FIRST DIVISION
[UDK-17108. February 15, 2022.]
ADM. DAVID R. DULFO, DECLARED RIGHTFUL OWNER, LEGITIMATE SURVIVING HEIR, COURT APPOINTED JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR-OVERSEERS AND NATIONAL/PRESIDENT/CHAIRMAN OF JUSTICE FOR LABOR COOPERATIVES FEDERATION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (JLCFCPI), REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS LED BY EMERITA DAVID RODRIGUEZ, ELIZABETH G. BORDE, LINDA PLEGO-VALDEZ, TERESITA SILVA, ERNESTO CAES, FLORA CARPIO-BELTRAN, PERPETUA DIMLA, ERNESTO DE LEON, ERNESTO ALVIAR, JOSE M. MERCADO, LUZVIMINDA C. CASTRO, NENITA SAMSON-REAZON, DANILO URETA, JONATHAN E. ESTA, ROGELIO T. PERMACIO; HEIRS OF TERESA SAMSON; CELENIA DE GUZMAN; LADY G. BORDE; RENATO "BOBOY" AQUINO; BENJAMIN C. CELESTINO; JOSELITO S. MENDOZA; CAROLINA C. CELESTINO; JOEL C. CAES; GLORIA FLORES; AND CESAR B. DE GUZMAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MANOTOK REALTY, INC., (MANOTOK SERVICES, INC.) REPRESENTED BY: MS. MA. CHRISTINA B. SISON; ABILENE REALTY, INC., OPERATED BY DIONISIO C. DELA ROSA; AND THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND ASSESSORS OFFICE OF CALOOCAN CITY, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2022 which reads as follows:
"UDK 17108 — Adm. DAVID R. DULFO, Declared Rightful Owner, Legitimate Surviving Heir, Court Appointed Judicial Administrator-Overseers and National/President/Chairman of JUSTICE FOR LABOR COOPERATIVES FEDERATION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (JLCFCPI), Represented by its Officers and Members Led by EMERITA DAVID RODRIGUEZ, ELIZABETH G. BORDE, LINDA PLEGO-VALDEZ, TERESITA SILVA, ERNESTO CAES, FLORA CARPIO-BELTRAN, PERPETUA DIMLA, ERNESTO DE LEON, ERNESTO ALVIAR, JOSE M. MERCADO, LUZVIMINDA C. CASTRO, NENITA SAMSON-REAZON, DANILO URETA, JONATHAN E. ESTA, ROGELIO T. PERMACIO; Heirs of TERESA SAMSON; CELENIA DE GUZMAN; LADY G. BORDE; RENATO "BOBOY" AQUINO; BENJAMIN C. CELESTINO; JOSELITO S. MENDOZA; CAROLINA C. CELESTINO; JOEL C. CAES; GLORIA FLORES; and CESAR B. DE GUZMAN, ET AL., petitioners, versus MANOTOK REALTY, INC., (MANOTOK SERVICES, INC.) Represented by: Ms. MA. CHRISTINA B. SISON; ABILENE REALTY, INC., Operated by DIONISIO C. DELA ROSA; and THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS and ASSESSORS OFFICE OF CALOOCAN CITY, ET AL., respondents.
Considering that petitioners failed to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period, and that the present Petition 1 suffers from several glaring defects which render it impossible for the Court to ascertain the facts of the case and the legal issues requiring resolution, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolutions dated July 26, 2019 2 and July 26, 2021, 3 respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 161059. cTDaEH
Petitioners' blatant disregard of the requirements under Sections 2, 3 and 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is apparent on the face of the Petition.
First, the Petition was filed beyond the reglementary period set by the Rules of Court. Second, the Petition lacks payment of the prescribed docket and other lawful fees. Third, the Petition suffers from an incomplete statement of material dates, facts and matters involved, and is not accompanied by duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed Resolutions. Fourth, the Petition is not likewise accompanied by any proof of petitioner Adm. David R. Dulfo's authority to cause the preparation of the Petition and to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping (verification) on behalf of his co-petitioners. Fifth, the verification of the Petition is likewise defective for petitioners' failure to allege that the Petition is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation, as required under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. 4Sixth, attached to the Petition is a seemingly false affidavit of service, 5 as the affidavit of service was notably notarized on a date (September 7, 2021) prior to the actual date of the service of the copies of the Petition on the CA and respondents on September 10, 2021. 6
In addition, the Petition raises questions of fact that are not generally cognizable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Moreover, even if the Court were inclined to entertain the Petition, the Court nevertheless finds that the CA committed no reversible error in issuing the assailed Resolutions.
Petitioners' counsel is reminded that it is incumbent upon him, as a member of the Philippine bar, to know and respect the rules of procedure in order to facilitate the faithful and orderly administration of justice. While technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice and may thus be relaxed in exceptionally meritorious cases, 7 utter disregard of these rules cannot be excused without any showing of justifiable and compelling cause. 8
Finally, considering that the ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding, 9 the denial of the Petition necessarily results in the denial of petitioners' prayer for injunctive relief.
The petitioners' compliance with A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, submitting a verification with the current identification documents issued by an official agency of the government bearing the photograph and signatures of the individual affiants is NOTED; and the Court of Appeals is hereby DROPPED as party respondent in this case pursuant to Section 4 (a), Rule 45 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC).
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-45.
2.Id. at 61-67. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
3.Id. at 51-56.
4. Per A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC entitled 2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, October 15, 2019.
5.Rollo, pp. 43-45.
6.Id.
7.Lazaro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137761, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 208, 214.
8.Tible & Tible Company, Inc. v. Royal Savings and Loan Association, G.R. No. 155806, April 8, 2008, 550 SCRA 562, 583.
9.Sangguniang Panlungsod ng Baguio City v. Jadewell Parking Systems Corp., G.R. Nos. 160025, 163052, 164107, 165564, 172215, 172216, 173043, 174879 & 181488, April 23, 2014, 723 SCRA 350, 397.