[G.R. No. 129742. September 16, 1998] TERESITA G. FABIAN petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A.

DESIERTO, in his capacity as ombudsman; HON. JESUS F. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon; and NESTOR V. AGUSTIN respondents. DECISION REGALADO, J: Petitioner has appealed to us by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the "Joint Order" issued by public respondents on June 18, 1997 in OMB-Adm. Case No. 0-95-0411 which granted the motion for reconsideration of and absolved private respondents from administrative charges for inter alia grave misconduct committed by him as then Assistant Regional Director, Region IV-A, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). I It appears from the statement and counter-statement of facts of the parties that petitioner Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction Development Corporation (PROMAT) which was engaged in the construction business. Private respondents Nestor V. Agustin was the incumbent District Engineering District (FMED) when he allegedly committed the offenses for which he was administratively charged in the Office in the office of the Ombudsman. Promat participated in the bidding for government construction project including those under the FMED, and private respondent, reportedly taking advantage of his official position, inveigled petitioner into an amorous relationship. Their affair lasted for some time, in the course of which private respondents gifted PROMAT with public works contracts and interceded for it in problems concerning the same in his office. Later, misunderstanding and unpleasant incidents developed between the parties and when petitioner tried to terminate their relationship, private respondent refused and resisted her attempts to do so to the extent of employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. She eventually filed the aforementioned administrative case against him in a letter-complaint dated July 24, 1995. The said complaint sought the dismissal of private respondent for violation of Section 19, Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), with an ancillary prayer for his preventive suspension. For purposes of this case, the charges referred to may be subsumed under the category of oppression, misconduct, and disgraceful or immoral conduct. On January 31, 1996, Graft Investigator Eduardo R. Benitez issued a resolution finding private respondents guilty of grave misconduct and ordering his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits under the law. His resolution bore the approval of Director Napoleon Baldrias and Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo Aportadera of their office. Herein respondent Ombudsman, in an Order dated February 26, 1996, approved the aforesaid resolution with modifications, by finding private respondent guilty of misconduct and meting out the penalty of suspension without pay for one year. After private respondent moved for reconsideration, respondent Ombudsman discovered that the former's new counsel had been his "classmate and close associate" hence he inhibited himself. The case was transferred to respondent Deputy Ombudsman Jesus F. Guerrero who, in the now challenged Joint Order of June 18, 1997, set aside the February 26, 1997 Order of respondent Ombudsman and exonerated private respondents from the administrative charges. II In the present appeal, petitioner argues that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)[1] pertinently provides that In all administrative diciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)

However, she points out that under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the office of the Ombudsman),[2] when a respondent is absolved of the charges in an administrative proceeding decision of the ombudsman is final and unappealable. She accordingly submits that the office of the ombudsman has no authority under the law to restrict, in the manner provided in its aforesaid Rules, the right of appeal allowed by Republic Act No. 6770, nor to limit the power of review of this Court. Because of the aforecited provision in those Rules of Procedure, she claims that she found it "necessary to take an alternative recourse under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, because of the doubt it creates on the availability of appeals under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Respondents filed their respective comments and rejoined that the Office of the Ombudsman is empowered by the Constitution and the law to promulgate its own rules of procedure. Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides, among others, that the Office of the Ombudsman can "(p)romulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law." Republic Act No. 6770 duly implements the Constitutional mandate with these relevant provisions: Sec. 14. Restrictions. - x x x No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman except the Supreme Court on pure question on law. xxx Sec. 18. Rules of Procedure. - (1) The Office of the Ombudsman shall promulgate its own rules of procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions, and duties. xxx Sec. 23. Formal Investigation. - (1) Administrative investigations by the Office of the Ombudsman shall be in accordance with its rules of procedure and consistent with the due process. x x x xxx Sec. 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. - All provisionary orders at the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory. A motion for reconsideration of any order, directive or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman must be filed within five (5) days after receipt of written notice shall be entertained only on any of the following grounds: xxx Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month salary shall be final and unappealable. In all administrative disciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for certiorari within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The above rules may be amended or modified by the Office of the Ombudsman as the interest of justice may require. Respondents consequently contend that, on the foregoing constitutional and statutory authority, petitioner cannot assail the validity of the rules of procedure formulated by the Office of the Ombudsman governing the conduct of proceeding before it, including those with respect to the availabity or non-avalability of appeal in administrative cases. Such as Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No.07. Respondents also question the propriety of petitioner's proposition that, although she definitely prefaced her petition by categorizing the same as "an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court," she makes the aforequoted ambivalent statement which in effect asks that, should the remedy under Rule 45 be unavailable, her petition be treated in the alternative as an original action for certiorariunder Rule 65. The parties thereafter engage in a discussion of the differences between a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.

Ultimately, they also attempt to review and rationalize the decision of this Court applying Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 vis--vis Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07. As correctly pointed out by public respondents, Ocampo IV vs. Ombudsman, et al.[3] and Young vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.[4] were original actions for certiorari under Rule 65. Yabut vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al.[5] was commenced by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Then came Cruz, Jr. vs. People, et al., [6] Olivas vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., [7] Olivarez vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[8] and Jao, et al. vs. Vasquez,[9] which were for certiorari, prohibition and/or mandamus under Rule 65. Alba vs. Nitorreda, et al.[10] was initiated by a pleading unlikely denominated as an "Appeal/Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition," with a prayer for ancillary remedies, and ultimately followed by Constantino vs. Hon. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, et al. [11] which was a special civil action for certiorari. Considering, however the view that this Court now takes of the case at bar and the issues therein which will shortly be explained, it refrains from preemptively resolving the controverted points raised by the parties on the nature and propriety of application of the writ of certiorari when used as a mode of appeal or as the basis of a special original action, and whether or not they may be resorted to concurrently or alternatively, obvious though the answers thereto appear to be. Besides, some seemingly obiter statements in Yabuts and Alba could bear reexamination and clarification. Hence, we will merely observe and lay down the rule at this juncture that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is involved only whenever an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 is taken from a decision in an administrative diciplinary action. It cannot be taken into account where an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 is resorted to as a remedy for judicial review, such as from an incident in a criminal action. III After respondents' separate comments had been filed, the Court was intrigued by the fact, which does appear to have been seriously considered before, that the administrative liability of a public official could fall under the jurisdiction of both the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus, the offenses imputed to herein private respondent were based on both Section 19 of Republic Act. No. 6770 and Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807. Yet, pursuant to the amendment of section 9, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 by Republic Act No. 7902, all adjudications by Civil Service Commission in administrative disciplinary cases were made appealable to the Court of Appeals effective March 18, 1995, while those of the Office of the Ombudsman are appealable to this Court. It could thus be possible that in the same administrative case involving two respondents, the proceedings against one could eventually have been elevated to the Court of Appeals, while the other may have found its way to the Ombudsman from which it is sought to be brought to this Court. Yet systematic and efficient case management would dictate the consolidation of those cases in the Court of Appeals, both for expediency and to avoid possible conflicting decisions. Then there is the consideration that Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that "(n)o law shall be passed increasing the appellate indiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and consent," and that Republic Act No. 6770, with its challenged Section 27, took effect on November 17, 1989, obviously in spite of that constitutional grounds must be raised by a party to the case, neither of whom did so in this case, but that is not an inflexible rule, as we shall explain. Since the constitution is intended fort the observance of the judiciary and other departments of the government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or countenance evasions thereof. When it is clear that a statute trangresses the authority vested in a legislative body, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the constitution, and not the statute, governs in a case before them for judgement.[12] Thus, while courts will not ordinarily pass upon constitutional questions which are not raised in the pleadings,[13] the rule has been recognized to admit of certain exceptions. It does not preclude a court from inquiring into its own jurisdiction or compel it to enter a judgement that it lacks jurisdiction to enter. If a statute on

which a court's jurisdiction in a proceeding depends is unconstitutional, the court has no jurisdiction in the proceeding, and since it may determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, it necessarily follows that it may inquire into the constitutionality of the statute.[14] Constitutional question, not raised in the regular and orderly procedure in the trial are ordinarily rejected unless the jurisdiction of the court below or that of the appellate court is involved in which case it may be raised at any time or on the court's own motion.[15] The Court ex mero motu may take cognizance of lack of jurisdiction at any point in the case where the fact is developed.[16] The court has a clearly recognized right to determine its own jurisdiction in any proceeding.[17] The foregoing authorities notwithstanding, the Court believed that the parties hereto should be further heard on this constitutional question. Correspondingly, the following resolution was issued on May 14, 1998, the material parts stating as follows: The Court observes that the present petition, from the very allegations thereof, is "an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the 'Joint Order (Re: Motion for Reconsideration)' issued in OMB-Adm. Case No. 0-95-0411, entitled 'Teresita G. Fabian vs. Engr. Nestor V. Agustin, Asst. Regional Director, Region IV-A, EDSA, Quezon City,' which absolved the latter from the administrative charges for grave misconduct, among other." It is further averred therein that the present appeal to this Court is allowed under Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1987 (R.A. No. 6770) and, pursuant thereto, the Office of the Ombudsman issued its Rules of Procedure, Section 7 whereof is assailed by petitioner in this proceeding. It will be recalled that R.A. No. 6770 was enacted on November 17, 1989, with Section 27 thereof pertinently providing that all administrative diciplinary cases, orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to this Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court notes, however, that neither the petition nor the two comments thereon took into account or discussed the validity of the aforestated Section 27 of R.A. No. 8770 in light of the provisions of Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that "(n)o law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advise and consent." The Court also invites the attention of the parties to its relevant ruling in First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals , et al. (G.R. No. 110571, October 7, 1994, 237 SCRA 519) and the provisions of its former Circular No. 1-95,as now substantially reproduced in Rule 43 of the 1997 revision of the Rules of Civil Procedure. In view of the fact that the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is invoked and involved and in this case, and the foregoing legal consideration appear to impugn the constitutionality and validity of the grant of said appellate jurisdiction to it, the Court deems it necessary that the parties be heard thereon and the issue be first resolved before conducting further proceedings in this appellate review. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to require the parties to Submit their position and arguments on the matter subject of this resolution by filing their corresponding pleadings within ten (10) days from notice hereof. IV The records do not show that the Office of the Solicitor General has complied with such requirement, hence the Court dispenses with any submission it should have presented. On the other hand, petitioner espouses the theory that the provision in Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 which authorizes an appeal by certiorari to this Court of the aforementioned adjudications of the Ombudsman is not violative of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution. She claims that what is proscribed is the passage of law "increasing" the appellate jurisdiction of this Court "as provided in this Constitution," and such appellate jurisdiction includes "all cases in which only an error or question of law is involved." Since Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII of the Constitution authorizes this Court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari the aforesaid final judgement or orders "as the law or the Rules of Court may provide," said Section 27 does not increase this Court may provide," said section 27 does not increase this Court's appellate jurisdiction since, by providing that the mode of appeal shall be by petition

for certiorari under Rule 45, then what may be raised therein are only questions of law of which this Court already has of which this Court already has jurisdiction. We are not impressed by this discourse. It overlooks the fact that by jurisprudential developments over the years, this Court has allowed appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 in a substantial number of cases and instances even if questions of fact are directly involved and have to be resolved by the appellate court. [18] Also, the very provision cited by petitioner specifies that the appellate jurisdiction of this Court contemplated therein is to be exercised over "final judgements and orders of lower courts," that is, the courts composing the integrated judicial system. It does not include the quasi-judicial bodies or agencies, hence whenever the legislature intends that the decisions or resolutions of the quasi-judicial agency shall be reviewable by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, a specific provision to that effect is included in the law creating that quasi-judicial agency and, for that matter, any special statutory court. No such provision on appellate procedure is required for the regular courts of the integrated judicial system because they are what are referred to and already provided for in Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. Apropos to the foregoing, and as correctly observed by private respondent, the revised Rules of Civil Procedure[19] preclude appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. In the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 1 Rule 45, on "Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court," explicitly states: SECTION 1 . Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A person desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgement or final order or Resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other court whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only question of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Italics ours). This differs from the former Rule 45 of the 1964 Rules of Court which made mention only of the Court of Appeals, and had to be adopted in statutes creating and providing for appeals from certain administrative or quasi-judicial agencies, whenever the purpose was to restrict the scope of the appeal to questions of law. That intended limitation on appellate review, as we have just discussed, was not fully subserved by recourse to the former Rule 45 but, then, at that time there was no uniform rule on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies. Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought through a petition for review on certiorari but only from judgments and final orders of the courts enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies[20] are now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies .[21] It is suggested, however, that the provisions of Rule 43 should apply only to "ordinary" quasi-judicial agencies, but not to the Office of the Ombudsman which is a "high constitutional body." We see no reason for this distinction for, if hierarchical rank should be a criterion, that proposition thereby disregards the fact that Rule 43 even includes the Office of the President and the Civil Service Commission, although the latter is even an independent constitutional commission, unlike the Office of the Ombudsman which is a constitutionally-mandated but statutorily created body. Regarding the misgiving that the review of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman by the Court of Appeals would cover questions of law, of fact or of both, we do not perceive that as an objectionable feature. After all, factual controversies are usually involved in administrative disciplinary actions, just like those coming from the Civil Service, Commission, and the Court of Appeals as a trier of fact is better prepared than this Court to resolve the same. On the other hand, we cannot have this situation covered by Rule 45 since it now applies only to appeals from the regular courts. Neither can we place it under Rule 65 since the review therein is limited to jurisdictional questions.* The submission that because this Court has taken cognizance of cases involving Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770, that fact may be viewed as "acquiescence" or "acceptance" by it of the appellate jurisdiction contemplated in said Section 27, is unfortunately too tenuous. The jurisdiction of a court is not of acquiescence

as a matter of fact but an issue of conferment as a matter of law. Besides, we have already discussed the cases referred to, including the inaccuracies of some statements therein, and we have pointed out the instances when Rule 45 is involved, hence covered by Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 now under discussion, and when that provision would not apply if it is a judicial review under Rule 65. Private respondent invokes the rule that courts generally avoid having to decide a constitutional question, especially when the case can be decided on other grounds. As a general proposition that is correct. Here, however, there is an actual case susceptible of judicial determination. Also, the constitutional question, at the instance of this Court, was raised by the proper parties, although there was even no need for that because the Court can rule on the matter sua sponte when its appellate jurisdiction is involved. The constitutional question was timely raised, although it could even be raised any time likewise by reason of the jurisdictional issue confronting the Court. Finally, the resolution of the constitutional issue here is obviously necessary for the resolution of the present case. [22] It is, however, suggested that this case could also be decided on other grounds, short of passing upon; the constitutional question. We appreciate the ratiocination of private respondent but regret that we must reject the same. That private respondent could be absolved of the charge because the decision exonerating him is final and unappealable assumes that Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 is valid, but that is precisely one of the issues here. The prevailing rule that the Court should not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint is not applicable in this administrative case, as earlier explained. That two decisions rendered by this Court supposedly imply the validity of the aforementioned Section 7 of Rule III is precisely under review here because of some statements therein somewhat at odds with settled rules and the decisions of this Court on the same issues, hence to invoke the same would be to beg the question. V Taking all the foregoing circumstances in their true legal roles and effects, therefore, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 cannot validly authorize an appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently violates the proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court. No countervailing argument has been cogently presented to justify such disregard of the constitutional prohibition which, as correctly explained in First Leparto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, el al.[23] was intended to give this Court a measure of control over cases placed under its appellate Jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily burden the Court [24] We perforce have to likewise reject the supposed inconsistency of the ruling in First Lepanto Ceramics and some statements in Yabut and Alba, not only because of the difference in the factual settings, but also because those isolated cryptic statements in Yabut and Alba should best be clarified in the adjudication on the merits of this case. By way of anticipation, that will have to be undertaken by the proper court of competent jurisdiction. Furthermore in addition to our preceding discussion on whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 expanded the jurisdiction of this Court without its advice and consent, private respondent's position paper correctly yields the legislative background of Republic Act No. 6770. On September 26, 1989, the Conference Committee Report on S.B. No. 453 and H.B. No. 13646, setting forth the new version of what would later be Republic Act No. 6770, was approved on second reading by the House of Representatives. [25] The Senate was informed of the approval of the final version of the Act on October 2, 1989 [26] and the same was thereafter enacted into law by President Aquino on November 17, 1989. Submitted with said position paper is an excerpt showing that the Senate, in the deliberations on the procedure for appeal from the Office of the Ombudsman to this Court, was aware of the provisions of Section 30, Article III of the Constitution. It also reveals that Senator Edgardo Angara, as a co-author and the principal sponsor of S.B. No. 543 admitted that the said provision will expand this Court's jurisdiction, and that the Committee on Justice and Human Rights had not consulted this Court on the matter, thus: INTERPELLATION OF SENATOR SHAHANI

xxx Thereafter, with reference to Section 22(4) which provides that the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court, in reply to Senator Shahani's query whether the Supreme Court would agree to such provision in the light of Section 30, Article VI of the Constitution which requires its advice and concurrence in laws increasing its appellate jurisdiction, Senator Angara informed that the Committee has not yet consulted the Supreme Court regarding the matter. He agreed that the provision will expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction by allowing appeals through petitions for review, adding that they should be appeals on certiorari.[27] There is no showing that even up to its enactment, Republic Act No. 6770 was ever referred to this Court for its advice and consent .[28] VI As a consequence of our ratiocination that Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 should be struck down as unconstitutional, and in line with the regulatory philosophy adopted in appeals from quasi-judicial agencies in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43. There is an intimation in the pleadings, however, that said Section 27 refers to appellate jurisdiction which, being substantive in nature, cannot be disregarded by this Court under its rule-making power, especially if it results in a diminution, increase or modification of substantive rights. Obviously, however, where the law is procedural in essence and purpose, the foregoing consideration would not pose a proscriptive issue against the exercise of the rule-making power of this Court. This brings to fore the question of whether Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 is substantive or procedural. It will be noted that no definitive line can be drawn between those rules or statutes which are procedural, hence within the scope of this Court's rule-making power, and those which are substantive. In fact, a particular rule may be procedural in one context and substantive in another. [29] It is admitted that what is procedural and what is substantive is frequently a question of great difficulty.[30] It is not, however, an insurmountable problem if a rational and pragmatic approach is taken within the context of our own procedural and jurisdictional system. In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. [31] If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means o implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.[32] In the situation under consideration, a transfer by the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its rule-making power, of pending cases involving a review of decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary actions to the Court of Appeals which shall now be vested with exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereover, relates to procedure only.[33] This is so because it is not the right to appeal of an aggrieved party which is affected by the law. That right has been preserved. Only the procedure by which the appeal is to be made or decided has been changed. The rationale for this is that litigant has a vested right in a particular remedy, which may be changed by substitution without impairing vested rights, hence he can have none in rules of procedure which relate to the remedy.[34] Furthermore, it cannot be said that transfer of appellate jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals in this case is an act of creating a new right of appeal because such power of the Supreme Court to transfer appeals to subordinate appellate courts is purely a procedural and not a substantive power. Neither can we consider such transfer as impairing a vested right because the parties have still a remedy and still a competent tribunal to administer that remedy.[35] Thus, it has been generally held that rules or statutes involving a transfer of cases from one court to another, are procedural and remedial merely and that, as such, they are applicable to actions pending at the time the statute went into effect[36] or, in the case at bar, when its invalidity was declared. Accordingly, even from the

standpoint of jurisdiction ex hypothesi the validity of the transfer of appeals in said cases to the Court of Appeals can be sustained. WHEREFORE, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), together with Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), and any other provision of law or issuance implementing the aforesaid Act and insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court, are hereby declared INVALID and of no further force and effect. The instant petition is hereby referred and transferred to the Court of Appeals for final disposition, with said petition to be considered by the Court of Appeals pro hac vice as a petition for review under Rule 43, without prejudice to its requiring the parties to submit such amended or supplemental pleadings and additional documents or records as it may deem necessary and proper. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999 LEO ECHEGARAY, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., respondents. RESOLUTION PUNO, J.: For resolution are public respondents' Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of this Court dated January 4, 1990 temporarily restraining the execution of petitioner and Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. It is the submission of public respondents that: 1. The Decision in this case having become final and executory, its execution enters the exclusive ambit of authority of the executive authority. The issuance of the TRO may be construed as trenching on that sphere of executive authority; 2. The issuance of the temporary restraining order . . . creates dangerous precedent as there will never be an end to litigation because there is always a possibility that Congress may repeal a law. 3. Congress had earlier deliberated extensively on the death penalty bill. To be certain, whatever question may now be raised on the Death Penalty Law before the present Congress within the 6-month period given by this Honorable Court had in all probability been fully debated upon . . . 4. Under the time honored maxim lex futuro, judex praeterito, the law looks forward while the judge looks at the past, . . . the Honorable Court in issuing the TRO has transcended its power of judicial review. 5. At this moment, certain circumstances/supervening events transpired to the effect that the repeal or modification of the law imposing death penalty has become nil, to wit: a. The public pronouncement of President Estrada that he will veto any law imposing the death penalty involving heinous crimes. b. The resolution of Congressman Golez, et al., that they are against the repeal of the law; c. The fact that Senator Roco's resolution to repeal the law only bears his signature and that of Senator Pimentel. In their Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, public respondents attached a copy of House Resolution No. 629 introduced by Congressman Golez entitled "Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representative to reject any move to review Republic Act No. 7659 which provided for the re-imposition of death

penalty, notifying the Senate, the Judiciary and the Executive Department of the position of the House of Representative on this matter, and urging the President to exhaust all means under the law to immediately implement the death penalty law." The Resolution was concurred in by one hundred thirteen (113) congressman. In their Consolidated Comment, petitioner contends: (1) the stay order. . . is within the scope of judicial power and duty and does not trench on executive powers nor on congressional prerogatives; (2) the exercise by this Court of its power to stay execution was reasonable; (3) the Court did not lose jurisdiction to address incidental matters involved or arising from the petition; (4) public respondents are estopped from challenging the Court's jurisdiction; and (5) there is no certainty that the law on capital punishment will not be repealed or modified until Congress convenes and considers all the various resolutions and bills filed before it. Prefatorily, the Court likes to emphasize that the instant motions concern matters that are not incidents in G.R. No. 117472, where the death penalty was imposed on petitioner on automatic review of his conviction by this Court. The instant motions were filed in this case, G.R. No. 132601, where the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8177 (Lethal Injection Law) and its implementing rules and regulations was assailed by petitioner. For this reason, the Court in its Resolution of January 4, 1999 merely noted the Motion to Set Aside of Rodessa "Baby" R. Echegaray dated January 7, 1999 and Entry of Appearance of her counsel dated January 5, 1999. Clearly, she has no legal standing to intervene in the case at bar, let alone the fact that the interest of the State is properly represented by the Solicitor General. We shall now resolve the basic issues raised by the public respondents. I First. We do not agree with the sweeping submission of the public respondents that this Court lost its jurisdiction over the case at bar and hence can no longer restrain the execution of the petitioner. Obviously, public respondents are invoking the rule that final judgments can no longer be altered in accord with the principle that "it is just as important that there should be a place to end as there should be a place to begin litigation." 1 To start with, the Court is not changing even a comma of its final Decision. It is appropriate to examine with precision the metes and bounds of the Decision of this Court that became final. These metes and bounds are clearly spelled out in the Entry of Judgment in this case, viz: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT This is to certify that on October 12, 1998 a decision rendered in the above-entitled case was filed in this Office, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED insofar as petitioner seeks to declare the assailed statute (Republic Act No. 8177) as unconstitutional; but GRANTED insofar as Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are concerned, which are hereby declared INVALID because (a) Section 17 contravenes Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659; and (b) Section 19 fails to provide for review and approval of the Lethal Injection Manual by the Secretary of Justice, and unjustifiably makes the manual confidential, hence unavailable to interested parties including the accused/convict and counsel. Respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing and implementing Republic Act No. 8177 until the aforesaid Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 are appropriately amended, revised and/or corrected in accordance with this Decision. SO ORDERED. and that the same has, on November 6, 1988 become final and executory and is hereby recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment. Manila, Philippine.

The records will show that before the Entry of Judgment, the Secretary of Justice, the Honorable Serafin Cuevas, filed with this Court on October 21, 1998 a Compliance where he submitted the Amended Rules and Regulations implementing R.A. No. 8177 in compliance with our Decision. On October 28, 1998, Secretary Cuevas submitted a Manifestation informing the Court that he has caused the publication of the said Amended Rules and Regulations as required by the Administrative Code. It is crystalline that the Decision of this Court that became final and unalterable mandated: (1) that R.A. No. 8177 is not unconstitutional; (2) that sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement R.A. No. 8177 are invalid, and (3) R.A. No. 8177 cannot be enforced and implemented until sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement R.A. No. 8177 are amended. It is also daylight clear that this Decision was not altered a whit by this Court. Contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General, the rule on finality of judgment cannot divest this Court of its jurisdiction to execute and enforce the same judgment. Retired Justice Camilo Quiason synthesized the well established jurisprudence on this issue as follows: 2 xxx xxx xxx the finality of a judgment does not mean that the Court has lost all its powers nor the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Even after the judgment has become final the court retains its jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. 3 There is a difference between the jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment and its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. The former continues even after the judgment has become final for the purpose of enforcement of judgment; the latter terminates when the judgment becomes final. 4 . . . For after the judgment has become final facts and circumstances may transpire which can render the execution unjust or impossible. 5 In truth, the arguments of the Solicitor General has long been rejected by this Court. As aptly pointed out by the petitioner, as early as 1915, this Court has unequivocably ruled in the case of Director of Prisons v. Judge of First Instance, 6 viz: This Supreme Court has repeatedly declared in various decisions, which constitute jurisprudence on the subject, that in criminal cases, after the sentence has been pronounced and the period for reopening the same cannot change or alter its judgment, as its jurisdiction has terminated . . . When in cases of appeal or review the cause has been returned thereto for execution, in the event that the judgment has been affirmed, it performs a ministerial duty in issuing the proper order. But it does not follow from this cessation of functions on the part of the court with reference to the ending of the cause that the judicial authority terminates by having then passed completely to the Executive. The particulars of the execution itself, which are certainly not always included in the judgment and writ of execution, in any event are absolutely under the control of the judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person of the convict except to provide for carrying out of the penalty and to pardon. Getting down to the solution of the question in the case at bar, which is that of execution of a capital sentence, it must be accepted as a hypothesis that postponement of the date can be requested. There can be no dispute on this point. It is a well-known principle that notwithstanding the order of execution and the executory nature thereof on the date set or at the proper time, the date therefor can be postponed, even in sentences of death. Under the common law this postponement can be ordered in three ways: (1) By command of the King; (2) by discretion (arbitrio) of the court; and (3) by mandate of the law. It is sufficient to state this principle of the common law to render impossible that assertion in absolute terms that after the convict has once been placed in jail the trial court can not reopen the case to investigate the facts that show the need for postponement. If one of the ways is by direction of the court, it is acknowledged that even after the date of the execution has been fixed, and

notwithstanding the general rule that after the (court) has performed its ministerial duty of ordering the execution . . . and its part is ended, if however a circumstance arises that ought to delay the execution, and there is an imperative duty to investigate the emergency and to order a postponement. Then the question arises as to whom the application for postponing the execution ought to be addressed while the circumstances is under investigation and so to who has jurisdiction to make the investigation. The power to control the execution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject of substantial subtraction for our Constitution 7 vests the entirety of judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. To be sure, the important part of a litigation, whether civil or criminal, is the process of execution of decisions where supervening events may change the circumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness. It is because of these unforseen, supervening contingencies that courts have been conceded the inherent and necessary power of control of its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. 8 For this purpose, Section 6 of Rule 135 provides that "when by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or officer and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules." It bears repeating that what the Court restrained temporarily is the execution of its own Decision to give it reasonable time to check its fairness in light of supervening events in Congress as alleged by petitioner. The Court, contrary to popular misimpression, did not restrain the effectivity of a law enacted by Congress. 1wphi1.nt The more disquieting dimension of the submission of the public respondents that this Court has no jurisdiction to restrain the execution of petitioner is that it can diminish the independence of the judiciary. Since the implant of republicanism in our soil, our courts have been conceded the jurisdiction to enforce their final decisions. In accord with this unquestioned jurisdiction, this Court promulgated rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure which, among others, spelled out the rules on execution of judgments. These rules are all predicated on the assumption that courts have the inherent, necessary and incidental power to control and supervise the process of execution of their decisions. Rule 39 governs execution, satisfaction and effects of judgments in civil cases. Rule 120 governs judgments in criminal cases. It should be stressed that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure was granted by our Constitutions to this Court to enhance its independence, for in the words of Justice Isagani Cruz "without independence and integrity, courts will lose that popular trust so essential to the maintenance of their vigor as champions of justice." 9 Hence, our Constitutions continuously vested this power to this Court for it enhances its independence. Under the 1935 Constitution, the power of this Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure was granted but it appeared to be co-existent with legislative power for it was subject to the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement. Thus, its Section 13, Article VIII provides: Sec.13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress have the power to repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. The said power of Congress, however, is not as absolute as it may appear on its surface. In In re Cunanan 10Congress in the exercise of its power to amend rules of the Supreme Court regarding admission to the practice of law, enacted the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 11 which considered as a passing grade, the average of 70% in the bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up to August 1951 and 71% in the 1952 bar examinations. This Court

struck down the law as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, Mr. Justice Diokno held that " . . . the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment a judgment promulgated by this Court during the aforecited years affecting the bar candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislative nor executive department, that may do so. Any attempt on the part of these department would be a clear usurpation of its function, as is the case with the law in question." 12The venerable jurist further ruled: "It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license." By its ruling, this Court qualified the absolutist tone of the power of Congress to "repeal, alter or supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. The ruling of this Court in In re Cunanan was not changed by the 1973 Constitution. For the 1973 Constitution reiterated the power of this Court "to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, . . . which, however, may be repealed, altered or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa . . . ." More completely, Section 5(2)5 of its Article X provided: xxx xxx xxx Sec.5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers. xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, and the integration of the Bar, which, however, may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Well worth noting is that the 1973 Constitution further strengthened the independence of the judiciary by giving to it the additional power to promulgate rules governing the integration of the Bar. 13 The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of this Court. Its Section 5(5), Article VIII provides: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This Court for the first time was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also granted

for the first time the power to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the Executive. If the manifest intent of the 1987 Constitution is to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, it is inutile to urge, as public respondents do, that this Court has no jurisdiction to control the process of execution of its decisions, a power conceded to it and which it has exercised since time immemorial. To be sure, it is too late in the day for public respondents to assail the jurisdiction of this Court to control and supervise the implementation of its decision in the case at bar. As aforestated, our Decision became final and executory on November 6, 1998. The records reveal that after November 6, 1998, or on December 8, 1998, no less than the Secretary of Justice recognized the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a Manifestation and Urgent Motion to compel the trial judge, the Honorable Thelma A. Ponferrada, RTC, Br. 104, Quezon City to provide him ". . . a certified true copy of the Warrant of Execution dated November 17, 1998 bearing the designated execution day of death convict Leo Echegaray and allow (him) to reveal or announce the contents thereof, particularly the execution date fixed by such trial court to the public when requested." The relevant portions of the Manifestation and Urgent Motion filed by the Secretary of Justice beseeching this Court "to provide the appropriate relief" state: xxx xxx xxx 5. Instead of filing a comment on Judge Ponferrada's Manifestation however, herein respondent is submitting the instant Manifestation and Motion (a) to stress, inter alia, that the non-disclosure of the date of execution deprives herein respondent of vital information necessary for the exercise of his statutory powers, as well as renders nugatory the constitutional guarantee that recognizes the people's right to information of public concern, and (b) to ask this Honorable Court to provide the appropriate relief. 6. The non-disclosure of the date of execution deprives herein respondent of vital information necessary for the exercise of his power of supervision and control over the Bureau of Corrections pursuant to Section 39, Chapter 8, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, in relation to Title III, Book IV of such Administrative Code, insofar as the enforcement of Republic Act No. 8177 and the Amended Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 8177 is concerned and for the discharge of the mandate of seeing to it that laws and rules relative to the execution of sentence are faithfully observed. 7. On the other hand, the willful omission to reveal the information about the precise day of execution limits the exercise by the President of executive clemency powers pursuant to Section 19, Article VII (Executive Department) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides that the death sentence shall be carried out "without prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive powers at all times." (Emphasis supplied) For instance, the President cannot grant reprieve, i.e., postpone the execution of a sentence to a day certain (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 110 [1937]) in the absence of a precise date to reckon with. The exercise of such clemency power, at this time, might even work to the prejudice of the convict and defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the applicable

statute as when the date at execution set by the President would be earlier than that designated by the court. 8. Moreover, the deliberate non-disclosure of information about the date of execution to herein respondent and the public violates Section 7, Article III (Bill of Rights) and Section 28, Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which read: Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development shall, be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest. 9. The "right to information" provision is self-executing. It supplies "the rules by means of which the right to information may be enjoyed (Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, 167 [1972]) by guaranteeing the right and mandating the duty to afford access to sources of information. Hence, the fundamental right therein recognized may be asserted by the people upon the ratification of the Constitution without need for any ancillary act of the Legislature (Id., at p. 165) What may be provided for by the Legislature are reasonable conditions and limitations upon the access to be afforded which must, of necessity, be consistent with the declared State policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest (Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 28). However, it cannot be overemphasized that whatever limitation may be prescribed by the Legislature, the right and the duty under Art. III, Sec. 7 have become operative and enforceable by virtue of the adoption of the New Charter." (Decision of the Supreme Court En Banc in Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530, 534-535 [1987]. The same motion to compel Judge Ponferrada to reveal the date of execution of petitioner Echegaray was filed by his counsel, Atty. Theodore Te, on December 7, 1998. He invoked his client's right to due process and the public's right to information. The Solicitor General, as counsel for public respondents, did not oppose petitioner's motion on the ground that this Court has no more jurisdiction over the process of execution of Echegaray. This Court granted the relief prayed for by the Secretary of Justice and by the counsel of the petitioner in its Resolution of December 15, 1998. There was not a whimper of protest from the public respondents and they are now estopped from contending that this Court has lost its jurisdiction to grant said relief. The jurisdiction of this Court does not depend on the convenience of litigants. II Second. We likewise reject the public respondents' contention that the "decision in this case having become final and executory, its execution enters the exclusive ambit of authority of the executive department . . .. By granting the TRO, the Honorable Court has in effect granted reprieve which is an executive function." 14 Public respondents cite as their authority for this proposition, Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution which reads: Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress.

The text and tone of this provision will not yield to the interpretation suggested by the public respondents. The provision is simply the source of power of the President to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by final judgment. It also provides the authority for the President to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress. The provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after their finality. In truth, an accused who has been convicted by final judgment still possesses collateral rights and these rights can be claimed in the appropriate courts. For instance, a death convict who become insane after his final conviction cannot be executed while in a state of insanity. 15 As observed by Antieau, "today, it is generally assumed that due process of law will prevent the government from executing the death sentence upon a person who is insane at the time of execution." 16 The suspension of such a death sentence is undisputably an exercise of judicial power. It is not a usurpation of the presidential power of reprieve though its effects is the same the temporary suspension of the execution of the death convict. In the same vein, it cannot be denied that Congress can at any time amend R.A. No. 7659 by reducing the penalty of death to life imprisonment. The effect of such an amendment is like that of commutation of sentence. But by no stretch of the imagination can the exercise by Congress of its plenary power to amend laws be considered as a violation of the power of the President to commute final sentences of conviction. The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of a death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no higher right than the right to life. Indeed, in various States in the United States, laws have even been enacted expressly granting courts the power to suspend execution of convicts and their constitutionality has been upheld over arguments that they infringe upon the power of the President to grant reprieves. For the public respondents therefore to contend that only the Executive can protect the right to life of an accused after his final conviction is to violate the principle of co-equal and coordinate powers of the three branches of our government. III Third. The Court's resolution temporarily restraining the execution of petitioner must be put in its proper perspective as it has been grievously distorted especially by those who make a living by vilifying courts. Petitioner filed his Very Urgent Motion for Issuance of TRO on December 28, 1998 at about 11:30 p.m. He invoked several grounds, viz: (1) that his execution has been set on January 4, the first working day of 1999; (b) that members of Congress had either sought for his executive clemency and/or review or repeal of the law authorizing capital punishment; (b.1) that Senator Aquilino Pimentel's resolution asking that clemency be granted to the petitioner and that capital punishment be reviewed has been concurred by thirteen (13) other senators; (b.2) Senate President Marcelo Fernan and Senator Miriam S. Defensor have publicly declared they would seek a review of the death penalty law; (b.3) Senator Paul Roco has also sought the repeal of capital punishment, and (b.4) Congressman Salacrib Baterina, Jr., and thirty five (35) other congressmen are demanding review of the same law. When the Very Urgent Motion was filed, the Court was already in its traditional recess and would only resume session on January 18, 1999. Even then, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. called the Court to a Special Session on January 4, 1991 17 at 10. a.m. to deliberate on petitioner's Very Urgent Motion. The Court hardly had five (5) hours to resolve petitioner's motion as he was due to be executed at 3 p.m. Thus, the Court had the difficult problem of resolving whether petitioner's allegations about the moves in Congress to repeal or amend the Death Penalty Law are mere speculations or not. To the Court's majority, there were good reasons why the Court should not immediately dismiss petitioner's allegations as mere speculations and surmises. They noted that petitioner's allegations were made in a pleading under oath and were widely publicized in the print and broadcast media. It was also of judicial notice that the 11th Congress is a new Congress and has no less than one hundred thirty (130) new members whose views on capital punishment are still unexpressed. The present Congress is therefore different from the Congress that enacted the Death Penalty Law (R.A. No. 7659) and the Lethal Injection Law (R.A. No. 8177). In contrast, the Court's minority felt that petitioner's allegations lacked clear factual bases. There was hardly a time to verify petitioner's allegations as his execution was set at 3 p.m. And verification from

Congress was impossible as Congress was not in session. Given these constraints, the Court's majority did not rush to judgment but took an extremely cautious stance by temporarily restraining the execution of petitioner. The suspension was temporary "until June 15, 1999, coeval with the constitutional duration of the present regular session of Congress, unless it sooner becomes certain that no repeal or modification of the law is going to be made." The extreme caution taken by the Court was compelled, among others, by the fear that any error of the Court in not stopping the execution of the petitioner will preclude any further relief for all rights stop at the graveyard. As life was at, stake, the Court refused to constitutionalize haste and the hysteria of some partisans. The Court's majority felt it needed the certainty that the legislature will not petitioner as alleged by his counsel. It was believed that law and equitable considerations demand no less before allowing the State to take the life of one its citizens. The temporary restraining order of this Court has produced its desired result, i.e., the crystallization of the issue whether Congress is disposed to review capital punishment. The public respondents, thru the Solicitor General, cite posterior events that negate beyond doubt the possibility that Congress will repeal or amend the death penalty law. He names these supervening events as follows: xxx xxx xxx a. The public pronouncement of President Estrada that he will veto any law imposing the death penalty involving heinous crimes. b. The resolution of Congressman Golez, et al., that they are against the repeal of the law; c. The fact that Senator Roco's resolution to repeal the law only bears his signature and that of Senator Pimentel.18 In their Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, the Solicitor General cited House Resolution No. 629 introduced by Congressman Golez entitled "Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to reject any move to review R.A. No. 7659 which provided for the reimposition of death penalty, notifying the Senate, the Judiciary and the Executive Department of the position of the House of Representative on this matter and urging the President to exhaust all means under the law to immediately implement the death penalty law." The Golez resolution was signed by 113 congressman as of January 11, 1999. In a marathon session yesterday that extended up 3 o'clock in the morning, the House of Representative with minor, the House of Representative with minor amendments formally adopted the Golez resolution by an overwhelming vote. House Resolution No. 25 expressed the sentiment that the House ". . . does not desire at this time to review Republic Act 7659." In addition, the President has stated that he will not request Congress to ratify the Second Protocol in review of the prevalence of heinous crimes in the country. In light of these developments, the Court's TRO should now be lifted as it has served its legal and humanitarian purpose. A last note. In 1922, the famous Clarence Darrow predicted that ". . . the question of capital punishment had been the subject of endless discussion and will probably never be settled so long as men believe in punishment." 19 In our clime and time when heinous crimes continue to be unchecked, the debate on the legal and moral predicates of capital punishment has been regrettably blurred by emotionalism because of the unfaltering faith of the pro and anti-death partisans on the right and righteousness of their postulates. To be sure, any debate, even if it is no more than an exchange of epithets is healthy in a democracy. But when the debate deteriorates to discord due to the overuse of words that wound, when anger threatens to turn the majority rule to tyranny, it is the especial duty of this Court to assure that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the minority fully hold. As Justice Brennan reminds us ". . . it is the very purpose of the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights to declare certain values transcendent, beyond the reach of temporary political majorities." 20 Man has yet to invent a better hatchery of justice than the courts. It is a hatchery where justice will bloom only when we can prevent the roots of reason to be blown away by the winds of rage. The flame of the rule of law cannot be ignited by rage, especially the rage of the mob which is the mother of unfairness. The business of courts in rendering justice is to be fair and they can pass their litmus test only when they can be fair to him who is momentarily the most hated by society. 21

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court grants the public respondents' Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion to Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and lifts the Temporary Restraining Order issued in its Resolution of January 4, 1999. The Court also orders respondent trial court judge (Hon. Thelma A. Ponferrada, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 104) to set anew the date for execution of the convict/petitioner in accordance with applicable provisions of law and the Rules of Court, without further delay. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 204528 February 19, 2013 SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, DIRECTOR NONNATUS R. ROJAS and DEPUTY DIRECTOR REYNALDO 0. ESMERALDA, Petitioners, vs. MAGTANGGOL B. GATDULA, Respondent. RESOLUTION LEONEN, J.: Submitted for our resolution is a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin "the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, in Manila from implementing its Decision x x x in Civil Case No. 12-127405 granting respondent's application for the issuance of inspection and production orders x x x."1 This is raised through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 from the "Decision" rendered by the Regional Trial Court dated 20 March 2012. From the records, it appears that on 27 February 2012, respondent Magtanggol B. Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.2 This case was docketed as In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo of Atty. Magtanggol B. Gatdula, SP No. 12-127405. It was raffled to the sala of Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. on the same day. The Amparo was directed against petitioners Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda of the National Bureau of Investigation (DE LIMA, ET AL. for brevity). Gatdula wanted De Lima, et al. "to cease and desist from framing up Petitioner [Gatdula] for the fake ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder against Petitioner [Gatdula] in relation to the alleged ambush incident."3 Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued summons and ordered De Lima, et al. to file an Answer.4 He also set the case for hearing on 1 March 2012. The hearing was held allegedly for determining whether a temporary protection order may be issued. During that hearing, counsel for De Lima, et al. manifested that a Return, not an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases.5 In an Order dated 2 March 2012,6 Judge Pampilo insisted that "[s]ince no writ has been issued, return is not the required pleading but answer".7 The judge noted that the Rules of Court apply suppletorily in Amparo cases.8 He opined that the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure applied and thus required an Answer.9 Judge Pampilo proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case on 7 March 2012. 10 Even without a Return nor an Answer, he ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within five (5) working days after that hearing. Since the period to file an Answer had not yet lapsed by then, the judge also decided that the memorandum of De Lima, et al. would be filed in lieu of their Answer.11 On 20 March 2012, the RTC rendered a "Decision" granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo. The RTC also granted the interim reliefs prayed for, namely: temporary protection, production and inspection orders. The production and inspection orders were in relation to the evidence and reports involving an on-going investigation

of the attempted assassination of Deputy Director Esmeralda. It is not clear from the records how these pieces of evidence may be related to the alleged threat to the life, liberty or security of the respondent Gatdula. In an Order dated 8 October 2012, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 March 2012 filed by De Lima, et al. Petitioners Sec. De Lima, et al. thus came to this Court assailing the RTC "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 through a Petition for Review on Certiorari (With Very Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction) via Rule 45, as enunciated in Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo(A.M. No. 07-9- 12-SC, 25 September 2007), viz: SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both. x x x (Emphasis supplied). It is the Courts view that the "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 granting the writ of Amparo is not the judgment or final order contemplated under this rule. Hence, a Petition for Review under Rule 45 may not yet be the proper remedy at this time. The RTC and the Parties must understand the nature of the remedy of Amparo to put its procedures in the proper context. The remedy of the Writ of Amparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty12 and security13 as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.14 The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was issued as an exercise of the Supreme Court's power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.15 It aims to address concerns such as, among others, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.16 Due to the delicate and urgent nature of these controversies, the procedure was devised to afford swift but decisive relief.17 It is initiated through a petition18 to be filed in a Regional Trial Court, Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.19 The judge or justice then makes an "immediate" evaluation20 of the facts as alleged in the petition and the affidavits submitted "with the attendant circumstances detailed". 21 After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the Writ of Amparo22 or immediately dismiss the case. Dismissal is proper if the petition and the supporting affidavits do not show that the petitioner's right to life, liberty or security is under threat or the acts complained of are not unlawful. On the other hand, the issuance of the writ itself sets in motion presumptive judicial protection for the petitioner. The court compels the respondents to appear before a court of law to show whether the grounds for more permanent protection and interim reliefs are necessary. The respondents are required to file a Return23 after the issuance of the writ through the clerk of court. The Return serves as the responsive pleading to the petition.24 Unlike an Answer, the Return has other purposes aside from identifying the issues in the case. Respondents are also required to detail the actions they had taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party. If the respondents are public officials or employees, they are also required to state the actions they had taken to: (i) verify the identity of the aggrieved party; (ii) recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition; (iii) identify witnesses and obtain statements concerning the death or disappearance; (iv) determine the cause, manner, location, and time of death or disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance; and (vi) bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.25 Clearly these matters are important to the judge so that s/he can calibrate the means and methods that will be required to further the protections, if any, that will be due to the petitioner. There will be a summary hearing26 only after the Return is filed to determine the merits of the petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the Return is not filed, the hearing will be done ex parte.27 After the hearing, the court will render the judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision.28 If the allegations are proven with substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate.29 The judgment should contain measures which the judge views as essential for the continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo case. These measures must be detailed

enough so that the judge may be able to verify and monitor the actions taken by the respondents. It is this judgment that could be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.30 After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be satisfied. In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioners life, liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the judgment. Parenthetically, the case may also be terminated through consolidation should a subsequent case be filed either criminal or civil.31 Until the full satisfaction of the judgment, the extraordinary remedy of Amparo allows vigilant judicial monitoring to ensure the protection of constitutional rights. The "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 assailed by the petitioners could not be the judgment or final order that is appealable under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. This is clear from the tenor of the dispositive portion of the "Decision", to wit: The Branch Clerk of Court of Court [sic] is hereby DIRECTED to issue the Writ of Amparo. Likewise, the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to effect the service of the Writ of Amparo in an expeditious manner upon all concerned, and for this purpose may call upon the assistance of any military or civilian agency of the government. This "Decision" pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, not thejudgment under Section 18. The "Decision" is thus an interlocutory order, as suggested by the fact that temporary protection, production and inspection orders were given together with the decision. The temporary protection, production and inspection orders are interim reliefs that may be granted by the court upon filing of the petition but before final judgment is rendered.32 The confusion of the parties arose due to the procedural irregularities in the RTC. First, the insistence on filing of an Answer was inappropriate. It is the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy to those whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated. In utter disregard of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Judge Pampilo insisted on issuing summons and requiring an Answer. Judge Pampilos basis for requiring an Answer was mentioned in his Order dated 2 March 2012: Under Section 25 of the same rule [on the Writ of Amparo], the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with the said rule. Considering the summary nature of the petition, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure shall apply. Section 5. Answer Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his Answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. x x x WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the respondents are required to file their Answer ten (days) from receipt of this Order.33 The 1991 Revised Rules of Summary Procedure is a special rule that the Court has devised for the following circumstances: SECTION 1. Scope. This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction: A. Civil Cases: (1) All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, x x x. (2) All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiffs claim does not exceed x x x. B. Criminal Cases: (1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations; (2) Violations of the rental law; (3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;

(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, x x x. xxxx It is clear from this rule that this type of summary procedure only applies to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. It is mindboggling how this rule could possibly apply to proceedings in an RTC. Aside from that, this Court limited the application of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. 34 It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced. The second irregularity was the holding of a hearing on the main case prior to the issuance of the writ and the filing of a Return. Without a Return, the issues could not have been properly joined. Worse, is the trial courts third irregularity: it required a memorandum in lieu of a responsive pleading (Answer) of De Lima, et al. The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on the other hand, is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually required before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these submissions have different functions in facilitating the suit. More importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.35 The fourth irregularity was in the "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 itself. In the body of its decision, the RTC stated: "Accordingly this court GRANTS the privilege of the writ and the interim reliefs prayed for by the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied). This gives the impression that the decision was the judgment since the phraseology is similar to Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo: "SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied." (Emphasis supplied). The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ ofAmparo. After examining the petition and its attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner's life, liberty or security. A judgment which simply grants "the privilege of the writ" cannot be executed. 1wphi1 It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the petitioner. Petitions filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ ofAmparo arise out of very real and concrete circumstances. Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or ritualistic as "granting the privilege of the Writ of Amparo." The procedural irregularities in the RTC affected the mode of appeal that petitioners used in elevating the matter to this Court. It is the responsibility of counsels for the parties to raise issues using the proper procedure at the right time. Procedural rules are meant to assist the parties and courts efficiently deal with the substantive issues pertaining to a case. When it is the judge himself who disregards the rules of procedure, delay and confusion result. The Petition for Review is not the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory order denominated as "Decision" dated 20 March 2012. A Petition for Certiorari, on the other hand, is prohibited. 36 Simply dismissing the present petition, however, will cause grave injustice to the parties involved. It undermines the salutary purposes for which the Rule on the Writ of Amparo were promulgated.

In many instances, the Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its rules in order to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.37 The rules can be suspended on the following grounds: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (3) the merits of the case, (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.38 WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, as a prophylactic to the irregularities committed by the trial court judge, and by virtue of its powers under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution, the Court RESOLVES to: (1) NULLIFY all orders that are subject of this Resolution issued by Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. after respondent Gatdula filed the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo; (2) DIRECT Judge Pampilo to determine within forty-eight (48) hours from his receipt of this Resolutionwhether the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is proper on the basis of the petition and its attached affidavits. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to cause the personal service of this Resolution on Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. of Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for his proper guidance together with a WARNING that further deviation or improvisation from the procedure set in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC shall be meted with severe consequences. SO ORDERED. [G.R. No. 140884. March 6, 2001] GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (SECOND DIVISION) and VICTORIO R. SUAYBAGUIO, JR.,respondents. DECISION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: Procedural rules in election cases are designed to achieve not only a correct but also an expeditious determination of the popular will of the electorate. Unfortunately, the divergent interpretation of said rules by the contending parties has, until now, prolonged the termination of such cases, thus failing to attain the desired result. Such is the situation in the present case. The antecedent facts are: Petitioner Gelacio P. Gementiza and private respondent Victorio R. Suaybaguio, Jr. were candidates for Vice-Governor in the Province of Davao del Norte during the May 11, 1998 national and local elections. On May 18, 1998, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner the winner, with a total of 109,985 votes as against private respondents 108,862, or a margin of 1,123 votes. Claiming that fraud and irregularities were committed against him during the voting and counting of votes, private respondent promptly filed on May 28, 1998 an election protest[1] with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Manila. The case, docketed as EPC No. 98-58, was later assigned to public respondent COMELEC (Second Division). Private respondents protest is anchored on the following grounds: (a) several members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) padded more than 1,000 votes, committed deliberate errors in the reading of ballots, and made erroneous recording of votes in the election returns intended to favor herein petitioner; (b) strangers, in connivance with the BEI, voted in behalf of those who were not able to vote, and the watchers were intimidated, threatened and forced to leave the polling places; (c) the BEI incorrectly interpreted the rules on the appreciation of ballots numbering more than 1,000 votes cast in favor of private respondent and were either invalidated or considered stray votes; and (d) more than 1,000 marked ballots cast in favor of petitioner were considered valid and counted in his favor. These allegations were denied by petitioner in his answer[2] filed on June 22, 1998.

Thereafter, upon order by public respondent, a revision of the contested ballots from 624 protested precincts was conducted in the COMELEC central office in Manila. After the revision proceeding was completed, and during the hearing on August 5, 1999 for the initial presentation of evidence in support of his election protest, private respondent waived the presentation of testimonial evidence and rested his case solely on the basis of documentary evidence consisting of the revision reports and other election-related documents. On the same day, he formally offered these documentary evidence. Forthwith, petitioner filed his comment thereon. On September 6, 1999, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence (denominated as Motion To Direct The Protestant Victorio R. Suaybaguio, Jr. To Show Cause Why His Protest Should Not Be Dismissed And/Or Demurrer To The Protestants Evidence).[3] Petitioner alleged therein that private respondents allegations of fraud and irregularities in his protest were negated by the Minutes of Voting of the protes ted precincts which the protestant has also adopted as his evidence, hence his protest has no more leg to stand on,[4] and this Protest has no more reason to co ntinue, nor is there any legal justification to require the protestee to present his evidence.[5] Petitioner thus prayed that private respondents protest be dismissed.[6] In an order dated October 11, 1999,[7] public respondent denied petitioners demurrer to evidence. In denying petitioners demurrer to evidence, public respondent held that it could already ascertain the true choice of the electorate through an examination of the revision of votes, the appreciation of the ballots and the results of the voting in the uncontested precincts - all of which are now before the COMELEC. Moreover, following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Demetrio vs. Lopez (50 Phil. 45 [1927]) and Jardiel vs. COMELEC (124 SCRA 650 [1983]), the protestee in an election protest who demurs to the evidence presented by the protestant after the latter has rested his case, impliedly waives the presentation of his evidence. Thus, public respondent considered the case submitted for resolution after the parties shall have filed, if they so desire, their respective memoranda on or before November 18, 1999. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration[8] of the October 11, 1999 order, contending that it is premature and contrary to law and the due process clause of the Constitution considering that under Section 1, Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, he has the right to present his evidence even if his demurrer was denied. Moreover, the cases cited by public respondent are inapplicable in the instant case. Thus, he prayed that he be allowed to present his evidence. Petitioner further prayed that his motion for reconsideration be certified and elevated to the COMELEC en banc pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure of February 15, 1993, which provides that (u)pon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc. Public respondent, in an order dated November 29, 1999,[9] denied petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, citing Calabig vs. Villanueva (135 SCRA 300 [1985]) and Enojas, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections (283 SCRA 229 [1997]), reiterating the ruling in Demetrio (supra) and Jardiel (supra). In denying petitioners prayer that his motion for reconsideration be certified and elevated to the COMELEC en banc, public respondent held that the assailed October 11, 1999 order is interlocutory in character considering that respondents protest has yet to be resolved. Petitioner elevated the matter to this Court via the instant petition for certiorari seeking the nullification of public respondents orders dated October 11, 1999 and November 29, 1999. In an en banc resolution dated January 18, 2000,[10] this Court dismissed the petition for having been prematurely filed. The Constitution, in its Section 7, Article IX-A in relation to Section 3, Article IX-C, and Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandate that only final orders, rulings and decisions of the COMELEC en banc can be challenged before the Supreme Court on certiorari.[11] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration[12] of this Courts order, contending that public respondents unjustified denial of his prayer to elevate to the COMELEC en banc his motion to reconsider the October 11, 1999

order left him with no other recourse but to come directly to us for relief. In the same motion, petitioner also prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin public respondent from further hearing the protest case until his motion to reconsider the order of October 11, 1999 has been passed upon by the Commission en banc.[13] In order not to render moot the issues raised in the instant petition, this Court issued a temporary restraining order dated February 10, 2000,[14] effective immediately, directing the COMELEC (Second Division) to cease and desist from further proceeding with the election protest until further orders from the Court. On February 15, 2000, this Court, in an en banc resolution,[15] granted petitioners motion for reconsideration, reinstated the instant petition and required the respondents to comment thereon. Both private respondent and public respondent (represented by the Solicitor General) filed their separate comments[16] on the petition, to which petitioner submitted a reply. Thereafter, the parties filed their respective memoranda. On February 15, 2000, this Court gave due course to the petition.[17] In his petition, petitioner maintains: 1. That the filing of a demurrer to evidence does not carry with it an implied waiver of private respondents right to present evidence; and 2. That the October 11, 1999 order of public respondent denying the demurrer to evidence is not interlocutory in character but a final order; hence, his motion to reconsider the said order should be elevated to the COMELEC en banc for resolution. We rule against petitioner. In support of his position that he does not lose his right to present evidence after the denial of his demurrer to evidence by the public respondent, petitioner invokes Section 1, Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which reads: Section 1. Demurrer to Evidence. - After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence . If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived his right to present evidence. (underscoring ours) The petitioner urges us to apply the above-quoted rule to his case and to reiterate our decision in Northwest Airlines vs. Court of Appeals[18] which sets a guideline on demurrer to evidence in civil cases, as follows: We agree with the Court of Appeals in its holding that the trial court erred in deciding the entire case on its merit. Indeed, as to the demurrer to evidence, the trial court should have been solely guided by the procedure laid down in the above- mentioned rule on demurrer to evidence. It had no choice other than to grant or to deny the demurrer. It could not, without committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction, deny the motion and then forthwith grant TORRES claims on a finding that TORRES has established a preponderance of evidence in support of such claims. In the instant case, the trial court did just that insofar as moral damages, attorneys fees, and expenses of litigation were concerned. What it should have done was to merely deny the demurrer and set a date for the reception of NORTHWESTs evidence in chief. [19] (underscoring ours) What petitioner is saying is that the rule on demurrer to evidence in civil cases is applicable to election cases. That is not so. Section 4, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that (t)hese Rules shall not apply to election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient. In the same vein, under Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Rules of Civil Procedure apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.

The COMELEC Rules of Procedure is silent on the subject of demurrer to evidence. This question now arises: Can we apply by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient Section 1, Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, on a demurrer to evidence in an election protest? We answer in the negative. It should be underscored that the nature of an election protest case differs from an ordinary civil action. Because of this difference, the Rules of Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot apply to election cases even by analogy or in a suppletory character, especially becaus e the application of said Rules would not be practicable and convenient. Our decision in Estrada vs. Sto. Domingo[20] emphasizes the special and expeditious nature of election cases, the early resolution of which should not be hampered by any unnecessary observance of procedural rules. There we held: 2. We face the problem ahead with an eye to the nature of election contest proceedings. The statutory scheme clearly mapped out in the Revised Election Code is that proceedings in election protests are special and expeditious. The periods for filing pleadings are short. Trials are swift. Decisions in municipal election contests are to be handed down in six months after the protest is presented. The time to file a notice of appeal is cut short to five days from notice of the decision. Appeal is to be decided within three months after the case is filed with the clerk of the court to which appeal is taken. Preferential disposition of election contests except as to habeas corpus proceedings is set forth in the law. Even the rules of court make it abundantly clear that election cases enjoy preferential status. The proceedings should not be encumbered by delays. All of these are because the term of elective office is likewise short. There is the personal stake of the contestants which generates feuds and discords. Above all is the public interest. Title to public elective office must not be left long under cloud. Efficiency of public administration should not be impaired. It is thus understandable that pitfalls which may retard the determination of election contests should be avoided. Courts should heed the imperative need for dispatch. Obstacles and technicalities which fetter the peoples will should not stand in the way of a prompt termination of election contests. Since 1966, when this Court in Lagumbay vs. Climaco (16 SCRA 175) projected the pressing need to strike a blow at the pernicious grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest slogan of some candidates or parties, we observe, to our dismay, that courts of justice still have to cope with oft-recurring cases which come about in utter disregard of this rule. These are the desiderata which should be uppermost in the mind of courts of justice, if only to give substance to the constitutional precept that [s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.[21] (underscoring ours) A more detailed and emphatic ratiocination of a substantially similar issue is our recent en banc pronouncement in Enojas, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections,[22] thus: The main issue in this case, therefore, involves the determination of whether the motion to dismiss filed by respondent Rodriguez should be considered as a demurrer to evidence by reason of which he isdeemed to have waived his right to present evidence. We rule in the affirmative. The present controversy does not involve a novel issue. As early as the case of Demetrio vs. Lopez (50 Phil. 45 [1927]), wherein after the protestant had introduced his evidence, the protestee, before presenting his own, filed a motion to dismiss the protest upon the ground that the evidence presented by the protestant did not show that he had obtained a greater number of votes than the protestee, and reserving the right to present his evidence if his motion was decided adversely, this Court held that: In regard to the first assignment of error, the practice followed in the courts of these Islands is to per mit the defendant to present a motion for dismissal in ordinary cases after the plaintiff has rested, reserving the right to present his evidence if the ruling on his motion is adverse to him either in the first instance or on appeal. In an election protest proceeding, however, which is a summary one, and in which the periods are short and

fatal, and trials rapid and preferential as the peremptory nature of the litigation so requires, the motion for dismissal at that stage of the proceeding must be considered as a demurrer to the evidence presented by the protestant, with implied waiver by the protestee to present his evidence, whatever may be the ruling, whether adverse or favorable, either in the first instance or on appeal, the court of origin or appellate court having the power to definitely decide the protest. If, in the prosecution of election protests theordinary practice were to be followed in regard to the presentation of motions for dismissal or of demurrers to the evidence, in the majority of cases, if not always, the law would be frustrated and the will of the electorate defeated, to the great detriment of the underlying principles of representative government, because, in case of revocation of a ruling sustaining the motion of dismissal or the demurrer on appeal, the case would have to be remanded to the court below for the continuation of the trial and the introduction of evidence by the protestee, thus causing the proceeding to continue during the term of the office in question, with the possible result that the defeated, and not the elected, candidate would be discharging the office. In election protests, therefore, the protestee should not be permitted to present a motion for dismissal or a demurrer to the evidence of the protestant, unless he waives the introduction of his own evidence in case the ruling on his motion or demurrer is adverse to him, in which case the court that tries the case must definitely decide it. In the present case, the motion for dismissal filed by the protestee has the effect of a demurrer to the evidence presented by the protestant, he having thereby impliedly waived the introduction of his evidence, for which reason the trial court did not commit an error in sustaining said motion and definitely deciding the case without requiring the protestee to present his evidence. The aforequoted ruling was reiterated in the la ter case of Jardiel vs. Commission on Elections, et al. (124 SCRA 650 [1983]) wherein the motion to dismiss filed by the protestee, after the protestant had submitted a written offer of evidence, was considered as a demurrer to the evidence presented. In the succeeding case of Calabig vs. Villanueva, etc., et al. (135 SCRA 300 [1985], the foregoing pronouncement was quoted with approval and applied as a doctrinal rule. The instant petition is substantially on all fours with the three cited cases and no co mpelling reason exists to warrant an exception thereto. The fact that the motion to dismiss filed by respondent Rodriguez was initially granted by the trial court, but subsequently reversed on appeal by the COMELEC on the basis of the jurisdictional grounds raised therein, does not warrant a ruling to the contrary. The reason is that the motion to dismiss filed in this case did not only raise a couple of defective jurisdictional issues but likewise challenged and demurred to the sufficiency of the evidence adduced therein by petitioner Enojas, through these allegations: 2. This protest is without any cause of action. It appears from the face of the protest and even in the exhibits formally offered, admitting in arguendo that the same is admitted by the Court, that the herein protest has no cause of action. The allegation in the protest clearly shows that protestant has no cause of action against the protestee. Again, granting in arguendo, that the herein protestant actually garnered more votes than herein protestee, the protest should be filed against the person or persons liable against such error or errors. and thereafter prayed that the herein protest be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, nonpayment of correct filing fee, for being premature as the pre-proclamation protest is not yet terminated, and the protest is ambiguous whether it is for election contest or judicial recount. Hence, we agree that respondent Rodriguez had waived his right to present evidence.[23](underscoring ours) The doctrinal ruling in Demetrio vs. Lopez[24] has been consistently invoked by this Court for seventy-four (74) years now. We see no reason to re-examine the venerable doctrine because the philosophy behind it applies with even greater force today. Candidates now use more sophisticated methods to win through irregularities and follow them up with a pattern of procedural delays until all that is left to the winner is a meaningless victory. In filing a demurrer to evidence after the protestant has rested his case, the protestee wants at that point of time the

proceedings terminated and all uncertainties about his victory cleared with dispatch. Verily, he impliedly waives his right to present his evidence. And that exactly is what petitioner had in mind when he demurred to private respondents evidence in the protest proceedings below, asserting that: III Unquestionably, based on what appears in the Minutes of Voting, the protestants allegation of fraud is completely without basis. Hence, this Protest has no more reason to continue, nor is there any legal justification to require the protestee to present his evidence. xxx xxx xxx C O N C L U S I O N Considering that the protestants main allegations of fraud and irregularities in the protested precin cts are negated by the minutes of Voting from the protested precincts which the protestant has also adopted as his evidence, his protest has no more leg to stand on. His cause of action has been completely demolished by his own judicial admission consisting of his submission of the minutes of Voting as part of his evidence. To sustain the protestants theory of fraud and irregularities in the protested precincts in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, is to allow him to smear the electoral triumph of his own running mate (Governor Rodolfo P. Del Rosario) who won as governor by an overwhelming majority. Such an absurd position should not be permitted to stand especially in this case where the protestant has not presented any credible or convincing evidence to support his theory. It is more in keeping with the objective of the rules of this Commission to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding brought before it to dismiss this Protest outright. The protestee most respectfully submits that the kind of evidence submitted by the protestant in support of his theory no longer makes it imperative for protestee to submit additional countervailing evidence aside from those he has submitted in support of this motion. P R A Y E R WHEREFORE in view of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed that an order issue from this Commission, Second Division, directing the protestant to show cause why his Protest should not be dismissed, or ordering the immediate and outright dismissal of the Protest filed by the Protestant pursuant to the Comelec Rules of Procedure. xxx xxx xxx[25] (underscoring ours) To accentuate his desire not to present anymore his evidence, the petitioner asserted once again in his rejoinder to private respondents opposition that there is no more reason for him to submit his evidence because the protestant has not presented evidence worth rebutting.[26] What could be a clearer proof of petitioners waiver of his right to present evidence in the election protest case than his very own categor ical and steadfast declarations in his pleadings? We, therefore, cannot permit him, after his demurrer was denied, to make a complete turn around by now asking the public respondent to allow him to present his evidence. In this regard, we quote with approval public respondents assailed ruling of November 29, 1999: It is not candid of the protestee to cry that he has been denied of due process and pray in his motion for reconsideration that he be allowed to present evidence on the Election Protest Proper after he had averred with full emphasis that `there is no more reason for him to submit his evidence because the protestant has not presented evidence worth rebutting, and led the Commission to issue an Order which he now assails. A favorable grant on the protestees motion for reconsideration would open the door for continuation of the trial and introduction of evidence by the protestee, thus causing the proceedings to continue during the term of the office in question (which is about only 18 months left) and thereby delay the final decision in the election protest to the benefit of the occupant of the office, as pointed out in Demetrio and reiterated in subsequent cases above cited.

Furthermore, if the Commission succumbs to the protestees theory that it is premature for the Commission to resolve this case on the main issue of who won during the subject election and that the proceedings in this case should continue for the presentation of his evidence after waiving his right to present the same through a demurrer, the Commission would cause undue delay in the resolution of the two other cases pending before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), which had communicated to the Commission in its Order of April 23, 1999 as follows: The Commission on Elections (Second Division) is requested to conduct the revision and appreciation proceedings in EPC No. 98-58 (Suaybaguio, Jr., vs. Gementiza) in the most expeditious manner possible in order that the subject ballot boxes and other election documents can be turned over to the Tribunal in due time. No revision of ballots shall be conducted without prior notice being given directly to all parties in SET Case No. 00198 (Pagdanganan vs. Aquino) and SET Case No. 002-98 (Lagman vs. Guingona, Jr., et al.) The fear of the protestee that there is no evidence at all on the part of the protestee which the Comelec will consider is misplaced. In the determination of who between the parties herein won, the Commission is bound by law to examine the claimed and contested ballots of both the protestant and the protestee which have been marked as exhibits during the revision proceedings. Finally, the ruling of this Commission as contained in its Order dated October 11, 1999 is a matter of procedure and does not finally dispose of the case on the merits. The Commission is yet to resolve the case on the issue of who between the parties won in the contested office of Vice-Governor of Davao del Norte during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Order dated October 11, 1999 being interlocutory in character (Nepomoceno vs. Salazar, 173 SCRA 366), the same cannot be elevated to the Commission En Banc but should be acted upon by the Division where the same was filed (It is not mandatory on the part of a division of the COMELEC to refer a ll pending motions for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. (Bulaong vs. COMELEC, First Division, 220 SCRA 745, 749 [1993]).[27] This brings us to the second issue raised by petitioner, i.e., that the challenged October 11, 1999 order denying his demurrer to evidence is not interlocutory but a final one, and hence his motion to reconsider the said order should be elevated to the COMELEC en banc for resolution. We do not agree. Section 5, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, provides: SEC. 5. How Motion for Reconsideration Disposed of.- Upon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the fling thereof, notify the presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc. Under the above-quoted rule, the acts of a Division that are subject of a motion for reconsideration must have a character of finality before the same can be elevated to the COMELEC en banc. The elementary rule is that an order is final in nature if it completely disposes of the entire case. But if there is something more to be done in the case after its issuance, that order is interlocutory. As correctly pointed out by public respondent in its assailed order of November 29, 1999, the October 11, 1999 order did not dispose of the case completely as there is something more to be done which is to decide the election protest. As such, it is the herein public respondent (Second Division of the COMELEC) which issued the interlocutory order of October 11, 1999 that should resolve petitioners motion for reconsideration, not the COMELEC en banc.[28] Accordingly, the applicable rule on the subject is Section 5(c), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which states: Rule 3, Section 5(c). Any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc except motions on interlocutory orders of the division, which shall be resolved by the divisions which issued the order. (underscoring ours) That only final orders of a Division may be raised before the COMELEC en banc is in accordance with Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution which mandates that only motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the Commission on Elections en banc, thus:

Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in Division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc. (underscoring ours) It bears stressing that under this constitutional provision, the COMELEC en banc shall decide motions for reconsideration only of decisions of a Division, meaning those acts of final character. Clearly, the assailed order denying petitioners demurrer to evidence, being interlocutory, may not be resolved by the COMELEC en banc.[29] Even granting that petitioners motion to reconsider the October 11, 1999 order may be elevated to the COMELEC en banc, still his plea that he be allowed to present evidence after his demurrer was denied must certainly be rejected since, as already discussed earlier, such prayer is legally impermissible. In fine, we find that public respondent did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on February 10, 2000 is LIFTED effective immediately. Public respondent Commission on Elections (Second Division) is DIRECTED to resolve the instant election protest on the merits with deliberate dispatch. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Baguio City THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 161070 April 14, 2008 JOHN HILARIO y SIBAL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by John Hilario y Sibal (petitioner), seeking to annul and set aside the Resolutions dated August 19, 2003 1 and November 28 20032 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75820. The antecedents are as follows: Petitioner, together with one Gilbert Alijid (Alijid), was charged with two counts3 of Murder in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Quezon City to which petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty. During trial, Atty. Raul Rivera of the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), counsel of Alijid, took over representing petitioner in view of the death of the latter's counsel. On December 5, 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision4 finding petitioner and his co-accused Alijid guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal in each count. On May 10, 2002, petitioner, this time unassisted by counsel, filed with the RTC a Petition for Relief 5 from the Decision dated December 5, 2001 together with an affidavit of merit. In his petition, petitioner contended that at the time of the promulgation of the judgment, he was already confined at Quezon City Jail and was directed to be committed to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa; that he had no way of personally filing the notice of appeal thus he instructed his lawyer to file it on his behalf; that he had no choice but to repose his full trust and confidence to his lawyer; that he had instructed his lawyer to file the necessary motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal; that on May 2, 2002, he was already incarcerated at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and learned from the grapevine of his impending transfer to the Iwahig Penal Colony, Palawan; that believing that

the notice of appeal filed by his counsel prevented the Decision dated December 5, 2001 from becoming final to warrant his transfer, he instructed his representative to get a copy of the notice of appeal from the RTC; that no notice of appeal was filed by his lawyer in defiance of his clear instructions; and that the RTC Decision showed that it was received by his counsel on February 1, 2002 and yet the counsel did not inform him of any action taken thereon. Petitioner claimed that he had a meritorious defense, to wit: 1. The Decision dated December 5, 2001, on page 16 thereof states an imprisonment term of eight (8) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of Reclusion Temporal - a matter which ought to be rectified; 2. The undersigned is a first time offender; 3. No ruling was laid down on the stipulated facts (Decision, p. 3) relative to the (1) absence of counsel during the alleged inquest, and (2) absence of warrant in arresting the accused after ten (10) days from the commission of the crime; 4. Absence of a corroborating witness to the purported lone eyewitness, as against the corroborated testimony of accused-petitioner's alibi; 5. The Commission on Human Rights investigation on the torture of the accused-petitioner; 6. and others.6 Petitioner argued that he was meted a total of 16 years imprisonment or almost equal to the previous capital punishment of 20 years which was given an automatic review by the Supreme Court, thus it is of greater interest of justice that his case be reviewed by the appellate court; and that no damage will be sustained if the appeal is given due course since he continues to languish in jail while the Petition for Relief is pending. The Assistant City Prosecutor filed his Comment on the Petition for Relief where he contended that the petition should no longer be entertained; and that perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law was not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect the appeal rendered the judgment final and executory. The records do not show that the RTC required petitioner's counsel to whom petitioner attributed the act of not filing the notice of appeal to file his comment. On September 30, 2002, petitioner's counsel filed a Withdrawal of Appearance 7 from the case with petitioner's consent. Again, the documents before us do not show the action taken by the RTC thereon. In an Order8 dated December 13, 2002, the RTC dismissed petitioner's petition for relief with the following disquisition: After a careful study of the instant petition and the arguments raised by the contending parties, the Court is not persuaded by petitioner/accused's allegation that he was prevented from filing a notice of appeal due to excusable negligence of his counsel. Accused's allegation that he indeed specifically instructed his counsel to file a notice of appeal of the Decision dated [sic] and the latter did not heed his instruction is at best self-serving and unsubstantiated and thus, unworthy of credence. At any rate, even if said omission should be considered as negligence, it is a well-settled rule that negligence of counsel is binding on the client. x x x Besides, nowhere does it appear that accused/petitioner was prevented from fairly presenting his defense nor does it appear that he was prejudiced as the merits of this case were adequately passed upon in the Decision dated December 5, 2001. It must also be pointed out that in his petition for relief, he stated that he instructed his counsel to file the necessary motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal of the Decision dated December 5, 2001, whereas in his affidavit of merit, he claimed to have told his counsel to simply file a notice of appeal thereof.9 (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner, again by himself, filed a petition for certiorari with the CA on the ground that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his petition for relief. He claims that the delay in appealing his case without his fault constitutes excusable negligence to warrant the granting of his petition for relief. In a Resolution dated August 19, 2003, the CA dismissed the petition in this wise: It appearing that petitioner in the instant petition for certiorari failed to attach the following documents cited in his petition, namely: 1. The December 5, 2001 Decision; 2. Comment of the City Prosecutor; 3. Manifestation of petitioner's counsel de oficio signifying his withdrawal as petitioner's counsel. The instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and as prayed for by the Solicitor General.10 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 28, 2003 for having been filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period, in violation of Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court and for failure to attach to the petition, the relevant and pertinent documents. The CA also stressed that procedural rules are not to be belittled simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Hence, herein recourse filed by petitioner, still unassisted by counsel, raising the following issues: Whether or not the delay in appealing the instant case due to the defiance of the petitioner's counsel de oficio to seasonably file a Notice of Appeal, constitutes excusable negligence to entitle the undersigned detention prisoner/ petitioner to pursue his appeal? Whether or not pro hac vice, the mere invocation of justice warrants the review of a final and executory judgment? Petitioner contends that the negligence of his counsel de oficio cannot be binding on him for the latter's defiance of his instruction to appeal automatically breaks the fiduciary relationship between counsel-client and cannot be against the client who was prejudiced; that this breach of trust cannot easily be concocted in this situation considering that it was a counsel de oficio, a lawyer from PAO, who broke the fiduciary relationship; that the assailed CA Resolutions both harped on technicalities to uphold the dismissal by the RTC of his petition for relief; that reliance on technicalities to the prejudice of petitioner who is serving 14 years imprisonment for a crime he did not commit is an affront to the policy promulgated by this Court that dismissal purely on technical grounds is frowned upon especially if it will result to unfairness; and that it would have been for the best interest of justice for the CA to have directed the petitioner to complete the records instead of dismissing the petition outright. In his Comment, the OSG argues that the mere invocation of justice does not warrant the review of an appeal from a final and executory judgment; that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment sought to be reviewed final and not appealable; and that petitioner's appeal after the finality of judgment of conviction is an exercise in futility, thus the RTC properly dismissed petitioner's petition for relief from judgment. The OSG further claims that notice to counsel is notice to clients and failure of counsel to notify his client of an adverse judgment would not constitute excusable negligence and therefore binding on the client. We grant the petition. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Rule 46, on the ground that petitioner failed to attach certain documents which the CA found to be relevant and pertinent to the petition for certiorari. The requirements to attach such relevant pleadings under Section 1, Rule 65 is read in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, thus: Section 1, Rule 65 provides: SECTION. 1. Petition for certiorari. xxxx

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto x x x. Section 3, Rule 46, provides: SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. xxxx [The petition] shall be x x x accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto x x x. xxxx The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. If, upon its initial review of the petition, the CA is of the view that additional pleadings, documents or order should have been submitted and appended to the petition, the following are its options: (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period. 11 The RTC Decision dated December 5, 2001, finding petitioner guilty of two counts of homicide, the Comment of the City Prosecutor as well as the counsel's withdrawal of appearance were considered by the CA as relevant and pertinent to the petition for certiorari, thus it dismissed the petition for failure to attach the same. However, the CA failed to consider the fact that the petition before it was filed by petitioner, a detained prisoner, without the benefit of counsel. A litigant who is not a lawyer is not expected to know the rules of procedure. In fact, even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in the web of procedure.12 We have held in a civil case that to demand as much from ordinary citizens whose only compelle intrare is their sense of right would turn the legal system into an intimidating monstrosity where an individual may be stripped of his property rights not because he has no right to the property but because he does not know how to establish such right.13 This finds application specially if the liberty of a person is at stake. As we held in Telan v. Court of Appeals: The right to counsel in civil cases exists just as forcefully as in criminal cases, specially so when as a consequence, life, liberty, or property is subjected to restraint or in danger of loss. In criminal cases, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable. Otherwise, there would be a grave denial of due process. Thus, even if the judgment had become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel. xxxx Even the most experienced lawyers get tangled in the web of procedure. The demand as much from ordinary citizens whose only compelle intrare is their sense of right would turn the legal system into an intimidating monstrosity where an individual may be stripped of his property rights not because he has no right to the property but because he does not know how to establish such right. The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. More so, in the case of an on-going litigation, it is a right that must be exercised at every step of the way, with the lawyer faithfully keeping his client company. No arrangement or interpretation of law could be as absurd as the position that the right to counsel exists only in the trial courts and that thereafter, the right ceases in the pursuit of the appeal.14 (Emphasis supplied) The filing of the petition for certiorari by petitioner without counsel should have alerted the CA and should have required petitioner to cause the entry of appearance of his counsel. Although the petition filed before the CA was a petition for certiorari assailing the RTC Order dismissing the petition for relief, the ultimate relief being sought by

petitioner was to be given the chance to file an appeal from his conviction, thus the need for a counsel is more pronounced. To repeat the ruling in Telan, no arrangement or interpretation of law could be as absurd as the position that the right to counsel exists only in the trial courts and that thereafter, the right ceases in the pursuit of the appeal.15 It is even more important to note that petitioner was not assisted by counsel when he filed his petition for relief from judgment with the RTC. It cannot be overstressed therefore, that in criminal cases, as held in Telan, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of the bar is immutable; otherwise, there would be a grave denial of due process. Cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better.16 The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for having been filed late. It appears that the CA Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari was received at the address written in the petition on September 1, 2003, and that petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on September 18, 2003, or two days late. While as a general rule, the failure of petitioner to file his motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period fixed by law rendered the resolution final and executory, we have on some occasions relaxed this rule. Thus, in Barnes v. Padilla17 we held: However, this Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve 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) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflects this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had already declared to be final. In De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan, this Court, speaking through the late Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, had occasion to state: The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts in rendering justice have always been, as they ought to be guided by the norm that when on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Truly then, technicalities, in the appropriate language of Justice Makalintal, "should give way to the realities of the situation. Indeed, the emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.18 Moreover, in Basco v. Court of Appeals,19 we also held: Nonetheless, procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter. Recognizing this, Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that: SECTION 2. Construction. These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.20 Petitioner claims that he actually received the CA Resolution dismissing his petition for certiorari only on September 4, 2003 even as the same Resolution was earlier received on September 1, 2003 at the address

written in his petition, i.e., c/o Robert S. Bacuraya, No. 9 Iris St., West Fairview, 1118, Quezon City, by a certain Leonora Coronel. Apparently, Bacuraya is not a lawyer. Ordinarily, petitioner being detained at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, the CA should have also sent a copy of such Resolution to his place of detention. Considering that petitioner only received the Resolution on September 4, 2003, we find the two days delay in filing his motion for reconsideration pardonable as it did not cause any prejudice to the other party. There is no showing that petitioner was motivated by a desire to delay the proceedings or obstruct the administration of justice. The suspension of the Rules is warranted in this case since the procedural infirmity was not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of petitioner. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid application of rules that would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.21 In dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it, the CA clearly put a premium on technicalities and brushed aside the issue raised before it by petitioner, i.e., whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's petition for relief thus preventing him from taking an appeal from his conviction. Even if the judgment had become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel.22 However, instead of remanding the case to the CA for a decision on the merits, we opt to resolve the same so as not to further delay the final disposition of this case. The RTC denied the petition for relief as it found petitioner's claim that his counsel did not heed his instruction to file an appeal to be unsubstantiated and self serving; and that if there was indeed such omission committed by the counsel, such negligence is binding on the client. Petitioner insists that the failure of his counsel to timely file a notice of appeal of his judgment of conviction despite his explicit instruction to do so constitutes excusable negligence and so his petition for relief should have been granted. We find that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's petition for relief from judgment. Petitioner was represented in the RTC by Atty. Rivera of the PAO. Section 1, Article IV of PAO Memorandum Circular No.18 series of 2002, the Amended Standard Office Procedures in Extending Legal Assistance (PAO Memorandum Circular), provides that all appeals must be made upon the request of the client himself and only meritorious cases shall be appealed; while Section 2, Article II of PAO Memorandum Circular provides that in criminal cases, the accused enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence until the contrary is proven, hence cases of defendants in criminal actions are considered meritorious and therefore, should be appealed, upon the client's request. In this case, petitioner claims he had instructed the PAO lawyer to file an appeal. Under the PAO Memorandum Circular, it was the duty of the latter to perfect the appeal. Thus, in determining whether the petition for relief from judgment is based on a meritorious ground, it was crucial to ascertain whether petitioner indeed gave explicit instruction to the PAO lawyer to file an appeal but the latter failed to do so. To determine the veracity of petitioner's claim, it was incumbent upon the RTC to have required the PAO lawyer to comment on the petition for relief. However, it appears from the records that the RTC only required the City Prosecutor to file a comment on the petition. The RTC Order dismissing the petition for relief did not touch on the question whether the PAO lawyer was indeed negligent in not filing the appeal as it merely stated that even if said omission, i.e., not filing the appeal despite his clients instruction to do so, should be considered as negligence, it is a well-settled rule that negligence of counsel is binding on the client. While as a general rule, negligence of counsel may not be condoned and should bind the client, 23 the exception is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.24 In Aguilar v. Court of Appeals,25 we held:

x x x Losing liberty by default of an insensitive lawyer should be frowned upon despite the fiction that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. The established jurisprudence holds: xxxx The function of the rule that negligence or mistake of counsel in procedure is imputed to and binding upon the client, as any other procedural rule, is to serve as an instrument to advance the ends of justice. When in the circumstances of each case the rule desert its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. xxxx The court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it. xxxx If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case. In a criminal proceeding, where certain evidence was not presented because of counsel's error or incompetence, the defendant in order to secure a new trial must satisfy the court that he has a good defense and that the acquittal would in all probability have followed the introduction of the omitted evidence. What should guide judicial action is that a party be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities.26 The PAO lawyer, Atty. Rivera, filed his Withdrawal of Appearance on September 30, 2002, almost three months before the RTC rendered its assailed Order dated December 13, 2002, dismissing the petition for relief. The RTC had ample time to require the PAO lawyer to comment on the petition for relief from judgment, before issuing the questioned Order. Had the RTC done so, there would have been a factual basis for the RTC to determine whether or not the PAO lawyer was grossly negligent; and eventually, whether the petition for relief from judgment is meritorious. If there was no instruction from petitioner to file an appeal, then there was no obligation on the part of the PAO lawyer to file an appeal as stated in the PAO Memorandum Circular and negligence could not be attributed to him. However, if indeed there was such an instruction to appeal but the lawyer failed to do so, he could be considered negligent. Thus, there was no basis for the RTC to conclude that the claim of petitioner that he instructed the PAO lawyer to file an appeal as self-serving and unsubstantiated. The RTC's dismissal of the petition for relief was done with grave abuse of discretion amounting to an undue denial of the petitioner's right to appeal. The RTC faulted petitioner for claiming in his petition for relief that he instructed his counsel to file the necessary motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal; while in his affidavit of merit, he claimed to have told his counsel to simply file a notice of appeal. We do not find such circumstance sufficient ground to dismiss the petition considering that he filed the petition for relief unassisted by counsel. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appeal in the manner prescribed by law. The importance and real purpose of the remedy of appeal has been emphasized in Castro v. Court of Appeals27 where we ruled that an appeal is an essential part of our judicial system and trial courts are advised to proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal and instructed that every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities. While this right is statutory, once it is granted by law, however, its suppression would be a violation of due process, a right guaranteed by the Constitution . Thus, the importance of finding out whether petitioner's loss of the right to appeal was due to the PAO lawyer's negligence and not at all attributed to petitioner.

However, we cannot, in the present petition for review on certiorari, make a conclusive finding that indeed there was excusable negligence on the part of the PAO lawyer which prejudiced petitioner's right to appeal his conviction. To do so would be pure speculation or conjecture. Therefore, a remand of this case to the RTC for the proper determination of the merits of the petition for relief from judgment is just and proper. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated August 19, 2003 and November 28, 2003 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated December 13, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, is SET ASIDE. The RTC is hereby ordered to require Atty. Raul Rivera of the Public Attorney's Office to file his comment on the petition for relief from judgment filed by petitioner, hold a hearing thereon, and thereafter rule on the merits of the petition for relief from judgment, with dispatch. SO ORDERED. [G.R. No. 164668. February 14, 2005] ASIAN SPIRIT AIRLINES (AIRLINE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE), petitioner, vs. SPOUSES BENJAMIN AND ANNE MARIE BAUTISTA, KARL BAUTISTA and GLORIA POMERA, respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Resolution[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner herein in CA-G.R. CV No. 79317 and its resolution in the same case denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration of its first resolution. The Antecedents The Spouses Benjamin and Anna Marie Bautista filed a complaint, in behalf of their son Karl Bautista and Gloria Pomera, against the Asian Spirit Airlines in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City for breach of contract and damages. After trial, the court rendered a decision on March 24, 2003 in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS and AGAINST THE DEFENDANT ordering the latter to pay the former: 1. P5,000.00 as temperate damages; 2. P200,000.00 as moral damages; 3. P150,000.00 as exemplary damages; 4. P50,000.00 as attorneys fees; 5. P18,371.25 as litigation expenses. Defendants counterclaim is DISMISSED.[2] Its motion for the reconsideration of the decision having been denied by the trial court,[3] the defendant appealed. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 79317. On December 10, 2003, the appellate court directed the defendant-appellant to file its brief as appellant within forty-five (45) days from notice thereof.[4] The defendant-appellant received its copy of the resolution on December 17, 2003. Thus, it had until January 31, 2004 within which to file its brief. However, the defendant-appellant failed to file its appellants brief. On March 3, 2004, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Manifestation and Motion[5] for the dismissal of the appeal of the defendantappellant for its failure to file its brief. On March 10, 2004, the defendant-appellant filed an unverified Motion to Admit Attached Appellants Brief.[6] The plaintiffs-appellees opposed the motion.[7] On April 23, 2004, the CA issued a Resolution[8] denying the motion of the defendant-appellant and granting the motion of the plaintiffs-appellees, and ordered the appeal of the defendant-appellant dismissed. The defendant-appellant filed a motion for the reconsideration of the said resolution but on July 16, 2004, the appellate court denied the said motion for lack of merit.[9] The defendant-appellant, now the petitioner, filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court assailing the resolutions of the CA and asserting that:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN STRICTLY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT ON DISMISSAL OF APPEAL TO HEREIN PETITIONERS APPEAL WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE MANDATED PRECEPT OF LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION EXPLICITLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE RULES AND SANCTIONED BY JURISPRUDENTIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, AND CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONERS APPEAL BELOW IS BASED AND FOUNDED ON VERY MERITORIOUS GROUNDS THE DENIAL OF WHICH WILL DEFINITELY RESULT TO PREJUDICE TO PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS AND DENIAL TO IT OF ITS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. [10] The petitioner avers that the late filing of its brief did not cause material injury or prejudice to the respondents and the issues raised by it in its brief require an examination of the evidence on record. The petitioner prays that we set aside the assailed resolution of the CA and order the appellate court to reinstate its appeal for further proceedings. In their comment on the petition, the respondents submit that: The Court of Appeals was evidently not satisfied with the explanation by the petitioner. Its action in this regard is not subject to review, for the Supreme Court cannot interfere with the discretion of the Court of Appeals. It is necessary to impress upon litigants and their lawyers the necessity of a strict compliance with the periods for performing certain acts incident to the appeal and the transgressions thereof, as a rule, would not be tolerated; otherwise, those periods could be evaded by subterfuges and manufactured excuses and would ultimately become inutile. (Don Lino Gutierrez & Sons, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. L-39124, Nov. 15, 1974). This Honorable Court will be setting a bad example if it accepts the excuse of the Petitioners counsel that he instructed his secretary to file the motion for extension who, in turn, forgot to file it. Logic dictates that the Secretary cannot release the request without the lawyers signature but still the basic and simple prudence to follow it up by counsel leaves much to be desired. Every lawyer may soon adopt this reasoning to justify nonfiling of the brief on time.[11] The petition has no merit. Under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, as amended, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA on its own motion or that of the appellee for failure of the appellant to file its brief within the time provided by Section 7, Rule 44 of the said Rules. The petitioner had until January 31, 2004 within which to file its brief but failed to do so. It was only on March 10, 2004, after receipt of respondents motion filed on March 3, 2004, praying for the dismissal of the petitioners appeal for its failure to file its brief, that the petitioner filed its brief appended to an unverified motion to admit the said brief. The only excuse of the petitioner for its failure to file its brief was the claim of its counsel in the said Motion for Leave to Admit, thus: 1. The filing of the Appellants Brief is due on January 31, 2004. The notice from the Honorable Court was received on December 17, 2003 and because of the holiday season at that time, the undersigned counsel gave instruction to his Secretary to file the usual Motion for Time asking for forty-five (45) days from January 31, 2004 or until March 16, 2004. 2. The undersigned started to prepare the Appellants Brief bearing in mind the new deadline. 3. It was only when the undersigned received the Manifestation of plaintiffs on March 5, 2004 that he inquired with his secretary if the Manifestation of counsel is true and she readily admitted that she failed to prepare and file the Motion for Time.[12] The excuse contrived by the petitioners counsel is totally unacceptable. We note that the motion of the petitioner is unverified. Neither did the petitioner bother appending to its motion an affidavit of its counsels secretary containing his/her explanation why he/she failed to file the said motion for extension if there was such a motion in the first place. The petitioner did not even bother appending to its Motion to Admit its motion for extension to file brief which its counsels secretary allegedly failed to file in the CA. Blaming its counsels unidentified secretary for its abject failure to file its brief is a common practice for negligent lawyers to cover up for their own negligence, incompetence, indolence, and ineptitude. Such excuse is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court.[13] It bears stressing that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that insures that all

pleadings should be filed and duly served within the period therefor and, if he fails to do so, the negligence of his secretary or clerk to file such pleading is imputable to the said counsel.[14] We agree with the petitioners contention that the rules of procedure may be relaxed for the most persuasive reasons. But as this Court held in Galang v. Court of Appeals:[15] Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a partys substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[16] In an avuncular case,[17] we emphasized that: Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are, thus, enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. The instant case is no exception to this rule. In the present case, we find no cogent reason to exempt the petitioner from the effects of its failure to comply with the Rules of Court. The right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. More so, as in this case, where petitioner not only neglected to file its brief within the stipulated time but also failed to seek an extension of time for a cogent ground before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.[18] In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served.[19] For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice.[20] In this case, however, suchliberality in the application of rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result in the wanton disregard of the rules or cause needless delay in the administration of justice. It is equally settled that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.[21] IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED.