FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237041. April 23, 2018.]
JOSE ELMER G. GOTIS, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF PAZ MANGAOANG REPRESENTED BY JOEY P. MANGAOANG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237041 — Jose Elmer G. Gotis v. Heirs of Paz Mangaoang represented by Joey P. Mangaoang
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED due to: (1) lack of certification against forum shopping; (2) failure of petitioner to present competent proof of identity/any identification issued by a government agency in the verification of the petition and the affidavit of service; (3) failure to indicate the date of issuance of the IBP and PTR receipts of petitioner's counsel; and (4) failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. cSEDTC
Petitioner insists that the failure to submit the judicial affidavits of his witnesses was due to the negligence of his former counsel. Because of this, he believes that he should be given the opportunity to present his side. He asserts that if only the Court would allow him, he would be able to prove the falsity of respondents' claim that Paz Pura Mangaoang was not in the Philippines at the time of the execution of the disputed Deed of Donation.
Suffice it to say that the issues raised by petitioner have already been squarely passed upon by the CA in its assailed Decision and Resolution. The appellate court aptly stated:
First, Gotis has not proven himself to be worthy of the relaxation of the rules. His argument that he trusted his lawyers to handle his case and thus should not be harmed by their alleged negligence cannot be given merit in the absence of any kind of proof that his counsels were, indeed, guilty of gross negligence. It must be emphasized that Gotis has been represented by three (3) different counsels during the proceedings before the trial court, and Gotis still was not able to file the Judicial Affidavit that would allegedly further his cause. Courts should not wait for litigants to finish presenting their case; rules are in place for the speedy and proper disposition of cases.
Second, even setting aside the procedural lapses, Gotis' cause still fails to persuade. He claims to have the means to prove that it was not true that Paz Pura Mangaoang was in the United States of America from 1996 to 2011, but even if he did, such 'proof' would not have been enough to prevail over the evidence submitted by [respondents]. Surely, even on the assumption that Paz Pura Mangaoang had been to the Philippines in 1997, it still would not have been enough to conclusively prove that Paz Pura Mangaoang indeed executed the alleged x x x Deed of Donation of Real Property in his favor. x x x. 1 AIDSTE
Indeed, the Court sees no reason to overturn the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court as affirmed by the CA. Both of them uniformly ruled that the Deed of Donation of Real Property is fictitious and fraudulently executed. As has been held, "the factual findings of the lower courts, if supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts." 2
ACCORDINGLY, the assailed June 1, 2017 3 Decision and January 8, 2018 4 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107502 are AFFIRMED.
Further, petitioner's counsel is required to submit within five days from notice his contact details pursuant to A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007. Petitioner is also informed that he or his duly authorized representative may claim from the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division of this Court the excess payment for legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0202641-SC-EP dated February 15, 2018.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 23.
2.Ocampo v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 227894, July 5, 2017.
3.Rollo, pp. 9-20; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Renato C. Francisco.
4.Id. at 21-24.