FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243425. March 18, 2019.]
ZENAIDA CRUZ, AURORA ELORIAGA, MAGDALENA FAJATIN, TERESITA GANA, CORAZON LORENZO, ENRIQUETA MANABAT, GUADALUPE MATADOS, DOMINGA MENOR, WILTECK ONG, OLIVA PEREZ, ALICIA QUIMSON, ELSIE RODRIGUEZ, RAFAELA SANTOS AND ANDREA GUTIERREZ, petitioners,vs. MANUEL D. RECTO, ANDRES SEBASTIAN, CESAR DIGNOS AND FRANCISCO ANONUEVO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243425 — Zenaida Cruz, Aurora Eloriaga, Magdalena Fajatin, Teresita Gana, Corazon Lorenzo, Enriqueta Manabat, Guadalupe Matados, Dominga Menor, Wilteck Ong, Oliva Perez, Alicia Quimson, Elsie Rodriguez, Rafaela Santos and Andrea Gutierrez, petitioners, v. Manuel D. Recto, Andres Sebastian, Cesar Dignos and Francisco Anonuevo, respondents.
Acting on petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time, the Court resolves to GRANT petitioners a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After a careful review of the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (1) failure of petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143293 committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-01-43011; and (2) raising factual issues.
Petitioners, in this case, insist that the charges against them were not supported by evidence and that their actions did not warrant the penalties of expulsion, suspension, and reprimand, which barred them from voting during the special meeting held on May 14, 2000. They likewise contend that the CA erred in ruling that the absence of a Spiritual Director did not render invalid the proceedings conducted by the ad hoc committee. Lastly, they claim that the appointment of Bishop Federico Escaler, S.J. (Escaler) as Spiritual Director was valid as it was acknowledged by respondents.
The Petition lacks merit.
The issues raised by petitioner are factual in nature, which cannot be entertained by the Court. Factual matters are beyond the province of the Court as only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 1
Besides, even if a factual review of the instant case were allowed, it would still result in the denial of the instant Petition. Both the trial court and the CA found that petitioners were afforded due process and that the sanctions imposed were in accordance with the By-Laws of the Buklod ng Pag-ibig Foundation (Buklod). There is also no specific provision in the By-Laws of Buklod that states that the absence of a Spiritual Director would invalidate the proceedings conducted by the ad hoc committee. Thus, the Court finds no error on the part of the CA in upholding the validity of the Amended By-Laws as the 2/3 vote requirement was complied with.
As to the alleged acceptance of respondents of the appointment of Bishop Escaler, even if true, being an appointed officer, he may be terminated at any time by respondents. In this case, the trial court found that the announcement of respondents on April 17, 2000 of reverting to the September 1999 situation in effect terminated the services of Bishop Escaler as Spiritual Director. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that Bishop Escaler was not the Spiritual Director of Buklod.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the August 17, 2018 Decision and the December 6, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143293.
Before acting on the Entry of Appearance of Atty. Asteria Balagat Felicen with notice of the death of Atty. Kirth Pagkanlungan, respondents are required to affix their conformity with the said Entry of Appearance and submit a copy of her Death Certificate within five (5) days from notice.
SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J.,on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Samala v. Court of Appeals, 467 Phil. 563, 568 (2004).