SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206077. June 16, 2021.]
HELEN P. DENILA, petitioner, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, CITY GOVERNMENT OF DAVAO, BRGY. 74-A MATINA CROSSING FEDERATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, LOLITA P. TANO, MATINA BALUSONG NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, FE I. BETIOS, ST. PAUL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ESTRELLA E. NAMATA, ST. BENEDICT XVI NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MELCHOR LECIONAN, SHALOM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ROMEO PACHO, ALEJANDRO ALONZO, JR., MARITES ALONZO-LILOC, ARACELI ALONZO-DIOLASO, ROBERTO ALONZO, EULALIA ANGELITUD, EVANGELINE BAUTISTA, SALVADOR BAUTISTA, FELIMON BILIRAN, JR., LOURDES BILIRAN, REYNALDO BILIRAN, ARSENIO BRIONES, NORMA CAL, MARILYN CAÑETE, EDGARDO COSTANTE, JOY BILL DELA CRUZ, MARJORIE DELA CRUZ, JOHN JAMES ESPINOSA, ROMAR CAÑETE, TIMOTEO1C. FLORES, JEMUEL GAUDICOS, LILY LISONDRA, ERWIN PACADA, ALMA PAGALAN, LEONARDO PELOÑO, REYNALDO POLIQUIT, VIRGILIO REUYAN, JESUS REUYAN, SR., ROGELIO REUYAN, ARLAN SILVA, CARMELITA SILVA, ROMMEL SILVA, GRACE TEMONERA, ERLINDA VALENCIA, AND DEL CARMEN MATINA APLAYA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 16, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 206077(Helen P. Denila v. Republic of the Philippines, City Government of Davao, Brgy. 74-A Matina Crossing Federation, Inc., represented by its President, Lolita P. Tano, Matina Balusong Neighborhood Association, Inc., represented by its President, Fe I. Betios, St. Paul Neighborhood Association, Inc., represented by its President, Estrella E. Namata, St. Benedict XVI Neighborhood Association, Inc., represented by its President, Melchor Lecionan, Shalom Neighborhood Association, Inc., represented by its President, Romeo Pacho, Alejandro Alonzo, Jr., Marites Alonzo-Liloc, Araceli Alonzo-Diolaso, Roberto Alonzo, Eulalia Angelitud, Evangeline Bautista, Salvador Bautista, Felimon Biliran, Jr., Lourdes Biliran, Reynaldo Biliran, Arsenio Briones, Norma Cal, Marilyn Cañete, Edgardo Costante, Joy Bill Dela Cruz, Marjorie Dela Cruz, John James Espinosa, Romar Cañete, Timoteo C. Flores, Jemuel Gaudicos, Lily Lisondra, Erwin Pacada, Alma Pagalan, Leonardo Peloño, Reynaldo Poliquit, Virgilio Reuyan, Jesus Reuyan, Sr., Rogelio Reuyan, Arlan Silva, Carmelita Silva, Rommel Silva, Grace Temonera, Erlinda Valencia, and Del Carmen Matina Aplaya Neighborhood Association). The Court resolves to:
(1) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION petitioner's reply to the Office of the Solicitor General's comment opposing the motion to set for oral argument considering that said motion was denied in the Resolution dated July 15, 2020;
(2) NOTE petitioner's Supplemental and Amended Supplemental Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision Promulgated on July 15, 2020 (should be July 15, 2020); and DENY the Motion to Refer the Case to En Banc and Oral Argument dated December 19, 2020, as the Court En Banc is not an appellate court to which decisions of the Division may be appealed pursuant to SC Circular No. 2-89;
(3) NOTE the letter dated February 1, 2021 of Atty. Arturo M. De Castro, counsel for petitioner, and GRANT his request for a certified copy of the following: (a) Original Petition; (b) Decision promulgated on July 15, 2020; (c) Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the aforementioned decision; and (d) Amended Supplemental Omnibus Motion dated January 19, 2021; and
(4) DIRECT Atty. De Castro to COORDINATE with: (a) the Judicial Records Office, this Court, for the certified true copies of the (i) original petition; (ii) motion for partial reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on July 15, 2020; and (iii) amended supplemental omnibus motion dated January 19, 2021; and (b) the Office of the Reporter, this Court, for the certified true copy of the Decision promulgated on July 15, 2020, said office being the repository of the decisions of the Court, upon payment of appropriate fees.
Antecedents
On July 15, 2020, this Court's Third Division rendered a Decision, 2 affirming the July 25, 2012 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA)-Seventh Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 03270-MIN "for failure to establish that the latter committed a reversible error in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court for promulgating the March 4, 2008 Decision 4 as well as the September 3, 2009 5 and October 1, 2009 6 Orders in Special Proceeding Case No. 7527-2004" 7 on the following reasons:
(1) "The CA was correct in holding that Judge Omelio went beyond the bounds of his authority when he (a) unilaterally withdrew his inhibition, (b) re-assumed jurisdiction, and (c) summarily denied the Republic's Petition for Relief from Judgment." 8
(2) "The CA was correct in taking cognizance of an order denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment because a writ of certiorari is a comprehensive remedy against errors of jurisdiction." 9
(3) "The CA correctly nullified the RTC's March 4, 2008 Decision when it issued the subject writ of certiorari." 10
(4) "The CA correctly found the RTC to have exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the petition for reconstitution of title despite failure of the petitioner to comply with some jurisdictional requirements." 11
(5) "The RTC ignored the basic principles of res judicata in allowing the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. 219, 337, 67 and 164." 12
(6) "Judge Omelio denied the Republic's motion for reconsideration in utter disregard of established jurisprudence." 13
(7) The intervenors stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation of any final judgment in this case. 14
In addition, the Court also found Attys. Lanelyn D. Pangilinan (Atty. Pangilinan), Ray Uson Velasco (Atty. Velasco), and Maria Theresa D. Biongan-Pescadera (Atty. Biongan-Pescadera) to have been remiss in their ethical and administrative duties as members of the Bar. 15 Hence, these findings were referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (for Attys. Pangilinan and Biongan-Pescadera) and the Office of the Court Administrator (for Atty. Velasco) for appropriate action.
On December 10, 2020, the petitioner filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion for Partial Reconsideration, 16 stating among others that: (1) her new counsel "was unable to review the entire records of the case due to the [COVID] Pandemic"; 17 (2) this Court in Manotok, et al. v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque (Manotok)18 had "resolved the validity of the conflicting titles after [a] full[-]dressed adversarial hearing and presentation of evidence in a trial on the merit[s] to resolve the factual issues involved before the [CA]"; 19 and (3) the aforementioned lawyers should be accorded some degree of leniency for a "[m]istake in the interpretation of difficult questions of law may be a basis for a claim of good faith." 20
On January 14, 2021, Atty. Pangilinan filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 21 arguing, among others, that: (1) in claiming that she is "indeed familiar with the principle that reconstitution of title is an action in rem" 22 and in citing Republic v. Marasigan, et al. (Marasigan), 23 she did not impress upon this Court that the duty to send notices to the adjoining lot owners and actual occupants of the subject property is with the trial court; and (2) in justifying that she did not ignore the ruling in Heirs of Don Constancio Guzman, Inc. v. Judge Carpio (Guzman), 24 she did not abuse the judicial process by pursuing a meritless or patently frivolous case because it was her own honest understanding that the merits of the reconstitution case in that ruling were not discussed.
On January 15, 2021, the petitioner filed a Supplemental Omnibus Motion, 25 claiming that the records of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) effectively show that Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. 337, 67, 514, 164, 219, 301, and 220 are allegedly "intact and have not been cancelled" 26 because "there are no valid authentic documents of sale that cancelled" these certificates. 27 Moreover, she moved that this case be referred to the Court En Banc "considering the very high stake in this case of the very valuable economic nature of the vast commercial property located in the highly urbanized and commercial district of Davao City which has huge financial impact on businesses or affecting the welfare of the community." 28
On January 22, 2021, the petitioner filed an Amended Supplemental Omnibus Motion, 29 essentially reiterating her January 15, 2021 Supplemental Omnibus Motion and attaching copies of LRA records to support her claim that the aforementioned OCT Nos. 337, 67, 514, 164, 219, 301 and 220 have not been cancelled.
In one of her peripheral pleadings, the petitioner attached a Letter 30 addressed to Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, informing the latter that she had already donated 1,300 sq.m. of the lands subject in this case to the Philippine National Police.
Issues
-I-
Whether this Court erred in affirming the CA's decision that ultimately denied the petitioner's efforts to reconstitute the certificates of title covering the lands subject in this case;
-II-
Whether this Court erred in finding Atty. Pangilinan remiss in her ethical duties as a member of the Bar.
Ruling
The Court denies the motions for reconsideration for the following reasons:
First, the petitioner offered no new and compelling argument that would constrain this Court to revisit its take on the questions of law extensively and laboriously discussed in the July 15, 2020 Decision. Besides, her invocation of the Manotok ruling is misplaced for what is being resolved in this case is the issue on reconstitution of the certificates of title — not the validity of the titles themselves. Moreover, she has no legal standing in protecting the aforementioned lawyers from being held accountable in their ethical obligations as members of the Bar, which is personal to these lawyers.
Second, the records, as well as the exact text of established jurisprudence, belie Atty. Pangilinan's claim of good faith.
As to the issue of res judicata and of pursuing a frivolous case, the ruling in Guzman as to OCT Nos. 219, 337, 67, and 164 is clear, viz.:
At the outset, it should be stated that there is here a blatant disregard of the hierarchy of courts and no exceptional or compelling circumstance has been cited by petitioner why direct recourse to this Court should be allowed. In Tano v. Socrates, this Court declared that the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts must be stopped in its tracks, not only because it wastes the precious time of this Court but also because it delays the adjudication of a case which has to be remanded or referred to the proper forum.
Moreover, even if we were to decide the instant case on the merits, the petition would still fail. Reconstitution of certificates of title, within the meaning of [Republic Act No.] 26, means the restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost ordestroyed in its original form and condition. Petitioner failed to prove that the certificates of title intended to be reconstituted were in fact lost or destroyed. On the contrary, the evidence on record reveals that the certificates of title were cancelled on account of various conveyances. In fact, the parcels of land involved were duly registered in the names of the present owners whose acquisition of title can be clearly traced through a series of valid and fully documented transactions. (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Contrary to Atty. Pangilinan's claim, she cannot conveniently claim an honest "interpretation" of the aforementioned text and argue that the merits were not discussed. Ignoring the second paragraph in the aforecited portion of Guzman is a blatant affront to the Court's intelligence as the phrase "even if we were to decide the instant case on the merits" is not subject to a contrary but reasonable interpretation. The ruling in Guzman should have cautioned Atty. Pangilinan that OCT Nos. 219, 337, 67, and 164 have been passed upon by this Court and all issues relative to the reconstitution of these certificates have been resolved in a final and immutable judgment. Clearly, Atty. Pangilinan chose to ignore the principles of res judicata to pursue a baseless claim for her client at the expense of the Judiciary's time and resources.
As to the issue of flagrantly misquoting jurisprudence, We juxtapose the relevant portion in Marasigan and the questionable portion in the petition for review on certiorari Atty. Pangilinan drafted as follows:
|
Portion of Marasigan Ruling |
Atty. Pangilinan's Pleading |
|
x x x Equally unacceptable is the opinion of said Court that it was the duty of the trial court to serve the required notices and private respondent should not be prejudiced if it failed to do so. It suggests, quite unfortunately, and gives the wrong impression that mandatory requirements of notices may be dispensed with if the failure to comply with them is attributable to the court. 31 x x x (emphases supplied) |
95. Moreover, it is the trial court who is mandated by law to notify adjoining owners or possessors. Under Sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 26, the duty to send notices of the petition for reconstitution to adjoining owners and actual occupants is imposed upon the court. (Republic v. Marasigan, 198 SCRA 219, 228-229 (1991); 32 x x x (emphases supplied) |
The foregoing side-by-side comparison shows Atty. Pangilinan's unbridled temerity in lying through her teeth despite the fact that the very text of this Court's ruling and the accurately reproduced submissions in her pleading glaringly reveal that she knowingly misquoted and misrepresented the text of a decision in violation of Rule 10.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
On the Petitioner's Alleged Donation:
In donating a portion of the lands subject in this case, the petitioner is pre-empting the results of this Court's July 15, 2020 Decision, as well as its eventual final resolution. Coincidentally, the date of such donation appears to have coincided with the date of this Court's decision. By undertaking acts that introduced more complications to the case, the petitioner performed a conduct that directly impedes, obstructs, and degrades the administration of justice as contemplated in Sec. 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the petitioner should be directed to show cause why she should not be cited for indirect contempt.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing reasons, the partial motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Helen P. Denila and the motion for reconsideration filed by her former counsel, Atty. Lanelyn D. Pangilinan, are hereby DENIED for lack of merit and substantial basis. aScITE
Petitioner Helen P. Denila is hereby DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE why she should not be cited for indirect contempt for donating a portion of one of the subject lands while this case was still pending, thereby impeding, obstructing, and degrading the administration of justice.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as "Tomoteo" in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 441-505.
3.Id. at 57-96; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla, concurring.
4.Id. at 107-112; penned by Presiding Judge George E. Omelio.
5.Id. at 116-119.
6.Id. at 120-121.
7.Id. at 503.
8.Id. at 465.
9.Id. at 469.
10.Id. at 473.
11.Id. at 476.
12.Id. at 487.
13.Id. at 491.
14.Id. at 492.
15.Id. at 493-502.
16.Id. at 534-540.
17.Id. at 537.
18. 683 Phil. 448 (2012).
19.Rollo, p. 537.
20.Id. at 538.
21.Id. at 552-566.
22.Id. at 556.
23. 275 Phil. 243, 253-254 (1991).
24. G.R. No. 159579, November 24, 2003 (Unsigned Resolution).
25.Rollo, pp. 584-594.
26.Id. at 586.
27.Id. at 588.
28.Id. at 589.
29.Id. at 597-608.
30.Id. at 529.
31.Republic v. Marasigan, 275 Phil. 243, 253-254 (1991).
32.Rollo, p. 32.