Provincial Government of Bulacan v. Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 7

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254740. June 16, 2021.]

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BULACAN, DULY REPRESENTED BY THE PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MR. EUGENIO C. PAYONGAYONG, petitioner,vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN, BRANCH 7, AND SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMODITIES AND FOOD EXCHANGE, INC., JOSEFINA M. DELA CRUZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS A CHAIRMAN OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMODITIES AND FOOD EXCHANGE, INC., JOSE P. VILLAMOR, JOSELITO R. MENDOZA, FIDEL BUGAYONG, VIOLETA C. LUNA, JACINTO S. JOSE, JR., AND ARTHUR M. SAMANEGO, ALL IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMODITIES AND FOOD EXCHANGE, INC., [PERLITA] MENDOZA, TRANS METRO PROPERTY VENTURES CORP., MA. GLADYS C. STA. RITA, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMODITIES AND FOOD EXCHANGE, INC., COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK OF BULACAN, BULACAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, AND BULACAN FRESHWATER FISH PRODUCERS' MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE, AS NECESSARY PARTIES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 254740 (Provincial Government of Bulacan, duly represented by the Provincial Administrator, Mr. Eugenio C. Payongayong v. The Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 7, and Southeast Asian Commodities and Food Exchange, Inc., Josefina M. Dela Cruz, in her capacity as a Chairman of Southeast Asian Commodities and Food Exchange, Inc., Jose P. Villamor, Joselito R. Mendoza, Fidel Bugayong, Violeta C. Luna, Jacinto S. Jose, Jr., and Arthur M. Samanego, all in their capacities as Board of Directors of Southeast Asian Commodities and Food Exchange, Inc., [Perlita] Mendoza, Trans Metro Property Ventures Corp., Ma. Gladys C. Sta. Rita, in her capacity as Executive Vice-President of Southeast Asian Commodities and Food Exchange, Inc., Cooperative Rural Bank of Bulacan, Bulacan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and Bulacan Freshwater Fish Producers' Multipurpose Cooperative, as necessary parties).— The Court resolves to GRANT the Urgent Motion for Leave to File and Admit Attached Petition-in-Intervention 1 filed by Wilhelmino M. Sy-Alvarado (intervenor) and ADMIT his Petition-in-Intervention (Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam), 2 including its annexes.

After a judicious study of the records of the case, including the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 7, in Civil Case No. 218-M-2013, 3 and of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 157124, 4 which were annexed to the Petition-in-Intervention, the Court resolves, without waiting for the compliance of petitioner Provincial Government of Bulacan (petitioner) of the February 3, 2021 Resolution, 5 to DISMISS outright the Petition for Review 6 and the Petition-in-Intervention for lack of merit. The Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA when it dismissed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner for being an improper remedy, for defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and for lack of merit.

As correctly ruled by the CA, the filing of the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is improper since the proper and available remedy in assailing the subject RTC Decision is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court pursuant to A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC (Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies) dated September 14, 2004. Notably, petitioner lost the remedy of appeal when it filed a motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading in intra-corporate cases and which did not toll the running of the reglementary period in filing an appeal. Consequently, the RTC Decision became final and executory and is now beyond certiorari's reach pursuant to the well-established rule that certiorari is not a remedy for a lapsed or lost appeal, which loss was due to a party's fault or negligence or where a person fails, without justifiable ground, to interpose an appeal despite its accessibility. 7 While this rule is not absolute, 8 the Court finds no reason to relax the same, as well as the rules on proper verification and certification of non-forum shopping, in view of the apparent lack of merit of petitioner's case, as discussed by the CA in its dismissal of the petition for certiorari on substantive grounds. In connection thereto, the Court highlights, affirms, and stresses the relevant points in the CA ruling. First, petitioner's objection to the waiver for lack of an accompanying Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution was rendered puerile by its contemporaneous implied waiver of the same preemptive right. In particular, despite receipt of the notice of preemption in the increase of authorized stock of respondent Southeast Asian Commodities and Food Exchange, Inc. (SACFEI), petitioner did not signify its intention to subscribe to the newly issued shares. Indeed, even if the waiver executed by then Provincial Administrator Perlita Mendoza is considered ineffective for lack of official authorization, the fact remains that petitioner has effectively waived its right of preemption by not exercising the same within the period set in the notice sent by SACFEI. Thus, it may not belatedly avail of such right in the guise of nullifying the written waiver. Second, petitioner's complaint has been rendered moot for want of a true and actual case or controversy in view of petitioner's judicial admission contained in a manifestation filed before the RTC and chronicled in a pre-trial order to the effect that petitioner has no intention to avail of the preemptive right. The petitioner and the intervenor cannot now simply argue that said manifestation prepared and submitted by the counsel concerned should not bind the client on the mere and convenient excuse that the same resulted to serious injustice. ETHIDa

SO ORDERED."(Hernando, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 29-32.

2.Id. at 33-55.

3.Id. at 56-82, 89-93; penned by Presiding Judge Isidra A. Argañosa-Maniego.

4.Id. at 25-27, 95-110; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Walter S. Ong, concurring.

5. Directing, among others, to submit the Decisions and Order and/or Resolution of the RTC and the CA, which are now submitted and made available to the Court for its scrutiny and review via the annexes in the Petition-in-Intervention.

6.Rollo, pp. 3-19.

7.Oliveros v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 240084, September 16, 2020.

8.Spouses Godinez v. Spouses Norman, G.R. No. 225449, February 26, 2020.