein Petitioner to submit and file to the Office of Supreme
Court Administrator, his December 22, 2010, original Complaint ., and his August 19,
2011 Amended Complaint. against the subject Unfounded Decision, henceforth assailed
by this Petition.
Herein Petitioner, barely DISCOVERED some of the numerous EXTRINSIC
FRAUDS that abound in this case while reviewing the voluminous (TWELVE) 12-year
records on file with this case (from year 2000 -2012), after his Entry of Appearance was noted
and approved by Caloocan City MeTC-Branch 51, on its April 16, 2012, ORDER.
Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, when herein Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN
SALVADOR concocted again and filed another fallacious and unfounded COMPLAINT for
EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez [Annex-14],
before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 1304180-CV, (Carmen A. Salvador, Plaintiff vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, et.,al., Defendants), more
EXTRINSIC FRAUDS were DISCOVERED again by herein Petitioner, which prompted him
to finally file Criminal Cases against Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, before the Quezon
City Prosecutors Office, namely;
(Sec. 10, Rule 47), and that the Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over
actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts ( Sec. 9(2) of BP 129, The
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 ); however, if the ground for ANNULMENT is LACK
OF JURISDICTION, another remedy is CERTIORARI under RULE 65, in which case the
Court of Appeals does not have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction since the SUPREME
COURT also has JURISDICTION.
Be that as it may, and considering that the herein subject Decision, being sought to
be annulled by this instant Petition has already been affirmed, upheld and sustained by both
the appellate Court Caloocan City RTC-121, and the Court of Appeals (CA) Eighth Division,
hence, this Petition for Annulment of Judgment due to LACK OF JURISDICTION and
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI is now being filed at the proper venue, which is the Supreme
Court that holds the over-all jurisdiction above other courts and tribunals.
xxxxxxx
After a judicious scrutiny of the evidence and arguments ventilated
by the parties, this Court accordingly rules in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.
The Court could not sustain defendant-appellants theory
that there was forum shopping. While it may be true that at the time
of the filing of the instant case before the court a quo there was
still a similar pending case before the MTC of Quezon City, it is
equally true that plaintiff-appellee had already filed a motion to withdraw
the case before the MTC of Quezon City. The grave evil sought to be
avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two
competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions.
(TF Ventures, Inc. vs. Matsura, 431 SCRA 526). Obviously, the rule
against forum shopping could not be applied to plaintiff-appellee
because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo was
not to shop for a favorable judgment .
The Court also upholds the Bilihan between herein parties.
Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual
relationship, it is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their
rights and obligations thereunder--- obligations arising from contracts have
the force of law between the contracting par ties and should be complied
with in good faith. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA
686). Equity demands that a party cannot disown its previous declaration
to the prejudice of the other party who relied reasonably and justifiably on
such declaration. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra).
A scrutiny of the contract between the parties discloses that the
subject matter of the sale is not only the HOUSE but also the RIGHTS
over the lot where the house stands. Defendant-appellant could not
therefore claim that the consideration of Php 400,000.00 indicated therein
is absurd.
The stipulations in the contract relative to the payment of the
consideration are likewise crystal-clear. Defendant-appellant has admitted
not paying the balance of Php 220,000.00. The court a quo was therefore
correct in ordering Defendant-appellant to pay the money pursuant to the
provisions of the agreement.
The contention that the contract is not valid for being un-notarized
is not tenable. This appears to be a mere afterthought contrived to avoid
the effects of the agreement. It bears stressing that the parties have
already partly executed the contract when defendant-appellant himself
paid the initial payment. The notarization of the contract is not a requisite
for its validity considering that it is merely consensual in character.
Moreover, paragraph 6 of the contract also provides for the payment
of rentals in case of default in the payment of the balance of the purchase
price. This provision must be correlated with paragraph 2 stating that the
amount of rental is Php1,500.00 monthly.
Finally, defendant-appellant could not insist on the ownership of
one Wilfredo Torres as the latters title has already been nullified, contrary
to defendant-appellants assertion that the decision of the RTC of Quezon
City is not yet final as the same is still on appeal. The withdrawal of the
appeal has necessarily resulted to the said judgment ripening into finality.
(underscoring and emphasis supplied )
12
Presiding Judge
Thereafter, Petitioner by the same 3rd Counsel (Atty. Barba) appealed the RTC
DECISION by way of Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (C.A.). It was assigned
to Ninth (9th ) Division, however, a Group Resolution dated January 10, 2007, with CA-G.R.
SP NO. 94866, was issued by the Court of Appeals, Eighth (8th ) Division, which upheld and
sustained the RTC Decision.
[In view of the above circumstances, Petitioner sincerely requests the Honorable
Supreme Court to have a Resolution constituting a Panel of Investigators to conduct
an honest and fair investigation regarding the aforementioned matter, and find out
how the case initially assigned with the 9th Division was eventually transferred to the
8th Division. It has to be emphasized that the country's second highest courts, the
Court of Appeals, had already been embroiled in scandal and controversy, wherein on
August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court, in its bounden duty, constituted a three-person
panel to assist in the investigation of the improprieties of the actions of the Justices of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 (Antonio V. Rosete, et al. v. SEC, et al.);
to determine the culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in
the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to
the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality,
competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.( A.M. No. 08-8-11CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP
NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]
Thus, being unaware of the aforesaid C.A. 8th Divisions Group Resolution, neither
Motion for Reconsideration was filed nor elevated the CASE to the Supreme Court, as
previously mentioned, mainly because neither the Defendant nor his 3rd Counsel, Atty.
Ricardo Barba was furnished with a copy or notice of the Court of Appeals, EIGHTH (8 TH )
Divisions Group Resolution.
Hence, the October 25, 2005 DECISION rendered by Caloocan City, MTC-51,
became Final and Executory, and was eventually, entered and recorded in the Book of
Entries of Judgment on February 01, 2007. Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan
City MeTC-51.
13
Then, on June 18, 2008, at 3:05 p.m., Plaintiff by her Counsel Atty. Dayang Preciosa
M. Medina submitted and filed a Manifestation and Motion to resolve the Plaintiffs
pending Motion for Execution of Judgment, dated August 10, 2007.
After only ONE (1) day, the aforesaid Motion was immediately granted by the
Caloocan City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, in an ORDER,
dated June 20, 2008, ordering for the issuance of a Writ of Execution.
However, as already manifested above (page 3), what is terribly significant to point out
here is that, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that ORDER, dated June 20, 2008, ordering
for the issuance of a writ of execution, there was already a WRIT OF EXECUTION, dated
June 19, 2008 that HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???????, by the same Caloocan
City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, which was issued to Sheriff III
Arniel Apostol ordering him to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment of former MTC-51
Judge Eleanor R. Kwong.
[ Herein Petitioner is somewhat confused on how was that made possible? Was
it JUST a SIMPLE MISTAKE?... a CLERICAL ERROR perhaps?... or maybe it was a
CLEAR-CUT DEMONSTRATION showing how INCOMPETENT are, the Caloocan City,
MeTC-51s Ministerial Officers / Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and Judicial
Employees to diligently PERFORM their SWORN DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES in
the administration of Justice?...or, most probably, this is a CRYSTAL CLEAR
INDICATION that there are really something FISHY and ANOMALOUS
TRANSACTIONS tainted with IRREGULARITIES, CORRUPTION and ANOMALIES that
are actually GOING ON, TAKING PLACE, and PROLIFERATING in SOME or MOST,
if not ALL Courts of Justice in the Philippine Judicial System, by which Lawyers,
Clerk of Courts and Presiding Judges are conniving and conspiring with each other to
further their dirty and devious tricks! particularly in this City of Caloocan which
based from what happened, may even be regarded now as a City of CALOKOHAN!!!]
It is enormously alarming, shocking, and disgusting to discover that these sorts of
things are actually happening and still proliferating within our very own Judicial System.
Anybody who would assess, evaluate and visualize the foregoing events and circumstances,
using their sound reasoning and impartial interpretation, can easily com prehend and realize
what actually happened at the Calokohan City MeTC-51, by simply reading between the lines
and picturing in mind the factual scenario that might have transpired on those days of June
18, 19 and 20, 2008.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
[ It is again, quite noting to emphasize here a very relevant issue, by which, exactly on
these dates of June 18, 19 & 20, 2008, in the much publicized dispute and charges of
impropriety among the justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) involved in CA-G.R. SP No.
103692 entitled "Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.", was
a very similar anomalous transaction that was taking place, between and among the C.A.
Justices, that resulted to the DISMISSAL from service of the very notorious (sic) Associate
Justice Vicente Q. Roxas being found guilty of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the
14
best interest of the service. The similar events being compared with the same dates are as
follows;
On June 18, 2008, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of five days or until June
23, 2008 within which to file their consolidated memoranda of authorities and reply to the
comment of the SEC. On June 19, 2008, MERALCO filed an ex-parte manifestation together
with their reply to the comment of the GSIS. Meanwhile, Justice B. L. Reyes asked Atty.
Custodio to report on "what transpired between her and Justice Sabio" when she returned
the cartilla. "Teary-eyed," Atty. Custodio begged off from making a report. Justice Reyes
decided to consult the Presiding Justice "to avoid an ugly confrontation" with the Justices on
the "highly politicized case involving giants of the Philippine society." He explained to the
Presiding Justice his understanding of the relevant IRCA rules and "the actual practice in
similar situations in the past." The Presiding Justice promised to talk with Justice Sabio and,
"for the sake of transparency and future reference," Justice Reyes requested permission to
write an inquiry on the matter.
On the same day, Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasque z a letter calling the
attention of Justice Edgardo P. Cruz ("Justice Cruz"), Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, to
the "dilemma" as to who between him and Justice Sabio should "receive" CA -G.R. SP No.
103692. Justice Reyes posed these questions before the Presiding Justice:
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
On June 20, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez referred the letter of Justice Reyes to Justice
Cruz, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, noting "some urgency involved as the hearing of
the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008." ( A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING
JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]
x- - - -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --x
Going back to the anomalous advance issuance of the Wirt of Execution, (dat ed June
19, 2008), ahead of the ORDER for the issuance of such, (dated June 20, 2008), it is widely
accepted in every Court of Law and in all investigation processes that a slight variance on
specific DATES and TIMES is very critical and crucial in the determination of ones guilt and in
assessing and evaluating the credibility of ones testimony. An accused for example who
would testify and claim that he killed Victim-X on June 19, 2008, because he merely followed
and obeyed the instruction from a written ORDER given to and received by him on June 20,
2008, or a day after the crime has already been committed by him, is a totally absurd, bizarre
and ridiculous statement, that cannot be given any weight at all, and has to be immediately
stricken out, instead!
The testimony of Sheriff III Apostol, stated and contained in the Sheriffs
Notice/Demand to Pay, also clearly states the actual DATE of the Writ of Execution,
15
Now, the question is, which of the two (2) judicial documents came out first? The Writ
of Execution, dated June 19, issued to Sheriff Apostol ? Or the ORDER, of Judge Lacorte,
dated June 20 ordering for the issuance of the Writ?
Perhaps, the Writ of Execution itself would provide a vividly clear answer. And,
hereunder reproduced is the Writ of Execution for quick and easy reference;
WRIT OF EXECUTION
TO
ARNIEL S. APOSTOL
Sheriff III of this Court authorized by law to serve process.
G R E E T I N G S:
WHEREAS, October 25, 2005, Decision in the above-entitled case was
rendered by this Court,.
xxxx..
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007 and on June 18, 2008, a Motion for
Execution and Manifestation and Motion were filed respectively by plaintiffs
counsel and the Motion for Execution was granted by this Court in its Order
dated June 20, 2008.
xxxx
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of this Court this 19th of June
2008 at Caloocan City, Metro Manila.
NOW, what sort of explanation would justify the enormous error openly
manifested in the conflicting DATES presented above? Perhaps, there could only be
THREE (3) reasonable and realistic justifications;
1. THAT, it was just a simple mistake or cle rica l e rror committed by the
Ministerial Officers,
Branch Clerk of
Court
to
diligently
PERFORM
their
SWORN
DUTIES
and
16
conniving and
conspiring with each other to further their dirty and devious tricks! A
glaring FACT being tolerated by each and every one due to
the main
reason AGAIN, that ALL of them are actually performing their respective
sworn DUTIES and RESPONSIBILTIES, but most often failed to do their
jobs honestly, diligently and w ith accuracy because they have been
BLIND-folded, similar to the existing classical SY MBOL in the Philippine
Judicial System.
Irrefutable and indisputable here is the FACT, that when Petitioner submitted and filed
his numerous Motion to Dismiss due to FORUM-SHOPPING and LACK OF JURISDICTION, it
took almost a YEAR before it was resolved, whereas, on the other hand, when it comes to the
Respondents Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution to implement the Judgment, it
took only ONE (1) DAY for the court to resolve, notwithstanding the FACT that a Writ of
Execution has already been issued in advance.??? WERE THERE NO FAVORITISM,
PREDJUDICE and PARTIALITY IN THAT?
The Supreme Court in its per curiam DECISION, on CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692, entitled
Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. [A.M. NO. 08-8-11-CA :
September 9, 2008], stated, thus;
The Judiciary, which is acclaimed as the firmest pillar of our democratic institutions,
is vested by the Constitution with the power to settle disputes between parties and to
determine their rights and obligations under the law. For judicial decisions, which form part
of the law of the land, to be credible instruments in the peaceful and democratic resolution
of conflicts, our courts must be perceived to be and, in fact be, impartial, independent,
competent and just. To accomplish this end, it is imperative that members of the Judiciary
from its highest magistrates to its humblest employees adhere to the strictest code of
ethics and the highest standards of propriety and decorum. Indeed, it is unfortunate that
one of the country's second highest courts, the Court of Appeals, should be presently
embroiled in scandal and controversy. It is this Court's bounden duty to determine the
culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy
and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial
ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in
the performance of official functions.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
17
RTC-121, which declared and gave an opinion that, the rule against forum shopping could not
be applied to plaintiff-appellee because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo
was not to shop for a favorable judgment. (p.4, of Caloocan City, RTC-121, DECISION) .
On the contrary, Plaintiff-Respondent evidently changed the venue for her case so she can
shop for a favorable judgment, by means of willfully, maliciously and abusively modifying her
COMPLAINT from claiming to be the OW NER of a certain portion of undivided LOT 799, Pi edad
Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her FIRST COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter,
DENIED her OWNERSHIP to the subject LOT and simply claimed ONLY the OW NERS HIP to a
residential HOUSE which i s allegedly erected over the said portion of land , in her second
forum shopping, when they issued their rulings, stating that, the chances that the evil
sought to be prevented or avoided by the rules on forum -shopping would have
transpired by reason of the a ctions of the responde nt in the Quezon City and
later in the Caloocan City, was remote, if not altogethe r nil ..All the respondent
18
did was to change the venue of he r case-and aga inst this, no serious obje ction
can be raised, -paragraph 2, page 10, CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, January 10, 2007,
emphasis supplied)
Dacudao in the Philippine Judicial System!!! Is this the kind of Justice that has been
multi-awarded with prestigious awards, such as; Outstanding State Prosecutor,
Ministry of Justice, 1978; Presidential Awardee, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all
over the country, Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration June 9, 1989; Awardee, Best
Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro Memorabilia Commission,
1995; Winner, The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as Outstanding RTC Judge,
Foundation for Judicial Excellence , 1996. ????
DEAF and BLIND??? Mga Bulag na nga ba ang mga nakapwesto sa ating
Judicial System? O sadyang nagbubulag-bulagan lamang?...dahil naka-piring at
may takip ang mga MATA na pati ang mga TENGA ay natakpan na rin kaya pati
mahahalagang TESTIMONYA ay balewala na rin sa kanila.]
Being BLIND-folded Justices, they even FAILED to SEE (or perhaps deliberately
ignored to SEE), that Respondent Carmen Salvador, LIED not only in Quezon City MeTC32, in stating that she is no longer interested to prosecute the instant case and she
now desires to withdraw the said case, but worst of all, she also LIED before the
Caloocan City MeTC-51, by submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION [Annex-17] that she has
not commenced any other ACTION and that no similar ACTION of the SAME NATURE
and ISSUE is pending with any other tribunal or agency, which is already a CLEAR
VIOLATION of the Rule against Non-Forum Shopping, as provided for under the New
Rules on Civil Procedure.
Unaware of the second Complaint filed in Caloocan City, Petitioner was even caught
in surprise to receive from Caloocan City MeTC-51, a copy of an Urgent Motion to Declare
(him) Defendant (Ramirez) in Default, dated August 25, 2003. Upon receipt of the said
motion, Petitioner immediately submitted and filed in Caloocan City his ANSWER, dated
September 01, 2003 and promptly sought the immediate DISMISSAL of the instant
Complaint filed against him. Petitioner not only pointed out and raised before the Trial
Court that Plaintiff had willfully violated the Rule on Non-FORUM SHOPPING in
submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION, but also raised the ISSUE that Caloocan City has
NO JURISDICTION over the instant Complaint, on the basis that the PROPERTY (LOT
and HOUSE) that was fraudulently sold by the Respondent to Petitioners family is located in
Quezon City, hence, only the proper Courts in Quezon City have the JURISDICTION over
the instant Complaint.
On the other side, upon ORDER of the Court in Quezon City, Petitioner by his 1st
Counsel Atty. Hilario Quiambao, on September 01, 2003 submitted and filed his COMMENT
on the Plaintiffs Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case, and explicitly stated thereat his
VIGOROUS OBJECTION to it, in view of his ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM.
19
However, after FIVE (5) months, when Respondent failed to submit and file a REPLY
to the Petitioners vigorous objection not to grant the Plaintiffs Urgent Ex-Parte Motion
to Withdraw Case in view of his (Ramirez) Answer with Counterclaim, and upon failure of
Ramirez Counsel Atty. Quiambao to file within the reglementary period of 15 days, a
Manifestation of his preference for the court to resolve his counterclaim, the Plaintiffs
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case was eventually RESOLVED by Quezon City
MeTC-32, in its ORDER, dated February 2, 2004, issued by its Presiding Judge
ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE, granting the DISMISSAL of the Complaint, the
decreetal portion reads;
The court grants plaintiffs motion for the dismissal of the
complaint. Despite the opposition of the Defendant, he did not, within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Plaintiffs motion to dismiss, file a
manifestation of his preference for this court to resolve his counterclaim
in this case.
Wherefore, the complaint is ordered dismissed, without
prejudice to the defendants filing of a separate action on his
counterclaim.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, February 2, 2004.
(SGD) ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE
Presiding Judge
in the Defendants
(Arsenio Reyes, Jr., vs. C.A. et. al., G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000).
If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had long
been considered submitted for decision, since the defendant
belatedly filed his Answer. This Court hereby accords both parties
fair play and the opportunity to ventilate their issues in a full blown
trial. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Caloocan City, Metro Manila
July 21, 2004
(SGD) ELEANOR R. KWONG
Presiding Judge
This kind of interpretation and application of law presented by Judge KWONG in
DENYING the Defendant-Petitioners Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, is not only a
clear demonstration of her IRRATIONAL and UNJUST ruling, but also clearly shows her
PARTIALITY, DISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDE, IGNORANCE of LAW and WILLFUL,
MALICIOUS, and HORRIBLE WAY of twisting and perverting the Rules of Court, as well as
22
Perhaps it could have been more justifiable if the filing of another case in another
tribunal was done ONLY, AFTER an ORDER for the DISMISSAL of the first complaint has
already been GRANTED, and not just by simply filing a Motion for the dismissal of the first
complaint.
What was presented above is just a tip of an iceberg, yet, clearly demonstrates why
thousands
of
INNOCENT
FILIPINOS
are
suffering
in
jail
as
VICTIMS
of
INJUSTICES!!!...because there are many appointed JUSTICES who are not only BLIND not
being able to SEE or willfully and deliberately ignore to SEE the real issues, facts and
circumstances, but they also LACK the expertise, knowledge and necessary skills needed to
properly utilize the weighing scale of Justice, yet they still get promoted from being an MTC
Judge into becoming an RTC Judge.???
On the other hand, Justices who have so much expertise, exceptional knowledge,
seasoned and skilled in the implementation and administration of justice had turned out to
23
become undesirable and corrupt in their practice of law. They normally connived with
undeserving, dishonest Counsels/Lawyers and together paved their own courts playing field
and twist the Rules of Court inside their jurisdiction, in order to render kind judgment to
whoever party they favored with, hence, the Almighty God as the Most High Judge found it
proper to intervene, by anointing a SERVANT and guiding him to elevate this matter to the
respectable NEW Administration of the most Honorable Supreme Court and the Highest
Tribunal of the Land which has the inherent power not only to correct the mistakes of lower
courts, but also to initiate or recommend Disciplinary proceedings against the Counsel and
Judges involved, for the advancement of Justice.
It bears stressing and significant to note, that the Honorable SUPREME COURT had
already set a vividly clear, definitive and decisive guidelines regarding the Rules on Forum
shopping, which assert as follows;
The ESTABLISHED RULE is that FORUM SHOPPING EXIST, IF BOTH ACTIONS
INVOLVE THE SAME TRANSACTIONS, SAME ESSENTIAL FACTS and
CIRCUMSTANCES and MUST RAISE IDENTICAL CAUSES of ACTIONS, SUBJECT
MATTER and ISSUES. [International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
249 SCRA 389, 394-395, October 18, 1995; GSIS vs. Sandiganbayan, 191 SCRA 655, 660,
November 26, 1990; and Silahis International Hotel, Inc. vs. NLRC, 225 SCRA 94 100, August 4,
1993.]
The RATIONALE for the requirement of a CERTIFICATION against forum
shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim
involving the same issues in another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency,
and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation. Filing MULTIPLE
petitions or COMPLAINTS constitutes ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES. (Wee vs.
Galves, G.R. No. 147394, 11August 2004, 436 SCRA 96, 108-109, CITING Zebra Security Agency
vs. NLRC, Phil.200, 209), which tends to degrade the administration of justice,
wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of
the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. (Nacuray vs. NLRC, 336 Phil. 749, 756).
Furthermore, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and
transparency among Lawyers and their Clients in the pursuit of their cases
before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue
inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts.
(Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 605, 616.)
Significantly, to curb the malpractice of forum shopping, the Rule ORDAINS
that a VIOLATION thereof would constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT and be a CAUSE
FOR THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL of BOTH PETITIONS without prejudice to the taking of
appropriate ACTION AGAINST the COUNSEL of the PARTY CONCERNED.
FINALLY, the Supreme Courts Administrative CIRCULAR No. 4-94, further states,
that;
24
Any VIOLATION of this CIRCULAR shall be a CAUSE for the DISMISSAL of the
COMPLAINT,..However, any CLEARLY, WILLFULL and DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING
by any PARTY and HIS COUNSEL through the filing of MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS or other
initiatory pleadings to obtain FAVORABLE ACTION shall be a GROUND for SUMMARY
DISMISSAL thereof and shall CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Furthermore, the SUBMISSION OF FALSE CERTIFICATION or NON-COMPLIANCE
with the UNDERTAKINGS therein as provided in Paragraph 1 hereof, SHALL
CONSTITUE INDIRECT CONTEMPT of COURT, without prejudice to DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COUNSEL and the FILING of a CRIMINAL ACTION
against the GUILTY PARTY. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Now,
are
these
above-quoted
JURISPRUDENCE,
MEMORANDUM,
TH
THEORY THA T THERE WAS FORUM SHOPPING! IT WOULD ONLY FURTHE R DEGRADE
THE IMAGE A ND CREDIB ILITY OF THE P HILIPPINE JUS TICE SYS TEM A LL THE THREE
(3)
TRIBUNALS
W ILLFULLY,
KNOWINGLY,
DELIBERA TE LY,
MALICIOUSLY
A ND
AGA INS T
EVERYBODY
INV OLVE D
SHOULD
HAVE
BEEN
LIKEWISE,
RECOMMENDED!
Jurisdiction over the instant case, even if on its face alone she perfectly knew that she has no
jurisdiction over it. (perhaps there was a SECRET DEAL among them that she would get a
share from any amount that the Plaintiff may collect, for if not, then what reason did she have
in attending to such complaint? Unless, she wanted her court to have an overflowing cases to
attend to and to keep her courts personnel busy every day. ). Thus, Judge KWONG started
her FIRST move;
xxx,She,
Counsel Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, who represented her in RTC ), argues that
there was substantial compliance with the rule against forum shopping because
26
the motion to withdraw case was filed in Quezon City before the filing of this case.
Moreover, Defendant-appellants motion to dismiss before the court a quo failed to
comply with the provisions of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
xxx,
27
MeTC-51 Clerks of Court and convicted Calokohan City RTC-121, former Presiding Judge
ADORACION G. ANGELES.
To further proceed and continue with the undersigned presentation on how Judge
KWONG, willfully and maliciously paved the way to forcibly acquire improperly and unlawfully,
her JURISDICTION over the instant case, she EXPLOITED and TOOK ADVANTAGE of the
very popular COMMON PRACTICE well-known to everyone as delaying tactics during the
entire initial period when she had NO JURISDICTION yet over the instant case. In so doing,
Judge KWONG WITTINGLY, DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY delayed to resolve for
almost a YEAR, the Defendants Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping.
In reality, Judge KWONG cannot and could not actually resolve the Defendants
Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, much more that she cannot and could not cite the
Defendant-Petitioner in Default, not only because of her LACK OF JURISDICTION, but also
because by doing so, would only mean the END of the CASE. (If ONLY Defendant Ramirez had
the undersigned already as Counsel with him during those times, he could have given him the best
advice to simply disregard the Complaint filed against him in Caloocan City and let him be cited there
in DEFAULT which cannot and would never actually happen, even if he failed or refused to file an
ANSWER or REPLY and totally ignored the Complaint, for as long as the one pending in Quezon City is
not yet resolved and the Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw is also not granted, then the grave evil sought
to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping which is the rendition by two competent tribunals
of two separate and contradictory decisions, is MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN.)
During those times, the Plaintiff-Respondents Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw
the case in Quezon City MeTC-32, remains pending, and the FIRST COMPLIANT was,
likewise, not yet been DISMISSED. Thus, Judge Kwong fully-well knew that she had actually
NO JURISDICTION over the newly-filed case in Caloocan City, much more that she does
not have the option to resolve the Defendants Motion to dismiss which she intentionally and
deliberately intends to DENY, hence, she waited unwearyingly until the Urgent Ex-Parte
Motion to Withdraw the case filed by her favorite client Plaintiff Carmen Salvador in Quezon
City was finally GRANTED. Thereafter, found her time at last to ultimately resolve the ISSUE
on Forum Shopping by issuing the aforementioned ORDER dated July 21, 2004, the
dispositive portion of which is again quoted hereunder, which reads;
(underscoring, emphasis
Xxxxx.
If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had
long been considered submitted for decision, since the
28
29
On the contrary, whatever kind of reasoning and explanation they give will never
justify their action of filing multiple complaints and submitting False Verification attached to
their complaint.
Thus, the malicious ACTS, deceitful means and fraudulent way employed by both
Respondent-Plaintiff CARMEN SALVADOR together with her dishonest and undeserving
Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA MEDINA, resulted into their initial success that only
require a little finishing touch from the hand of Caloocan City MeTC-51, Presiding Judge
Eleanor Kwong, hence, her ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, which is not only ridiculous and
preposterous, but a whopping INSULT and direct DISOBEDIENCE to the Administrative
Circular 28-91, dated February 08, 1994 issued by the Supreme Court, and Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 made effective 01 April 1994, which expands the CERTIFICATION
requirement to include cases filed in Court and quasi-judicial agencies below the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2) of said
Circular to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in order to deter
the EVILS of FORUM SHOPPING.
Forum Shopping is not comparable or similar to certain simple issues in which
technicality ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, for it might override
substantial justice, as claimed and referred to by Judge Kwong in her bias ruling.
On the contrary, FORUM SHOPPING is considered a PERNICIOUS EVIL. It
adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court
dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and
trifles with and mocks judicial processes. It has been held that forum shopping is
evident where the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are present. (United
Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No.
135945, March 7, 2001, 353 SCRA 782).
While Civil Case No. 03-27338, may be mistakenly considered as a PERSONAL
ACTION, based from its caption or title being a Collection of Sum of Money and Damages,
it is also an undeniable FACT that the amount being collected by the Plaintiff-Respondent
Salvador from Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez is the alleged UNPAID BALANCE from the
fictitious SALE OF A PROPERTY that is located in Quezon City, of which alleged unpaid
balance, the Petitioners family refused to pay because they found out that Respondent only
got her RIGHT on the subject property illegally, by forging the signature of the rightful owner
Wifredo Torres, on the alleged Deed of Assignment and by fabricating a falsified (FAKE)
Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie,
(Respondent Carmen Salvador).
Among the many issues that were raised and argued in the court a quo and in the
appellate courts, are the TWO (2) most significant of all, to wit;
1. Whether or not the Defendant has to pay the P220,000.00 remaining
balance of the purchase price; and,
30
Salvador from
corner of Bonifacio Drive and Quezon St., Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City,
which is erected on a parcel of land consisting of One Hundred Twenty (120) square
meters, more or less. The right over the said parcel of land likewise belongs to the
plaintiff, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 29, 2000, executed in
her favor by the awardee of the said lot. (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
From its very face alone, the complaint is DISMISSIBLE and does not deserve to be
entertained by any other Courts outside Quezon City. Whether Plaintiff-Respondents action
is for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages, the FACT remains that she could not
have any amount collectible from the Defendant-Petitioner if not for the SALE of REAL
PROPERTY located in Quezon City which she fraudulently sold to Defendants wife LUZ
31
The Plaintiffs right over the subject lot derived from a Deed of Absolute
Sale executed by Alexander A. Parco, an awardee-owner of the subject lot in favor
of plaintiff Carmen A. Salvador. Alexander Parco likewise, came into his
possession the subject lot through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 5, 1995,
executed by one Remigio Tamayo in his favor. This Remigio Tamayo acquired the
right over the subject lot from Wilfredo Torres through a Deed of Assignment
dated February 2, 1993. Wilfredo Torres was the registered owner of the subject
lot with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 118192, until the said title was declared
null and void by the Decision dated February 28, 2000 of Judge Demetrio B.
Macapagal Sr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City.
The Trial Court further ruled;
in the Plaintiffs instant complaint as well as what was claimed by her counsel in their
Comment to Defendants Motion to Dismiss due to forum shopping, that the subject matter
involved in the case they brought in Caloocan City is NOT a LOT but a HOUSE. It being
so, then, WHY DID CALOOCAN CITY, MeTC-51 JUDGE KWONG RULED OUT AND
DECIDED ON MATTER or ISSUE, NOT BEING BROUGHT BEFORE HER COURT?...by
way of coming out with a ruling as to who is the rightful owner of the LOT ??? instead of
deciding on whether there was really a HOUSE erected thereat, which Plaintiff-Respondent
alleged being rented by Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez.
IS
THIS
ANOTHER
CLEAR
MANIFESTATION
OF
JUDGE
KWONGs
EXCEPTIONAL IGNORANCE???
Furthermore, the trial courts ruling and insistence that
longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 79,
Quezon City, had already attained its finality was merely a courts wrongful presumption
which cannot be justified, as it is baseless and bereft of merit, not only because it is not
supported by any evidence extant in the record, but mainly because the Decision of Quezon
City, Regional Trial Court
Branch 79, was only declaring null and void the Transfer of
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 118192 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of
Wilfredo Torres, but NOT the legality of Torres legal ownership to other portions of land
inside WilTor subdivision which include Lots No. 21 & 22, subject of the case, and are also
covered by TCT 118192.
Untenable also is the courts opinion that, When the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
December 22, 2000 was executed between Wilfredo Torres in favor of Romeo Ramirez,
Wilfredo Torres was no longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial
Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.
Common sense alone would suffice to say, that even if TCT No. 118192 in the name
of Wilfredo Torres was declared null and void, it does not necessarily mean that Torres is no
longer the legal owner of other lots covered by said TCT, and even assuming but not
admitting, but just for argument sake that the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79, has indeed,
already attained its finality, and that Torres was no longer the owner of the more than 40
hectares of land covered by TCT 118192, does it necessarily mean then that Respondent
Carmen Salvador automatically become its rightful owner? Where is the logic in that? This
does not make any sense at all, which again prove beyond reasonable doubt how
IGNORANT are the kind of Justices who have been appointed to preside and
administer Justice in this particular case!
By simply reading, even without scrutinizing the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79,
anyone can easily understand and figure out that TCT 118192 was only declared null and
void, it being a derivative Title from TCT No. 56809 issued by the Registry of Rizal on March
7, 1939, which was eventually reconstituted only by the Quezon City Register of Deeds by
way of Wilfredo Torres mother Dominga Sumulongs Petition on December 28, 1966.
33
The TCT No. 118192 containing an area of 416,533 square meters (41.65 hectares)
is covered by Lot 799 of Piedad Estate, of which portions are presumed to be legally owned
by the heirs of Kalaw family and other portions are also presumed to be absolutely owned by
the heirs of Torres-Sumulong family. This land dispute between Torres and Kalaw family is a
very complicated case for quieting of Title, which has long gone for a period of over 30 years
until it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in its Decision dated September 10, 2003,
G.R. No. 91486, declaring null and void all TCTs of Piedad Estate covered by Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614, including Lot 799, from which TCT-118192 that covers
Lots 21 & 22 subject this case, emanated from.
Respondent submitted at the Trial court voluminous records of documents as their
evidence to support their claim that Wilfredo Torres is no longer the absolute owner of Lots
No. 21 and 22, inside his own Wiltor Subdivision.
The BLIND-folded Lady Judge KWONG, just admittedly placed all the Respondents
voluminous documents into her weighing scale without even looking at and scrutinizing the
contents of those documents whether they really support the claim and allegation of
Respondent Salvador as the rightful owner with absolute and legal personality to sell or
dispose the same.
However, by going over and scrutinizing the Plaintiff-Respondents evidences
submitted at the trial court, marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit K (K1-14), (K15 K16), K17, K18K19 and Exhibit L-L4, which Plaintiff presented in court as their documentary evidences to
prove that TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres was already null and void, would only
prove otherwise that Wilfredo Torres is indeed the legal owner of Lots No. 21 & 22 subject of
this case.
An evaluation of those documentary evidences presented and submitted by the
Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador, clearly shows that it was for an Action for quieting of
Title, filed way back on March 31, 1967 before branch V, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City, re-raffled
and transferred to branch 31, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City and branch 100 RTC Quezon City,
until it was unloaded to Branch 79 in 1987 as a new created sala of RTC Quezon City.
On June 11, 1988 all the records of the case were burned during the fire that razed
the Quezon city Hall Building where RTC 79 was then housed.
By way of Petition for Reconstitution of Judicial records, the records of the case were
reconstituted as per Order dated August 22, 1989 and January 16, 1990. The Court also
granted on MARCH 15, 1994 the Plaintiff-Intervenors Manifestation & Motion for the
reconstitution of additional documents. Kalaw is the plaintiff and Wilfredo Torres is one
among the Defendants in that case.
On May 26, 1993, while Wilfredo Torres was detained by then Pres. F.E. Marcos, as
a political prisoner at the new Bilibid prison (Plaintiffs Exhibit L), NAPLICO Officers led
34
by its President Leopoldo Zapi, offered to buy from Wilfredo Torres the 41.65 hectare land
covered by TCT No. 118192 in the amount of P16,288,400.00.
In behalf of NAPLICO (NCR Urban Poor Multi-purpose Cooperative) Zapi as
President, entered an agreement with Torres that the former shall pay a down payment of
Php 400,000.00 and the remaining balance of Php 15,888,400.00 will be amortized at
Php158,844.00 a month for a period of ten (10) years from June 15,1993 to June 15, 2003.
However, upon taking possession of the land (now popularly known and registered
as WilTor Heights Subdivision) in honor of its absolute owner Wilfredo Torres, Zapi in
conspiracy with NAPLICO Officers and Members, including Respondent Carmen Salvador,
sold, conveyed, disposed, occupied and appropriated for their own use and benefit, several
portions of said land, but failed or ignored to pay Torres the monthly amortization indicated in
their agreement. Despite verbal and written demands made, Zapi and his cohorts have failed
and refused to vacate, return or peacefully turn-over a total of thirty (30) lots to Torres, hence
the latter was compelled to file four (4) consolidated Estafa cases against Zapi and his
cohorts, at the Department of Justice, NCR, Quezon City with I.S.No. 98-24390; 98-24866;
98-26175 and 99-0942. These cases were however dismissed by a Resolution dated June
27, 2000, issued by Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Jocelyn A. Solis -Reyes, on the basis
that the acts committed by Zapi and his cohorts in selling lots owned by Torres does not
constitute Estafa, because there was no provision in the agreement that prohibits the sale or
disposition of said lots pending full payment of the purchase price. Their non-compliance in
turning over to Torres the thirty (30) lots only give rise to civil liability.
Therefore, it was only the Civil Case for Annulment of Contract and Damages, No. Q94-19204, at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, branch 101, filed by Torres through his
Atty-in-Fact, Cesar Serrano, against Zapi and NAPLICO officers (including REYNALDO
PONCE, who is the author of, and one of the witnesses in the Respondents fictitious
Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-arian), as the Civil Case that was won by Torres in a Decision
dated January 26, 1994, granting him to recover twenty-seven (27) out of the thirty (30) lots,
by virtue of a Writ of Execution dated April 6, 1995.
Included among those 27 lots were lots 21 & 22, having a combined area of 240
square meters, which was fraudulently sold by Remigio Tamayo in favor of Alexander Parco,
in the amount of Php 235,000.00, through a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 8,
1995 (while Torres was still detained in prison, and one month prior to the release of the April 6,
1995 Writ of Execution). In the said Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Tamayo in
favor of Alexander Parco (nephew of Respondent Carmen Salvador), was the forged signature
of Wilfredo Torres as if showing that he gave his conformity to the said sale.
In view of that forged signature of Torres, he (Torres) executed an AFFIDAVIT,
marked as Petitioner-Defendants Exhibit 8. Mr. Wilfredo Torres further personally testified
in court as witness for Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, to prove not only that his signature was
forged in the Deed of Absolute Sale between Tamayo and Parco, but also to prove his
35
ownership over the subject property and that all transfer of RIGHTS over it are null and
void.
The trial court however, willfully and deliberately IGNORED to consider the Affidavit
and Testimony of Torres, including the genuine December 22, 2000, Deed of Absolute Sale
duly executed by Torres in favor of Petitioner Ramirez. When Petitioner presented it in court,
Respondent objected for its admittance for simple reason, which according to Plaintiffs
consel (Atty. Medina), it was not and cannot be registered at the Registry of Deeds of
Quezon City. (p.9 of Plaintiffs Memorandum, dated August 23, 2005). Plaintiffs counsel Atty.
Dayang Preciosa Medina further contended in court that, since it cannot be registered with
the Registry of deeds, should create a doubt in the minds of every reasonable man to think that the
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 118192 is indeed spurious.
Thus, even in the January 10, 2007 Court of Appeals, 8 th Division DECISION in CAG.R. SP NO. 94866, dismissing the Petitioners appeal, the C.A. likewise, ruled out the same;
xxxthe purported certificate of title of Wilfredo Torres could be as
conferred with a Presidential Award, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all over the
country, during the Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration, June 9, 1989;a summa
cum laude graduate at the Central Philippine university, Iloilo City and LL. M. with the highest
honors at the Manuel L. Quezon University; Outstanding State Prosecutor, Ministry of
Justice, 1978;.. Awardee, Best Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro
Memorabilia Commission, 1995;.. Winner of The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as
Outstanding RTC Judge, Foundation for Judicial Excellence, 1996; served as Judicial
Supervisor and State Prosecutor at the Department of Justice from 1972 to 1987;..
became a Regional Trial Court Judge in Cebu from 1988 to 1989;;;..promoted to the Court
of Appeals in 1998;.. just to betray the trust and confidence accorded to him, by
coming out on January 10, 2007, six months prior to his compulsory retirement on June
19, 2007, with a foolish, irrational, senseless and ridiculous ruling as stated above .]
Admittedly, YES. But what about the Deeds of Absolute Sale that were executed for
the conveyance of property from Remigio Tamayo (alleged awardee of Torres) to Alexander
Parco (alleged 1st buyer) and to Respondent Carmen Salvador (alleged 2nd buyer)? All their
Deeds of Sale were also XEROX or PHOTOCOPIES too, NOT registered and CANNOT
likewise be registered with the Register of Deeds, because both Deeds of Sale pertain to
Lots 21 & 22, which are also covered by TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which
Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador even supported with another documentary evidences, such as
the spurious Deed of Assignment, dated February 2, 1993, and the June 30, 1995, Affidavit
36
of Tamayo, which are all FAKE documents that were maliciously and unlawfully fabricated
by Respondent Salvador in connivance with her nephew
Remigio Tamayo, intentionally & purposely done to deceive the Ramirez family in buying the
property of which Respondent Salvador has no legal personality to dispose or sell.
While the Petitioners documentary evidence supported by testimonies and affidavits
were all denied consideration, the Respondents unsubstantiated documents were all
admitted by the trial court and placed into Judge Kwong weighing scale, and were all utilized
in the promulgation of judgment.
And so, after employing ALL forms of FRAUD and DECEIT, made by the Respondent
in bad faith and with intent to deceive, of which are hereunder summarized as follows;
1. Respondent
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case in Quezon City on June 16, 2003,
and then filing again another ACTION w ith SIMILAR CAUSE, SAME ESSENTIAL
FACTS, ISSUES and CIRCUMSTANCES, in Caloocan City on the following day,
June 17, 2003;
2. Respondent Carmen Salvadors deceitful and fraudulent way of submitting a
FALSE VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION by concealing the fact that she had
already commenced an ACTION of the same nature and issue in Quezon City,
and that she already filed a Motion to withdraw the case, but, of
which
the
owne rship to a
reside ntial house which is ere cted over the said portion of la nd, where
in T RUTH and in FACT, the dilapidated shanty or (small structure as
described by Remigio Tamayo in his alleged AFFIDAVIT ), made up of scrap
materials, which Respondent Carmen Salvador had been referring to as being
rented from her by Eden Mostales way back in March 1999, was already
DEMOLISHED immediately after she fraudulently sold the LOT to Petitioners
wife, on May 15, 2000, in order to give way for the Petitioners family to
construct a NEW CONCRETE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE that was BUILT AND
CONSTRUCTED by Petitioner ROMEO RAMIREZ, and which is the one presently
erected thereat since June 2000.
And yet, Respondent Carmen Salvador is still f raudulently and fictitiously
insisting and continuously claiming to be her own, as evidenced by her
concocting and filing again recently,
another fallacious
and unfounded
37
Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 13-04180-CV,
by way of Respondent Salvador using the herein assailed DECISION, including
the RTC and Court of Appeals Decision, as her evidence to support her claim.
However, that EJECTMENT case had already been DISMISSED by an
ORDER dated June 30, 2014, of which the trial court of Quezon City MTC,
branch 32, had likewise furnished the Office of Supreme Court Administrator,
with a copy of the same.
4. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondents Counsel Atty. DAYANG
PRECIOSA M. MEDINA
case in Caloocan City involves a HOUSE while the first one filed in Quezon City
involved a LOT, which according to her creates the big difference;
5. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondents Counsel Atty. Dayang
Preciosa Medina in willf ully, maliciously and dishonestly submitting a belatedly filed COMMENT on the Petitioners Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping,
FIVE (5) days later after an ORDER has already been issued, with an ulterior
motive or hidden agenda to use it against the Petitioners appeal, w hich they
actually did.
6. The deceitful and fraudulent way of the Caloocan City MeTC-51, Clerks of
Courts in intentionally and maliciously admitting that belatedly-filed comment
and forwarding the same to Caloocan City, RTC-121..
7. The deceitful and fraudulent way of both Respondents other Counsel Atty.
JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO and Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC)
Branch 121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES in willfully, maliciously
and unscrupulously utilizing the belatedly filed COMMENT of Atty. DAYANG
PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, in filing the formers MEMORANDUM and in the latters
ORDER dismissing the Defendant-Appellants appeal before Caloocan RTC-121.
8. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC)
Branch
51
Presiding
Judge
ELEANOR
R.
KWONG
in
w illfully,
38
8.3.
8.4.
8.5.
Rendering a DECISION that was primarily based on the purported, self styled and fictitious contract denominated as Katibayan sa Bilihan ng
Ari-Arian of which due execution a nd authenticity was not proven in
court, because the Respondent failed to identify the signature atop the
name of Petitioner ROMEO B. RAMIREZ and for the Respondent not
having a personal know ledge as far as the signature of Romeo Ramirez
in the Katibayan is concerned. (p 14, TSN, August 14, 2004);
8.6.
and
FRAUDULENT acts, thus, the baseless and unfounded Complaint of herein Respondent
CARMEN A. SALVADOR found its way to get a FAVORABLE JUDGMENT from a friendly
court in her place of residence in Caloocan City, which has NO JURISDICTION over it and
of which is exactly the GRAVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED OR AVOIDED BY THE
RULE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.
As previously mentioned, when the aforesaid Sheriffs Notice / Demand to Pay was
served to Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, his health started to deteriorate. His whole family, wife
and three children were all badly affected by the unfounded decision rendered against them.
Knowing fully-well that they were the real victims of Respondent Carmen Salvadors
39
fraudulent and deceitful acts, made it difficult for them to accept the injustices that were
deliberately inflicted upon them.
Hence, they were compelled to hire again another private & license professional
lawyer requiring them to pay another Php30,000.00 Acceptance fee and Php 3,000.00 per
court appearances thereafter. Unfortunately, as already said, ALL Manifestations, Motions and
Remedies available under the Rules of Court being submitted and filed by their 4 th Counsel
Atty. Oscar I. Mercado, were time and again being DENIED by the Caloocan City MeTC
Branch 51, until Atty. Mercado decided to finally withdraw his appearance in court.
THENCEFORTH, herein Petitioners representative & Atty-In-Fact, stepped-in and
took over, by submitting and filing before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, his Notice of Entry of
Appearance, dated April 10, 2012, which was noted and approved by the court in its Order
dated April 16, 2012. It was only then that undersigned Petitioners Legal Counsel found out
and discovered, not only the aforementioned ANOMALIES and IRREGULARITIES, but also
the fraudulently fabricated fictitious and falsified documents that were used by the Respondent
as her evidence to prove her alleged claim of ownership and alleged rightful possession of the
subject property.
Caloocan City are unfounded, baseless and fictitious. Plaintiff DO NOT EXACTLY
knew what she really own, whether a HOUSE or a LOT, because the TRUTH of the
matter is that at the back of her mind, she perfectly knew that she actually does
not OWN any property at all in Quezon City.
2. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, dated January 29, 2000, allegedly executed
by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie, Respondent Carmen A. Salvador;
(marked at the trial court as Plaintiffs Evidence, EXHIBIT A.)
Evaluation: In connivance and conspiracy with her nephew Alexander A.
Sale to show that she allegedly bought the property, Lots No. 21 and 22, (OBJECT
of the SALE), with a combined area of Two Hundred Forty (240) sq. m. in the
amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 300,000.00) PESOS in order to
entice the Petitioners wife LUZ RAMIREZ to buy the SAME property (2 Lots) in
the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 400,000.00) PESOS. (But in
reality, Petitioner was able to occupy and is presently occupying only ONE (1)
Lot, No. 21 ( with an area of 120 sq. meters). The another adjacent Lot No. 22
(with the same area of 120 sq. meters), was sold by another person to different
buyer, which Petitioner was able to find out only after paying Respondent
Salvador the down payment of Php 180,000.00, which is another reason why
Petitioner refused to pay the remaining balance of P220,000.00)
In falsifying the said document, Respondent made it appear in the said
Deed of Absolute Sale that the property was allegedly owned by its AWARDEEOWNER, which is her nephew Alexander A. Parco.
While the subject document shows it was allegedly executed only on
January 29, 2000 or THREE (3) months before Petitioners wife paid the down
payment of One Hundred Eighty Thousand (Php 180,000.00) Pesos on May 15,
2000, Respondent Carmen Salvador had already been claiming ownership of the
subject properties way back in March 1999 when she had the squatters shanty
(barong-barong) erected thereat, rented in the amount of P500.00 per month, not
by Petitioner Ramirez but by Eden Mostales as evidenced by their mutually
agreed Contract of Lease and handwritten receipts of payments for house rent,
all dated in the year 1999, (Plaintiffs Exhibit E, E-1 to E-4)
If not for this fake Deed of Absolute Sale, showing TWO (2) Lots with a
combined area of 240 square meters, fabricated in her (Respondent Salvador)
favor, Petitioners wife would never be enticed to buy the subject property from
her in the amount of P400,000.00.
Another proof of falsification employed in this subject document aside from
it NOT being NOTARIZED, NOT REGISTERED and cannot be registered with
the Registry of Deeds, can also be gleaned easily from the paragraph;
the sense of him buying it from Remigio Tamayo? He could not be an AwardeeOwner if he only acquired the property by allegedly purchasing it from the one
supposed to be the real awardee-owner, who is Remigio Tamayo.
3. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, dated March 08, 1995, allegedly executed by
Remigio Tamayo (already DE CEASED), in favor of Alexander A. Parco, as if
showing that the former being the AWARDEE/OWNER sold to the latter being the
BUYER, a consolidation of Lot Nos. 21 and 22, Block 1, with the total area of TWO
HUNDRED FORTY (240) square meters, in the sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P 235,000.00); (marked as Plaintiffs Ev idence,
EXHIBIT F).
5. The AFFIDAVIT OF REMIGIO TAMAYO, dated June 30, 1995, allegedly executed
by Remigio Tamayo at Kalookan City; (marked as Plaintiffs Evidence, EXHIBIT
D.)
On the other hand, herein Petitioner is more convinced that even this
AFFIDAVIT purportedly executed by Remigio Tamayo, is just another product of
Respondent Carmen Salvadors professionalism in fabricating FAKE documents, which
can easily be proven again by the handwritten SIGNAT URE atop the name REMIGIO
TAMAYO, which every single character, styles and strokes of every alphabet and word
thereat is not only similar but exactly the same with all the handwritings and signatures
43
of Respondent Carmen Salvador appearing on all the documents that bear her
signatures and handwritings.
Another significant FACT between these TWO documents, aside from the
FORGED SIGNAT URES and the OBJECTS of SALE being changed, is that both
documents were acknowledged before the same Notary Public of Caloocan City
VICENTE M. MALAPITAN, yet the SIGNAT URES atop the name of the alleged Notary
Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN are not identical with each other, which clearly
indicate that either one of the two is a genuine signature and the other one a forged
signature, or most probably none of the two is genuine and authentic.
In addition, Petitioner would like to raise a more glaring proof evidently showing
that these two documents were just fabricated and falsified, is the discrepancy on the
DATES and PLACES of issue of Remigio Tamayos Residence Certificate;
On page 2 of the alleged DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE purportedly
ACKNOWLEGED and NOTARIZED before Notary Public VICENTE M. MALAPITAN
on the 8
th
Manila
Issued on
5-25-95
Issued at
Kalookan City
EXHIBIT H.)
44
having been
written in vernacular (Tagalog), said Katibayan sa Bilihan merely contains selfserving statements of ONLY ONE person, CARMEN SALVADOR alone, thus, in the
Katibayanit reads;
KATIBAYAN SA BILIHAN
NG ARI-ARIAN
SA MGA KINAUUKULAN:
Ako, si Carmen Salvador na may sapat na gulang, may asawa at
sa kasalukuyan ay naninirahan sa 83 Malolos Ave., Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City ay nagsasaad na:
1. Ako ay nagmamay-ari ng bahay sa panulukan ng Bonifacio Drive
at Quezon st., Bonifacio Drive, Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon city,
na nakatirik sa isang lote na may sukat na 120 sq. meters,
humigit kumulang.
2. Na sa katunayan ay pinauupahan ko ang naturang bahay sa
halagang P1,500.00 kada buwan kay Mr. & Mrs. Romeo B.
Ramirez.
45
ko
sa
lupa
kay
Mr.
Romeo
B.
Ramirez
sa
(Signed)
2. REYNALDO A. PONCE
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
46
By merely reading the contents and understanding the meaning of the foregoing
Katibayan sa Bilihan anybody can easily comprehend and understand that it is NOT a
mutually agreed upon contract between two or more parties. It is a pure and simple
statement of a single party and is NOT binding with any other party.
A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself
with respect to the other, to give something or to render some services. (Art. 1305, Civil
Petitioner Ramirez had never ever meet and talk with each other since time immemorial,
therefore, it is evidently clear that there was no well-define contractual relationship that
existed between them.
Thus, the C.A. 8th Divisions DECISION through the ponencia of Associate Justice
Chairman Renato C. Dacudao (who retired from the Court of Appeals on June 19, 2007, A.
M. No. 07-8-27-SC, Oct 10, 2007), in likewise upholding the Katibayan sa Bilihan., is
another crystal clear indication of a VERY POOR Justice System in the Philippines. In the
aforesaid C.A. Decision, it says;
The Court also upholds the Bilihan betw een herein parties.
Where parties have entered into a well-defined contractual relationship, it
is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their rights and obligations
thereunder---obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between
the contracting parties and should be complied w ith in good faith. (Premier
Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA 686 ). Equity demands that a
party cannot disown its previous declaration to the prejudice of the other
party w ho relied reasonably and justifiably on such declaration. (Premier
Developm ent Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra ). Paragraph 5, page 7, CA-G.R. SP NO. 94866,
DECISION. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)
47
With due respect to that foregoing C.A. Decision, Petitioner is again of humble
submission to the Honorable Supreme Court on his view that the aforesaid CA opinion is
a baseless and unfounded which cannot in any way be applied to Salvador-Ramirez
case. As already mentioned above, there was NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP that
existed between Salvador and Ramirez and there was also NO EVIDENCE extant in the
record that Petitioner Ramirez made such declaration.
The Katibayan as exhibited by the Respondent does not even bear signatures
of any of the parties on its FIRST PAGE and it was also not acknowledged before a
notary public. Consequently, before the same may be received as evidence, its DUE
EXECUTION and AUTHENTICITY must first be proven. (Sec. 20, Rule 132 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence). However, despite the fact that Respondent failed to prove its due
execution and authenticity, said Katibayan was willfully and maliciously admitted by
the Trial Court, placed by Judge ELEANOR KWONG in her weighing scale as the
heaviest evidence,and was ultimately utilized as the basis in the promulgation of
Judgment.
C O N C L U S I O N
After everything said and have been presented, with all the spirit of humbleness,
humility and respect, undersigned sincerely PETITIONS the Honorable Supreme Court of
our land to exercise its supervisory powers over the Court of Appeals Eighth Division,
which promulgated a questionable Resolution, dated 10 January 2007 in sustaining the
unfair decision of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121, which
likewise affirmed and upheld the unsubstantiated, baseless and unfounded Decision of
the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, whereby ALL three (3)
tribunals had acted with grave abuse of discretion, and had decided a question of
substance in a way not in accord with law, that law being the rule and jurisprudence; as
well as had sanctioned a substantial departure from the accepted and usual course of
judicial proceedings, hence, this instant Petition for the Honorable Supreme Court to note
and act upon accordingly.
Prescinding therefrom, the 25 October, 2005, DECISION of Caloocan City MeTC
branch 51 should be annulled.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing circumstances and all premises
considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that JUDGMENT be
rendered, 1) ANNULING the DECISION dated October 25, 2005, that was rendered by
the Caloocan City MeTC, branch 51, on Civil Case No. 03-27338, for Collection of Sum of
Money and Damages, Carmen Salvador vs. Romeo Ramirez; with, 2) Issuance of a Writ
of Prohibition, for the Respondent to desist from further causing the Petitioners family
other forms of harassment by using the Katibayan sa Bilihan; and, 3) Writ of
48
Mandamus, commanding the Respondents to jointly and severally pay the Petitioner the
damages sustained, in the amounts of;
1.
Php 1,440,000.00 (One Million Four Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos), representing the
down payment amount of P180,000.00 paid on May 15, 2000, by the Plaintiff to
Respondent, computed at standard banks compounded interest rate for 15 years
(2000 -2015), or in any amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the
law and justice may require.
2.
3.
Php 1,500,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos) as MORAL damages, for
sleepless nights, moral shock, and wounded feeling that led to the Petitioners
untimely DEATH, as a result of the fraudulent and malicious actions of Respondent
Salvador and unfounded Decisions rendered by Judge Eleanor Kwong, or in any
amount that the Honorable Court may deem proper as the law and justice may
require.
4.
Php 300,000.00 as and for Attorneys fees, incurred by the Petitioner, that to defend
and protect his interest, engaged the services of three (3) Professional Lawyers,
namely; Atty. Regidor Pablo, Atty. Ricardo Barba, and Atty. Oscar Mercado.
5.
6.
Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are likewise, further
implored.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City for Manila, 01 May, 2015.
49
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _____ day of__________
2015, in Quezon City.
Affiant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACKNOWL EDGEMENT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this___day of ____________, 2015 at
Quezon City, Affiant, having exhibited his Postal I. D. No. 5417238 , issued at Quezon City Central
Post Office and valid until August 13, 2015.
Doc. No._____
Page No. _____
Book No._____
Series of 2015
50