THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 195381. February 18, 2013.]
HEIRS OF ZOILO CORDERO, NAMELY: MILDRED CORDERO DELFIN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. DOMINADOR SIA, THELMA ESTRELLA SIA, AND LUIS BUDOSO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 18, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 195381 (Heirs of Zoilo Cordero, namely: Mildred Cordero Delfin, et al. vs. Dominador Sia, Thelma Estrella Sia, and Luis Budoso). — In the two-page Petition for Review on Certiorari filed on March 24, 2011, the petitioners alleged that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44 of Masbate City acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing (1) its Order dated February 19, 2010 granting the motion to withdraw filed by petitioners' counsel and holding that the Notice of Appeal filed by counsel on the same day may no longer be given due course, and (2) its Order dated January 31, 2011 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The above allegations are proper subjects of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and not of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. As such, petitioners failed to implead the honorable judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44 of Masbate City as public respondent in accordance with Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners likewise violated the hierarchy of courts in filing of the petition directly with this Court and not with the Court of Appeals. 1 TSCIEa
Nevertheless, this Court has the power to relax the rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons warrant it, or when the purpose of justice requires it, and what constitutes as good and sufficient cause that will merit suspension of the rules is discretionary upon this Court. 2 In fact, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides that "[t]hese Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding." 3 Pursuant to this doctrine of liberality and in the exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction, it may disregard procedural lapses so that a case may be resolved on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties. 4
While it is true that the motion to withdraw by petitioners' counsel was filed on the same day as the Notice of Appeal, the latter was timely filed on January 26, 2010 since the Order dated January 7, 2010 appealed from was received by petitioners' counsel on January 15, 2010.
Considering the allegations adduced in the petition and in the interest of justice, the Court resolves to REMAND the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44 of Masbate City and for the court to take cognizance of the Notice of Appeal dated January 26, 2010 as filed. This Resolution is pro hac vice and should not be taken as precedent.
The Court likewise resolves to NOTE (1) the Comment (To the Petition for Review of Certiorari dated March 23, 2011) and Explanation, both dated December 13, 2012, filed by the respondents and (2) the Explanation and Manifestation dated January 15, 2013 filed by petitioners' counsel.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rayos v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 196063, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 684, 689.
2.Tiangco v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 153998, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 256, 271.
3.RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, Sec. 6.
4.San Juan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 173956, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 316, 324.