Spouses Calingasan v. Delos Santos-Rivera

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 228270. June 30, 2021.]

SPOUSES EVANGELINE RIVERA CALINGASAN and FERDINAND SEVILLA CALINGASAN, petitioners,vs. MA. LYDIA DELOS SANTOS-RIVERA and MA. FREIDA SANTOS RIVERA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 228270 — SPOUSES EVANGELINE RIVERA CALINGASAN and FERDINAND SEVILLA CALINGASAN,petitioners, versus MA. LYDIA DELOS SANTOS-RIVERA and MA. FREIDA SANTOS RIVERA,respondents.

After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court reverses the Resolutions dated June 30, 2016 1 and November 11, 2016 2 (assailed Resolutions) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146225.

While the CA did not err in its legal reasoning in the assailed Resolutions, the Court, nevertheless, reverses the same in the interest of substantial justice. In Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines3(Salvacion), where the Court refused to apply Republic Act No. 6426, 4 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1246 5 because the application of the law in the unique factual circumstances of the case would lead to injustice, the Court stood firm that "the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice." 6

If the Court refused to apply substantive law in Salvacion in order to achieve substantial justice, then all the more can the Court suspend the strict application of procedural rules to further the interests of substantial justice. It must be emphasized that "[r]ules of procedure are meant to be tools to facilitate a fair and orderly conduct of proceedings. Strict adherence thereto must not get in the way of achieving substantial justice." 7

While the Decision 8 dated October 6, 2015 (Decision) of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Lipa City (RTC) convicting spouses Evangeline Rivera Calingasan and Ferdinand Sevilla Calingasan (Spouses Calingasan) may be said to have attained finality due to the failure to seasonably file an appeal, it is also true that the immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule. According to jurisprudence, the Court has:

the power and prerogative to relax the same in order to serve the demands of substantial justice considering: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 9 (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the Decision of the RTC finding Spouses Calingasan guilty of libel was in clear violation of established principles in law and jurisprudence. It has long been settled that "utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, belong to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged" 10 provided only "that the statements are connected with, or relevant, pertinent or material to, the cause in hand or subject of injury." 11

In this case, it is clear that the alleged defamatory imputation was contained in a complaint-affidavit filed before the prosecutor, and the imputation was relevant in the subject of inquiry. The term "under de saya" was used in the complaint-affidavit to describe the alleged state of affairs that led to the alleged commission of Qualified Theft by the respondents. In other words, the alleged defamatory imputation was the means through which the alleged crime complained of in the complaint-affidavit was consummated. Hence, "[i]t does not matter x x x whether or not there was malice x x x in making the statements complained of, since said statements are contained in a judicial pleading and protected by the mantle of privileged communication." 12

There is thus clear merit in the petition. It is well to stress also that the liberty of Spouses Calingasan hangs in the balance in this petition. It is the height of injustice, therefore, if Spouses Calingasan were to be incarcerated simply because the operation of procedural rules has rendered the unquestionably erroneous Decision convicting them final and executory. The Court reminds that "rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice." 13 As well,

[i]t is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice. 14

In sum, the Court reverses the assailed Resolutions of the CA.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Resolutions dated June 30, 2016 and November 11, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146225 are hereby SET ASIDE. The petition for annulment of judgment filed by the petitioners spouses Evangeline Rivera Calingasan and Ferdinand Sevilla Calingasan is GRANTED, and the Decision dated October 6, 2015 rendered by Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Lipa City in Criminal Case No. 0138-2008 is hereby ANNULLED.

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. 13-18. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (retired Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.

2.Id. at 23-24.

3. G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997, 278 SCRA 27.

4. AN ACT INSTITUTING A FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSIT SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, or the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines," approved on April 4, 1972.

5. FURTHER AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SIXTY-FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIX, AS AMENDED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED ONE THOUSAND THIRTY-FIVE, issued on November 21, 1977.

6.Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, supra note 3, at 45.

7.Morillo v. People, 775 Phil. 192, 217 (2015).

8.Rollo, pp. 43-51. Penned by Judge Danilo S. Sandoval.

9.Bigler v. People, 782 Phil. 158, 166 (2016).

10.People v. Alvarez, G.R. No. L-19072, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 901, 904.

11.Id. at 905.

12.Id.

13.Morillo v. People, supra note 7.

14.Id. at 217-218.