REPUBLIC OF' THE PHILIPPINESCOURT OE" APPEAI,S

MANiLA ,-l "l ,i "lY t4il ' l')

DryTSTON

fii$x"trY*sr*'#ff ruffi@p&wC.& G,R. SP No- uersus -

FSO3ff. pAISIEI" \,.1/trLLANtIEV.A, , Fresiding"Eudge , REGIOIIAL TR[^S,[.COTIRT OT MA}STLA,ffiRANCEI 49, .A,TTY.D$OSDAI)O G. nfrADzuD andPR. S/$A. R.AMCII{TA L. DEI,OS$ANT0So

x_ _ !:Y':!::': .

For:Petition fo, Certiorctriunder Rule 65

Court of Appeats

lu tlttlililitiltiiilimlriiiirfriliii1ilil I I til

L4-9a2455-OBBl2014-04-04 q::z,oo pm

Pon ent€:

PET'XTION F.OR CERTIORART

P&T'ITICINER. ER.NESTO DE LCIS SANTOS, through theundersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, mostrespectfully states that:

NATURE Or THE PryTITTON

1. This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the\997 Rulles of Civil Procedure;

2. The instant Petition seeks the nuilification andsetting aside of the Order of the Regional Trial. Court, Branch 49of the City of Manila dated September 25,2073, denying theNlotice of Appeal filed by herein petitioner Ernesto L" De Lossantos, as well as the onder dated January 24,2a14, denyingpetitioner's N{otion tbr Reconsideration (of the Order dated

September 25, 2013), .for being issued with grave abuse ofdiJcretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and arecontrary to law;

3. There being no plain, speedy and adequate remedy inthe ordinary course of Iaw, petitioner now files before thisHonorable Court, this instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;

4. As required by sec 1 of Rule 65, certified truecopiesof the Crder of the Regional Trial Court of the City ofMinila, Branch 49 dated September 25, 2013, denying theNotice of Appeal filed by herein petitioner, as well as the Orderdated January 24, 2OL4, denying petitioner's Motion forReconsideration (of the Order dated Septembet 25, 2013), arehereto attached and form integral parts hereof as Annexes "A",and66B", respectivetry;

TIMELTT{ESS OS- TI{E PETITIOST

5. On Cctober 18, 2013, petitioner received a copy ofthe Crder of the Regional Triai Court of Manila, Branch 49,which crder was alsc declaned in open court on September 25,2013, denying the petitioner's Notice of Appeal, the dispositiveportion of the written Order dated September 25, 2013 reads asfoilows:

"In view of all the foregoingconsiderations, finding that theundated Notice of APPeal to bedefective in form and substance, thesame is hereby DENIED.

Let the records show' th{it thisCrder was promulgated in open Court.

As prayed for, AttY. Andres isgiven ten (10) days f,rom today to fiieher intended rejoinder to the replydated September 23, 2Ol3 which wasfiled only today.

To keep track of the Pend-ingincidents and for further proceedingsof the case, set a hearing on October23, 2013 at 8:30 am.

SO CRDERED."

6. petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration to the

above Ord.er on October 10, 2013 together with an AmendedRecord on ApPeal;

7. In an order dated January 24, 2014, the Regional

Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, denied the petitioner's Motionfor Reconsideration, the d.ispositive portion of the order read's

as follows:

*WI-ItrREF"CRE, considering further that manyissues raised in this incident were adequately passed

upon in the original ruling, in the exercise of itssound discretion, the court hereby DENiES for lackof rnerit the said Motion for Reconsideration datedOctober 10, 2013.

SO ORDERED."

8. The above Order was received by petitioner's counselon February 3, 2AL4. Petitioner therefore has sixty (60) days

from the date of receipt of public respondent's order denyingpetitioner's Motion for Reconsideration or until April 4, 2O\4within which to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65;

g. Accordingly, this Petition for Certiorari is being filedwithin the reglementary period, in iine with the first paragraphof sec. 4 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. Nc. O7*-7-12-SC

which took effect on December 27, 2OO7, to wit:

The petition shall be filed not later than sixty(60) days from notice of the judgment, order orresolution. In cr.se s motion for reconsideration or neLU

triat is timely fited, whether such motion is required ornot, the pefirton sdou" *unt.d frPmo,tion. (Itatics and {Jnderscoing Supplied)

ATTAC}TMENTS

10. As required by sec 1. paragraph 2 of Rule 65, thispetition is accompanied by certified true copies of the judgment,order or resolution subject thereof, legible copies of allpleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto and allare hereto attached as follows:

Certified True CoPY of the Order ofthe Public ResPondent datedSepternber 25, 2013

ANNEX'3A"

Certified True CoPY of the Order ofthe Pub1ic resPondent datedJanuary 24,24L4

ANIIEX *8"

Urgent Motion for Assistance filedby the Petitioner on SePtember 06,201_ 1

ILNNEX O'C"

Opposition to the Motion forreconsideration fiied bY thePetitioner dated SePtember 06,20lL

ANT{EX 66D'7

Manifestation with OmnibusMotion to Resolve Urgent Motion forAssistance and to Cite AdverseParties and Counsels in ContemPtof Court filed before the respondentnnlrrf nn N/lareh 7. 2Ol2

ANNEX *8"

Manifestation filed by the Petitioneron June 28,2012 informing theCourt that the estate of the testatoris in state of neglect an4l prlveslq

-

ANNEX 6'F''

Reply fiied by the Petitioner datedMav 17, 2OL2

ANNEX 6'G"

Order of the Public ResPondentdated October 25,2012, denYingPetitioner's Motion to call AttY.Madrid as Hostile witness

ANNEX 66H,,

4

Urgent Omnibus Motion forReconsideration, Inhibition andDeferment of the Resolution ofMotion for Reconsideration and allother proceedirrgs dated November5.2A72

ANNEX *["

Order of the Public ResPondentdated November 22, 2012 declaringthat the petitioner is considered tohave rested their case

ANNEX *J"

Petitioner's Motion forReconsideration of the Order datedNovernb er 22, 2otr 2

ANNEX ffK''

Certified True Copy of the Order ofthe Pubtic ResPondent datedDecember 27, 2An aPProving theallowance of the Will

A$NEX'6L"

Petitioner's Motion forReconsideration of the Order datedDecember 27 . 2Ol2

ANNEX '6ryX''

Order of the Public ResPondentdated March LL, 2013, denYing thePetitioner's Motion forReconsideration of the Order datedDecemb er 27 . 2012

ANNEX "N"

Notice of Appeal filed bY thePetitioner and the Official Receiptshowins payment of Dockql F99-

ANNEX ('O,,

Order of the Public ResPondentdated September 25, 2013, denYingthe Petitioner's Notice of APPeaI

ATiTTIEX *P'

Petitioner's Motion forReconsideration of the Order datedSentember 25.2013

ANNEX 66Q?',

Copy of the Amended Record onAppeai

ANNEN'OET"

Order of the Public ReSPq4Qgg! ANNEX *S'5

dated January 24, 2014, denYingthe Petitioner's Motion forReconsideration of the Order datedSer:tember 25.2013

TSN, October 2,20L2

Record on A

Motion f,or extension of Time to fileRecord on Appeai

TI{E PARTIES

11. PCtitiONCr AT"rY. ERNESTO L. DE LOS SANTOS iS

one of the compulsory heirs of the late Virgilio De Los Santoswith postal address at 108 Cenacle Drive Sanville, TandangSora, Quezon City. He may be served with notices, orders andother processes of this Honorable Court through theundersigned counsel;

12. Public respondent Judge Daniel C. Villanueva is thePresiding Judge of Bran ch 49, Regional Trial Court of Manilaand hoids office at the Manila City HaIi;

13. Private respondent Atty. DIOSDADC MADRID is oftegal dge, and with address 5-305 Delta Bldg., corner West and

Quezon Avenues, Diliman, Quezon City.

t4. Private respondent Dr. Ma. Ramona L. DelosSantos is of legal &B€, a resident of No. 696 Gastambide St',Sarnpaloc, Manila.

STATEMENT OLTHE CASE

15. On February 6, 2008, private respondent filed aPETITICN to Approve the Will of Dr. Virgilio D. delos Santos.The case was rafned to public respondent Branch 49, Regional

Triat Court of Manila and docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 0B-

11871,9.

16. On February l-2, 2008, finding the petition sufficient inform and substance, public respondent issued its ORDERsetting the petition for hearing on June 20 , 2OO8.

. LT . Cn June 20, 2008, petitioner with his sister Dr.Cynthia L. Delos Santos-Chan filed their Manifestation andMction manifesting their opposition to the petition on groundsprovided for under Article 839 of the Civil Code of theirtritippines and prayed that they be given a period of sixty (60)

days within t rhich to file their written Opposition to theNlowance of the wiil.

18. On August 19, 2008, peti.tioner filed the cppositionto the Fetition .

19. Cn September I, 2008, private respondent filed hisReply (Re: Opposition dated 15 August 2008) .

20. Cn October 2, 2A08, petitioner filed a Rejoinder (tothe Reply of Petitioner to the opposition for Allowance of wiil).

2l . in the ord"er dated June 3, 2AO9 issued by theHonorable Acting Presiding Judge William Simon Peralta ,

Atty" Aquino manifested , after presenting two (2) witnesses,nns. Rosalinda Villegas (on direct examination only) andElecta Dacuan Arevalo (while on direct examination), thatthe Fre-trial Conference has not yet been conducted. The

trial was suspended and Pre-trial was set on June L7 , 2OO9 '

22. Cn,June 15, 2009, private respondent filed his Pre-

Trial Brief dated .Iune L2, 2049.

23. On Juiy 29, 2OO9 , petitioner filed the Pre-Trial Briefdated Jutry 27 , 2A49.

24. During the hearing on october 19, 2oo9, PairingJudge William Simon Peraita issued the PRE-TRIALCRDER.

25. Cn March 4, 2010, private respondent filed hisFormal Offer of Evidence after having presented ElectaDacuan Arevalo on direct and cross-examination and Atty'Diosdado G. Madrid (private respondent) , on directexamination on February 15, 2010, in Compliance with thedirective of the Court during the hearing on March 1, 2OlOwhere Atty. Falabrica's motion to have it postponed wasdenied and the petitioner directed to "ptlt in writing theevidence of the petitioner".

26. On July 5, 2010, Acting Presiding Judge williamSimon Peralta issued" the Order relative to the additionalexhibits for the private respondent marked while he was oncross-examination by counsel of the former.

27 . On September 20, 2OlO, Acting Presiding JudgeWilliam Simon Peralta issued the Order where the cross-examination of the private respondent was terminated and hiscounsel manifested his intention to file a Supplemental Offer ofExhibits .

28. Cn February 24, 2011, petitioner filed a Motion forAppointment of Atty. Ernesto delos Santos as SpecialAdministrator .

29. on March 7 , ZALL, private respondent fiied hisOpposition ( to the Motion for Appointment of Atty.. Ernesto L.

nelos Santos as Special Administrator ) dated February 4,

201 1.

30. cn June 1, 2011, Acting Presiding Judge virgilioIViacaraig issued the ORDER relative to the termination of thedirect teitimony of witness for the petitioner, Dean Joe SantosBisquera .

31. On July 8, 201 1, Acting Presiding Judge virgilioMacaraig issued the ORDER appointing as special j91nt

adrninistrators Atty. Ernesto L. delos Santos and Dr. Ma.

Ramona L. clelos Santos [hereafter Dr. Ma. Ramona] ( youngestchitrd of the deceased Dr. Virgilio Delos Santos)

g2. on August 5, 2011, in her Manifestation , Dr. Ma.

Ramona accepied her appointment as Special Administrator .

o

In the same manifestation she declared that her brother'

herein petitioner who was likewise appointed as special

administrator is not qualified'

33. Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration (of the

Cr:der dated JulY 8, 201 1)'

34. Dr. Ma. Ramona filed her comment to petitioner's

Motion for Reconsideration and sought the withdrawal of the

appointment of her co-administrator, herein petitioner .

35. On september 6, 20 1 1 , petitioner filed an Urgent

Motion for Assistance and manifeJted his posting of the

Special Administrator's Bond'

36. On Septemb et 7, 2011, petitioner filed an opposition

to the Motion -for

Reconsideration to private _respondent'sMotion for Reconsideration of the order dated July B, 2OLl

appointing the joint special administrators'

37 . Petitioner filed a Manifestation dated Septemb et 14,

201 i.

33.onSeptember20,2oLLActingPresidingJudgeVirgilio V. Macaiaig issued the Order taking note the

Manifestation filed by petitioner '

Sg.onoctober|7,2011,Df.Ma.RamonafiledherOpposition with Motion to Expunge (R-E: Oppositor-Heir Atty'

Ernesto delos Santos ' Urgent- Moiion for Assistance dated 06

September 2011).

4A . On october 1 8, 20 I I , private respondent filed aComment (Re: Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration

and urgent Motion for Assistance both dated september 6,

2011).

41. on october 24, 201 1, Dr. Ma. Ramona filed a Motion

To Remove and Disqualify Atty. Ernesto LL. Delos Santos as

Special or Regular Joint Administrator

42. On December 8, 201 1, Dr' Ramona filed her

Addendum (Re: Motion to Remove and Disqualify Atty' Ernesto

delos Santos as Special or Regular Joint Administrator'

4S.DuringthehearingonDecemberB,20llwhichwasset for the

"orrtirr.ration of the cross-examination of Dean

Bisquera, all pending incidents were discussed. On said date,9

Atty. Elizabeth A. Andres manifested her recent engagement ascounsel for petitioner and DR. CHAN. Over the objection ofcounsel for private respondent and Dr. Ramona, petitioner'scounsel was granted time to comment on the pending incidents.

44. Private respondent filed his Counter-Manifestationd ated December 19 , 2 0 I 1 relative to the Secretary'sCertificate petitioner attached to his Comment.

45. On January L7, 2AL2, petiflioner filed hisConsolidated Opposition (To the Motion to Expunge and Motionto Remove and Disqualify) dated January 13, 2012.

46. On February !4, 2012, Dr. Ma. Ramona filed herReply (re: Oppositor-Heir Atty. Ernesto delos SantosConsolidated Opposition dated January 13 , 2Ol2 ) datedFebruary 8, 24L2.

47. Petitioner filed his Manifestation (Re: Motion totrxpunge and Motion to Rernove and Disqualify) with CmnibusMotion L. To resolve the Urgent Motion for Assistance datedSeptennber 6,2}ll and.2. To cite adverse parties and counselin Contempt of Court dated February 2, 2OL2 .

48. Petitioner filed his Rejoinder (to the RepLy datedFebruary 8,20L2) dated February 23,2012"

49. Dr. Ma. Ramona filed her Counter-Manifestation withOpposition (Re: Cppositor-Heir Atty. Ernesto delos Santos'Manifestation with Motion ) dated April 73,2OL2 '

50. Private Respondent's Comment (RE: Oppositor-HeirsMotion to Cite Adverse Parties in Contempt of Court ) withManifestation dated May 16, 2012 was filed.

S1. Petitioner filed his Reply (to' Coirnter-Manifestationwith opposition dated April t3, 2OL2\ dated April 1,3, 2012.

52. Cn May 29, 20L2, public respondent issued theORDtrR dated May 29, zAn where the testimony of witnessDean tsisquera was terminated and Atty. Aquino was givenperiod to file his Amended Formal Offer of Evidence.

53. Petitioner filed his Manifestation (RE: Urgent Motionfor Assistance dated Septemb er 6, 201 1) dated June L4, 2OL2.

10

54. The Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits datedMay 6, 2A12, together with the exhibits of the privaterespondent was filed.

55. gn Jrrly 11, 2OL2, petitioner and Dr. Ramona wereeach given a period of ten ( 10) days within which to file theirComments and/ or Opposition" to the Formal OfIer ofDocumentary Exhibits of private respondent.

56. Dr, Ma. Corazon Ramona delos Santos filed herCCMMENT (Re: Fetitioner's Formal Offer of documentaryExhibits dated 06 May 2OI2) on private respondent's FormalOffer of Documentary Exhibits .

57. The Counter-Manifestation (Re: Oppositor Heir Atty.Ernesto Delos Santos' Manifestation dated June 14, 2OI2)dated August 14,2CI12 of Dr. Ramona was filed.

58. Petitioner filed his MOTICN TO ADMIT (Comrnent onPetitioner's Formal Offer of Evidence ) dated August 28,2412 .

59. On August 28, 2012, petitioner filed a Comment onthe Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits dated August 28,2012.

60. On September 1.3, 7A12, petitioner's clirect examination wasconclucled. Cn October 1.0, 2012, he was cross-examined by Atty.Carullo, counsel for Dr. Ramona .

61; On October 1,0,2012, tl'r- cross-examination of petitioner byAtty. Aquino, counsel for private respondent, was concluded.

52. On Cctober 25,2A12, the intended witness of petitionerthe person of Delilah Daguinsin was not presented. His motionpresent petitioner as their hostile witness was denied.

63. On November 8, 2012, petitioner fiIed an URGENTOMNIBUS MOTION L. For Reconsideration 2. For Inhibition 3. ToDefer Resolution of the instant Motion for Reconsideration PendingResolution of the Instant Motion for Inhibition and All OtherProceedings in This Case dated November 5, 2A12.

64. A lrlotice of Withdrawal of the law firm Atienza Madridand Formento as counsel for Petitioner dated November 19,2012wasfiled.

1n

to

11

55. Dr. Ma. Corazon Rarnona filed her oFFER OF EVIDENCEdated November 27, 2012 .

66. Private respondent filecl his COMMENT (Rtr:

Oppositor-Heirs Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 05 November2CI12 ) dated November 20,2Ol2-

57. Dr. Ramona likewise filed herCOMMEI\T/ OPPOSITION (Re: Oppositor-Heirs' Urgent OmnibusMotion) datecl November 21,2012"

68. During the hearing on November 22, 2AL2, publicrespondent asked Atty. Luis, counsel for petitioner "to rest hercr,si since she has no more witness to present". For failure topnesent their witness, they "were deemed to have waived theiriigt t to present further evidence and are considered to haverested their case. Counsel was given fifteen (15) days to file herReply to the comments filed by both the private respondent andDr. Ramona In the same order, public respondent declaredthat the "matter of the probate of the will as well as al1 otherpending incidents" are alL deemed submitted for resolution. Cnb*c"*bet 5, 2012, petitioner received copy of the ORDERdated November 22, 2AI2.

69. Petitioner filed their Motion for Reconsideration (Re:

Orcler dated November 22, 2AI2).

70. on December 2L, 20L2, petitioner receivedSupplernental Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence datedIVovernber 29, 2072 filed by private respondent.

7 L. Cn December 13, 2OL2 , petitioner received theORDtrR of the Court dated Decemb er 4, 2Ol2 giving them ten(10) days to file their Comment on Dr. Ramona's Cffer ofEvidence .

7 2 . On January g , 2012, petitioner received theORDER of the Count dated Decemb er 27 , 20L3 .

73. On January 22,2013, petitioner filed a- MoTIcNFOR RECCNSIDERATION (Re: Order dated December 27,2A12).

'74, On F'ebruary 3, 2013, petitioner received the order ofJanuary 24, 2A13 issued by public respondent giving privaterespondent and Dr. Ramona ten (10) days from notice to file

12

their cornment and/ or responsive pleading on petitioner'sMotion for Reconsideration .

75. Dr. Rarnona's Opposition and/or Comment datedFebruary 7 , 2Ol3 was fiLed.

76. On February 27, 2013, public respondent issued itsORDtrR setting a hearing on April 24, 20L3.

77. On March 25, 2013, petitioner received the ORDERdated March 1tr, 20L3 den5ring the Motion forReconsideration.

7 B. On April 3, 20 13, petitioner filed the NOTICE OFAPPEAL, rnanifesting therein palrment of the Appeal Bond.Cn same date, a MOTION was filed seeking additional periodwithin which to file the Record on Appeal, setting the sarne foriaearing on April 8, 2013 at 8:30 o'cLock in the morning .

79. Cn April L2, 2A13, the RECORD ON APPEAL datedAprin 10, 2013 , was filed, setting the same for considerationarrd approval on April 24,2A13 at B;30 o'clock in the morning.

80. Cn Apritr B, 2013, petitioner's counsel went to Courtto attend the hearing on the Motion (for Additional time to filethe Record on Appeal) filed earlier, the case was notcalendared for hearing. She found attached to the recordLetters Testamentary & Administration issued in favor ofprivate respondent and his OATH as administrator of theestate of the deceased Dr. Virgilio D. Delos Santos both datedMarch 19, 2013

"

81. On April 24, 2013, petitioner received Dr. Ramona'sURGENT trX-FARTtr MOTICN FOR trXTENSIOI{ OF TIME TOFILtr COMMENT/OBJECTIOI\S ( Re: Oppositor-Heir's Recordon Appeal dated 10 April 2013)

82" Cn May 6, 2013, petitioner's counsel was personallyserved by a Court personnei a copy of the unsigned CRDtrRof the Court dated May 3, 2013 setting a hearing on May 29,2013 at 8:00 o'clock in the morning. This to take up theNotice of Appeai and Record on Appeal both filed on April 3,2013 and for further proceedings, if necessary.

83. Petitioner in his Motion prayed to have the hearingset on May 29, 2013 reset to another date, preferably June26,20L3.

13

84. Dr. Ramona's Opposittonf Ohjection (Re: Oppositor-Heirs' Record on Appeal) was received by petitioner.

85. On July 6, 2OL3 , petitioner received privaterespondent Comment and/or Opposition (Re: Oppositor-Heirs'Record on Appeal) .

86. On September 25, 20 13, in open court, publicrespondent issued the ORDER denying the Notice of Appeallor being defective in form and substance.

87. On October 10, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion forReconsideration of the said Order.

88. On November L4, 2O!3, petitioner received theOrder dated October 25, 2013 issued by public respondentgiving private respondent and Dr. Ramona a period of ten (10)

days from notice to file their Comment, if any there be, topetitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

89. On November 25,2013, Dr. Ramona filed an Bx-ParteMotion for Extension of Time To File Comment and/ orCpposition on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. OnDecember 9, 2013, a Second Ex-Parte Motion for Extensionwas received.

90. cn December 27 , 2013, petitioner received publicrespondent's Order dated November 13, 2013 where as prayedfor Atty. Aquino and Atty. Carullo were given ten (10) days tofile their Comment on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.However, petitioner has as yet to receive copy of the saidComment.

91. On February 3, 2At4 , petitioner received the Crderdated January 24, 2Ol4 of the public re-spondent denyingpetitioner's Motion lot Reconsideration dated October 1 0,

20 13.

STATEMENT CIF TTTE rACTS

92, Petitioner's parents, Dr. virgilio de Los santos andCordella L1amas were married on Febru&rY, 1948. They wereblessed wj.th three (3) chiidren, the eldest and the only son,

herein petitioner Atty. Ernesto De Los Santos, followed by

14

Cynthia De Los Santos-Chan and the youngest, Dra. RamonaCorazon de Los Santos;

93. To give a brief backgrouud of what transpired withinthe family, the opposition to the Motion for Reconsiderationdated September 06 , 20 17 filed by the petitioner before therespondent court, hereto attached as Annex ttD", is herebyquoted for easy reference, thus:

"7. As attested by Atty. Ernesto DeIos Santos in his AJfidauit attached asAnnex o47" in the Rejoinder'filed beforethe Honorable Court, spouses VirgilioDe .Los Santos arud Cordelia De LosSanlos had a. harmonious maitalrelationship free from strife prior to theirassociation with Emily de Leon.Hctures showing a happy family wereeuen attached. In other utords, beforetLrcA met Emily De Leort, the spouses DeIos Santos tmd a btissful relationshipand had a family enuironment of anunrufJled. ca.lmness that uerges om

peace;

B. ControuersA and. squabblesarose thereafier, as attested by AttA.Ernesto De Los Santos in his complaintfor Graue Orq.l Defamation and SertousSlander by Deed, hereto attached asArlnex "1tt, tlrus;

u22. Emily De Leon met mg familywhen she was hired bg the Uniuersityof Manita as records clerk at theDepartment of School Records. Shestayed as Records Clerk for quitesometime until she became thet-Iniuersitg Teacher handling Math andStatistics Subjects. She utas thereafier

promoted as the Administratiue Afficerunder the Office of the Chairman wheremy fathe5 Virgilio De Los Santos wasthen the tJniuersity President and wz.s

15

sirrutltoneously Lwlding the position ofthe Chairmsn of the Board of Trustees.Xru mo time, Emilg De Leon became the[Jniuersity's Vice President forAcademic Affairs;

23. During such ttme, Emity DeLeon freEtently uisils the conjugaldtuelling of mA parents at No. 27 ScoutSantiago Sf., Quezon City where sheinterferes in the care of mA father qn din the management of the affairs of thehousehold. She also freqwentlyaccompanies mg father in his personaland business tips abroad;

24. Disputes arud bickerings ocanpiedmA famity at the titne, hence, mAmother found no other choice but toleaue the unertdurable sifitation qt theirconjugal duellinE and was compelled tostay in Baguio where she euenhtallgdied of an illness orl Julg 22, 2006.CrpA af lrcr death Certificate is heretoattached as Annex "C"

25. Immediatelg after the deathof mg mother and much to our surprise,mg father surprisingly relinquished hispost Gs President and cantsed theelection of Emily De Leon as the rlawUrtiuersitE President. CopA of the{Jniuersity Of Manila's Minutes of theBoard of Trustees Meeting attestirtE tothis fact i.s hereto attached -as Annex

."Dtt;

26. Emitg De Leon extremelyenjoyed the positton of being the{Jniuersitg President. In fact, sometimeOctober, 2006, during the lifetime of myfather, the Uniuersity of Manita fitEd anAmended Bg-Laws before tLw Secuitiesand Exchange Commission (SEC fwbreuity) seeking to ertend the term afthe Uniuersity President frorru one {1)

16

Aear term to a fiue (5) Aear term butwas fortunatelg denied bY the SEC.CrpA of the Amended Bg-Laws fiIedbefore the SEC is hereto attached asAnrtex "8";

27. As announced bY Atta.Madrid, tlw corporate secretary of theBoard of Trustees, during the Board ofTrustees' Regalar Meeting, the denialwas due the fact that the Fiue (5) gearterm applies only to non-stockcorporations and not to stockcorporations like the Uniuersitg ofManila. A copy of the Board of TrusteesMinutes of the Meeting dated MaA 78,201 L declaing the reason for suchdenial is hereto attached as Annex "F";

28. During the last few gears ofmy father's enduring liuing and untilhis last few months of him clinging tolik, endless controuersy, feud,squabble amongst our familg memberserose;

29. Sometime, January, 2008,afier arriuing from Hongkong with mY

fathe4 Emilg De Leon brougttt, mA

father to the Asian Hospital due tobreathing dffict"tltg without euerlinformirug me. Fortunatdl.g, it was mA

father's birthday on January 15, 2O0Bso I tried to locate his whereabouts.{-Ipon inquiries, I learned that my fatherwas then confined in a hospitdl;

30. I called up EmilA De Leon toinquire about my father's whereaboutsbut she refused to disclose saying thatmy father tuished not to see me nor anAof our fam.ilg members. Angway,according to her, mg father is uery fineand uery well taken cared of. So Iinstructed Delilah Daguinsin toimmediately inquire from differenthospitals in Metro Manila where LUe

t7

finatly discouered tLlat mg father wasthen confined in the Intensiue Care Unitof the Asian f{osPital;

31" . I immediatelY called uP mA

slsfer Cyruthia De Los Sonfos Chan irtthe United States who rushed her utayfrom tlS to Manila, Whem I and rnYsister CgntF,;ia fre bs Soretos Ch,o,nwent to see sur qiling father in hisd.esth bed iwside the Intensiue Csretlnit, we were prevented, casted o;nddriaerz out bg E;milg De Leon amd bgvwry sfsfen Rccrmona De .[,os Scuntos.Sougls after suefu uisit, ffig fatfrwrdied. A copy of the Affidauit executedby mA sis/er attesting to this fact islwreto ettached a.s Annex "G";

94. As above stated, petitionei''s father died at the AsianF{ospital and Medical center. TWo weeks after such death or onFebruary 6,2OO8, private respondent, Atty. DiosdadoG' Madrid,the person named as executor in the alleged holographic will ofdeceased Dr. Virgilio De Los Santos filed a Petition for probate;

95. Surprised with the contents of the holographic wiltr,

herein petitioner and his sister cynthia De Los santos chanfile,C an opposition to the petition and hearing on the allowanceof the wiltr before the respondent court ensued;

96" Ttre former presiding Judge of the respondent courtappointeci the cornpulsory heirs, petitioner Atty. Ernesto De Los

Slntos and Dra. Ramona De Los Santos as joint speciaiadministrator of their father's estate in'an Order dated July 08,241,1;

97. By reason of such appointment as jointad.ministrator, petitioner Atty. Ernesto De Los Santos took hisoath and posted a special administrator's bond required by the

court;

98. In the performance of petitioner's function as co-

adrninistrator of his father's estate and as a universitystocklaolder, petitioner repeatedly requested not only from theUniversity president, Emily De Leon but also from the

18

university's external accounting firm, Banaria and Banaria thepertinent estate documents and university financial documentsbut his repeated requests fe1l on deaf ears;

99. Hence, on September 06, 20 1 1 , petitioner filed an[trrgemt Wlotion for Assistance before the respondent courtexplicitly showing among others,the orchestrated dissipation oftlre estate assets, multi million pesos of unauthorized universitl,expenses, measly sums rernaining in the university bankaccourrts, the fraud committed by Atty. Madrid, and thedifticunty of the petitioner in the exercise of his function as theestate's co-administrator. Copy of the Urgent Motion forAssistance is hereto attached as Amnex ntC";

100. After the filing of such Urgent Motion for Assistance,Dr. Ramona De Los Santos, Emily De Leon and their cohorts,immediately conceived schemes to put herein petitioner behindbars and they succeeded. Details are discussed in the Replydated May L7, 201,2, hereto attached as Annex "G", filed beforethe respondent celurt, thus:

"7 .I.It is worth noting thatimmediately right after the filing ofOppositor-heir's Urgent Motion forAssistance on September 6, 2AII ,

the 'other parties were agitated, wentinto panic and steamrolled theirobnoxious railroading efforts to putherein Oppositor-heir behind bars.Thus, the Resolution on Reviewdated September 23, 20 1 1

I washastily rendered in no time . byAssistant City Prosecutor RolandoVergara reversing the Resolution ofInvestigating ProsecutorI\enitaOpiana finding' n<i probablecause against Atty. Ernesto De LosSantos in the Qualified Theft casefiled by the adverse parties herein;

7.ZIn fact, the Oppositor-heir (atty.Ernesto De Los Santos) wasorchestratecl to be arrested pursuantto the said Resolution on Review andInformation issued in connectiontherewith even before said contested

i See Arr:lex "F", ConsoUdated Opposition f,led Januarjr 78,2012.l9

Resolution on Review datedSeptember 23, 2OlL wasprornulgated by the Office_of the CityProsecutor of Baguio CitY;2

7 .I. True to form and infurtherance of their sinister plot tooust Oppositor-heir as Court-appointed Special JointAdministrator, the herein subjectmotions were filed after such arrest0n the common ground thatOppositor-heir being criminallycharged and incarcerated, hisappointment as SPecial JointAdministrator has been renderedimpossible where OPPositor-heirallegedly lacks integrity, incapableand/ or has becorne unfit andincompetent to discharge the dutiesof his appointment as Special JointAdministrator;

7 .2. Of late in fact, the adverseparties and their cohorts also filed adisbarment case against Atty. De LosSantos', a coPY of CBD Case IVo. 11--

3107, entitled *Julieuhgn R.

Quindoza us. AttA. Ernesto De losSantos" is hereto attached as Annex

4 A)r.-t1 .

7 .3. In fact, De Leon'scontinuous and never failing desireto harass not onlY AttY. De LosSantos but also all' th-e PeoPlearound. him is shown bY De Leon'scomplaint against Fe DelilahDaguinsin for Grave OralDefamation, docketed as /.S. /[o, X7-OS -INV- 1 1-L0734 1 before the Officeof the City Frosecutor, Quezon City.A copy of the comPlaint is heretoattached as Annex "8";

2.A::rtexes "J' artd "I", respectively, ibid.20

7 .4. One of De Leon's cohorts inthe name of JuliewhynQuindoza,similarly filed a baseLess complaintagainst Atty. Judith Z. Luis forFalsification of Public Document,docketed as IIPS DOCKET No. INV-12-0272, with the Office of the CityProsecutor, Baguio City. A copy ofthe complaint is hereto attached asAnnex "C";

7 .5. The same Juliewh5.n R.

Quindoza likewise filed a disbarmentcase against Atty. De Los Santos andhis former counsel before theIntegrated Bar of the PhilippinesCommission on Bar Discipline PasigCity docketed therein as CBD CaseIVo. 11-3166, entitled "Juliewhyn R.

Quindoza r;s. Atty. Ernesto De LosSantos and AttA. Manlita S.

Palabica" A copy of the complaint ishereto attached as Annex "D";

7 .6. Another employee of EmilyDe Leon in the name ofPolicarpiolacsa, also filed adisbarment case against Atty. De LosSantos and his former counselbefore the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines Commission on BarDiscipline Pasig City docketedtherein as CBD Ca"se /[o. I 1-S 7 67,erutitled "Policorpio Lacsa us. AttU.Ernesto De .Los Sanfos and Atty.Marujita S. Palabrica"" A c<ipy of thecomplaint is hereto attached asAnnex "E";

7.7. In the same vein, De Leonalso filed a complaint for Acts ofLasciviousness/Unjust Vexation onMarch 5, 2An against Atty.Rhoderick Paz Caraig, the Associatelawyer of Atty. Judith Zarraga Luis,docketed with the Office of the CityProsecutcr, Baguio City as/[PS

21

DOCKET No. INV-12-O526. Copy ofthe complaint is hereto attached asAnngx *E'ltt 'tt

101. As above stated, the adverse parties utilized thosecases to file a Motion before the respondent court to removeherein petitioner as a special joint administrator. By way ofopposition to such motion, petitioner filed his Opposition heretoattached as Annex ttD", where the petitioner even recountedbefore the respondent court all other harassnnent casesexcluded by the adverse party, thus:

" 18. Fetitioner alleged casesagainst Ernesto De Los Santos forFalsification of Public Document withdocket No. IS 08-J-8894 filed with theDepartment of Justice, QualifiedTheft filed before the City ofProsecutor's Office in Baguio and aDisbarment case;

19. The enumeration of thepetitioner of the cases filed againstErnesto De Los Santos is not onlyineomplete and selective but islikewise deeeiving. Worthy of note,however, is the fact that all thesecases were filed against Atty. ErnestoDe Los Santos after he registered hisopposition to the probate of the will. ofhis father, Virgilio De Los Santos;

20. To complete petitioner's list,it is worthwhile to note thaf sometimeOctober, 2008, Emily de Leon, filed acase before the Office of the CityProsecutor of Manila for trstafadocketed under case no. 08J- 17 402against Ernesto De Los Santos. Copyof the complaint is hereto attached asAnnex " 15";

2 1. Said complaint alleged thatseveral payroll checks have beenissued in favor of Mr. Gunnawa, the

22

previous empioyee of the University ofManila but was deposited to thepersonal account of hereincomplainant. Emily De Leon furtheradded that Mr. Gunnawa is a ghostemployee;

22.In a resolution datedSeptember 11, 2009, hereto attachedasAnnex " L6" , the InvestigatingProsecutor declared that after ajudicious review of the evidencesubmitted there was no probablecause to indict herein complainantwith the offense charged;

23. The investigating prosecutorratiocinated that the cornplaint failedto establish that respondentmisappropriated the amounts coveredby the Metrobank checks and furtherdeclared that in a Certification issuedby the Metrobank, it was certifiedthat the subject checks weredeposited not to the account ofEnnesto De Los Santos but to theAccount of the University of Manila;

24. As declared by theinvestigating Prosecutor, thecertification issued by lVletrobank wascorroborated by Mr. Gunnawa himselfwho declared that he does not haveany bank account and by reason ofsuch fact, he usually requests hereincomplainant to encash his checkswhich are eventually deposited to thebank account of the University ofManiia;

25.In her persistent effort toharass, on the following yearsometime March, 2A09, Emily DeLeon again filed a case for Estafabefore the Office of the CityProsecutor of Manitra docketed as caseltlo. xv-07-rNV-09-c -02363

Z)

reiterating her aLlegations involvingthe checks representing the saIary ofMr. Gunnawa but this time bankingon diff,erent set of eheck nurmbers.Copy of the complaint is heretoattached as Annex " L7";

26. Emily De Leon again ailegedthat checks issued to Mr. Gunnawa,the previous employee of theUniversi.ty of Manila, by way of sa1arytotaling to Twelve Thousand Pesos(php 1 2,000.00) were actuallydeposited under the account ofErnesto De Leon;

27.In a resolution dated OctoberL4, 2AO9, hereto attached as Annex" 18" , the Assistant City Prosecutorconcluded that the elements of Estafaare wanting ratiocinatirtg, thus:

"Mr. Gunnawa himself hasattested that plkhe actually receivedall amounts indicated in the six (6)

checks subject of this case, whichrepresent his monthly salaries asutility personnel. By practice, his paychecks are encashed by his superiorsor at the Office where he is assigned.Then the checks are deposited backto the accounts of either UM crwhomever had encashed it. Thispractice is confirmed by Mrs. Belano,one of the complainant's supposedwitness, when she states uirder oaththat: (Mr. Gunnawa's) payroll is beingprocessed by the AccountingDepartment of the University oflManila through checks encashedthrough the Benguet Pines TouristInn Collection/Cashier departmentwhich. is owned by the University".This explains why the subject checksdo not actually bear the endorsementof respondent quite contrary to theallegations in the complaint"

Z+

28. It is worth noting that asdeclared under paragraph 3 andparagraph 8 of the first and secondcomplaints for Estafa, Mr. Gunnawawas no longer employed in theUniversity of Manila at the time of thefiling of the above mentionedcornplaints. Emily De Leon thereforewas quite certain that Ernesto De LosSantos would experience extremedifficulty defending himself becausethere would be a rrery slim probabilitythat he could locate Mr. Gunnawa toattest to the untruthfutrness of EmilyDe l,eon's allegations;

29.Tn fact, the entire members ofthe Board of Trustees u,'ith Atty.Madrid as the proponent had thetemerity to authorize the fitring ofthese cases and even utilize thefinances of the Universit5,- despiteErnesto De Los Santos'explanation/ objection and despitetheir fuIl knowledge that said measlysums representing the salary of Mr.Gunawa were being deposited to theUniversity's bank account, Copy . ofthe Minutes of the Board of TrusteesRegular Meeting on June 17 , 2OA9attesting to this fact is heretoattached as Annex "19";

30. On or about the same timeof the filing of the above mentionedcomplaints for Estafa, trmil;' De Leonalso filed a case for Falsification ofPubtric Document before the Office ofthe City Prosecutor of Manila but washowever dismissed for iack ofjurisdiction. Copy of the resolutiondated October , 29, 2008 is heretoattached as Annex "20";

25

31. Thus, she again filed thesame case for Falsification of PublicDocument irt Makati docketed underIS NO.08-J-8894. Being obviouslYbereft of any rnerit, the case wasdismissed not for insufficiency ofevidence but for LACK OFPROBABLE C.A,USE. Copy of theresolution dated July 23,2OO9 ishereto attached as Annex"2l";

32. Unsatisfied with suchdismissal of the complaint, she filed aPetition for Review before theDepartment of Justice questioningsuch dismissal. As expected. theDepartment of Justice in a Resolutiondated March 25, 2OlO againdismissed the Petition declaring thatthe element of the offense charged iswanting in the case. Copy of theresolution of Dismissal is heretoattachecl as Annex "22" ;

33. Again undaunted witkr thedismissal by the Department ofJustice, petitioner filed a Motion forReconsideration from suchDepartment's Order of dismissal.Surprisingly and for no apParentcogent reason, that saureDepartrnentreversed its ownresolution and inscantlyrecornmended the filing of theInformation for Falsification beforethe Court. This resolution wasmentioned in the Petitioner'sManifestation filed before this Courtlast August 5, 2olli

34. Most recently, EmilY De Leonalso filed a case for Qualified Theftagainst Atty. Ernesto De Los Santosattributing acts of theft of water andelectricity of Benguet Pines TouristInn which is owned by his iamilyagainst him for a huge amount of

26

Three Million Pesos(php3,000,000.00) making it a non-bailable offense. tseing bereft of anylegal nor factual basis, the HonorableFiscal NenitaOrpiana of Baguio Citystood on the ground of truth, servedjustice on the basis of clear andconvincing evidence on records andrendered a Resolution dismissing thecomplaint. A copy of the Resolutiond.ated July 29, 2Afi is heretoattached as Annex"23";

35. Not yet satisfied, a case forDisbarment pregnant with lies andfabricated facts was also recently filedby Juliewhyne R. Quindoza, a personunCer the power of hereincomplainant by reason of monetaryallowance being received monthly byMs. Quindoza from the University ofManila;

36.Emi1y De Leon utilizing herauthority and influence over theBoard of Trustees of the University ofManil"a and again as Atty. Madrid asthe project proponent, caused theposting of tarpaulin Postersmeasuring about four (4) meters bYsix (6) rneters showing the pictures ofAtty. Ernesto De Leon's three .(3)

children, Fe Detilah Daguinsin andAtty. Marujita Palabrica at differentconspicuous places in and outsidethe University premises - depictingthem as trouble makers. Pictures ofthe posted tarpaulins and theirrespective locations are heretoattached as Annexes "24' to "24-F" ;

37. Emily De Leon had masteredthe art of controlling, manipulating,subduing the will of the people underher power. In fact, even mY Youngestsister Ramona De Los Santos who ispreviously timid, overly modest,

27

solicitous daughter and sister is nowamazingly stouthearted ;

LOZ. Despite several motions filed by the petitioner beforethe nespondent court, the public respondent remained silentand cleiiberateiy refused to rule on any motion filed h,y hereinpetitioner. trn fact, despite several follow ups by the petitioner,the respondent court did not resolve any of the petitioner'srnotions. Hence, on March 7, 2AL2, petitioner filed aManifestation with Omnibus Motion to resolve the UrgentMotion for Assistance and to cite adverse parties in contemptof court indicating, thus;

8. With clue respect to theHonorable Court, the Urgent Motionfor Assistance was filed by hereinOppositor-heirs early as September 6,201 1 in view of the orchestratedobvious dissipation of assets underhis administration as welL as theextraord inary difficulty experiencedby him not only in gaining access tothe estate under his administrationbut also in taking custody of thepertinent documents of the estate andnot to mention his ordeal in the mereservice of his letter requests to any ofthe University officials, including hisSpecial C o-Administrator;

9. Due to such difficulty,Oppositor-heir De Los Santos asCcurt-appointed Special Co-Administrator was constrained toseek the assistance of the HonorableCourt thrcugh the instant UrgentMotion for Assistance to enable himto perform his functions as mandatedkry law;

10. Reliance by the opposingparties on herein Cppositor-heir'sincarceration to remove him asSpecial Co-Administrator by reason ofCriminal Case No. 32306-R, RTCBranch 'f , Baguio City for Qualilied

aoLb

Theft is not on1y pre-meditated butschemingly designed to Prevent theOppositor-heir's administration of theestate which would resultantly exposethe anomalous transactions involvingthe estate leading to its inevitabiedissipation;

1 1. This evident Prennedf,tatedsahecrle to put herein Oppositor-heirbehind bars to prevent the exercise ofhis function as Court-aPPointedSpecial Co-administrator is shown inthe ' Admini"strative ComP1aint-Affidavit filed by Oppositor-heir DeLos Santos against the CitYProsecutors of Baguio City before theDepartrnent of Justice. Copy of thesaid complaint is hereto attached asAnnex uD";

12. The aforesaid criminal caseis just one of the manifold of casescraftily filed by Ramona De LosSantos and Emily De Leon againstherein Oppositor-heir precisely topressure hirn into withdrawing hisopposition in the instant case. Thesewere exhaustively discussed in theCpposition to the Motion forReconsideration dated September 6,201 1 filed by herein Oppositor-heirbefore the Honorable Court on evendate;

13. it is worth' noting thatimrnediately ri.ght after the filing ofCppositor-heir's Urgent Motion forAssistance on Septembet 6, 2017, theother parties were agitated, went intopanic and steamrolled theirobnoxious railroading ef"forts to putherein Opposi.tor-heir behind bars.Thus, as can be gleaned from theaforesaid administrative compl"aint,the ResoLution on Review dated

29

September 23, 201 13 was hastilYrurrdet"d in no tirne by Assistant CityProsecutor Rolando Vergara reversingthe Resolution of InvestigatingProsecutor NenitaOpiana tlnding noprobable cause against Atty. ErnestoDe [,os Santos for qualified theft;

L4. In fact, the CPPositor-heirwas orchestrated to be arrestedpursuant to the said Resolution onReview and Information issued inconnection therewith even before saidcontested Resolution on Review datedSeptember 23, 20 1 1 waspromulgatedby the Office. of the CityPro*""rtor of Baguio CitY;a

15. True to form and infurtherance of their sinister plot tooust Oppositor-heir as Court-appointed SPecial JointAhministrator, the herein subjectmotions were filed after such arreston the common ground thatCppositor-heir being criminallYcharged and incarcerated, hisappointment as SPeciaI JointAdministrator has been renderedi.mpossible where Oppositor-heirallegedly lacks integrity, incapailleandl or has become unfit andincompetent to discharge the dutiesof his appointment as Special JointAdministrator;

16. It i.s here apparent thatbased on the original Resolution ofInvestigating Prosecutor NenitaOpiana, petitioner's allegation of Atty'De Los Santos' incomPetence orunfitness due to the cornmission of acrime involving moral turpitude hasno siightest factual nor legai basisbut is a m.ere desPerate scheme to

3 See Annex "F", Consoliclatecl Opposition filed Jarruar5r 18,2)\2'+Arurexes "J" an.d "1", respectively, ibid.

30

prevent him from Performing hisiunctions as Court-appointed SpecialCo-Administrator. CoPY of theResolution of Investigating ProsecutorNenitaOpianais hereto attached andmade an integral Parthereof asAnnex"E";

C"py of the said Manifestation with Omnibus Motion ishereto attached as dnnex ttEt';

103. tsut again, the respondent court remained silent onthe above Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to Resolve theurgent Motion for Assistance. So petitioner on June 28, 2012,

*glin filed a Manifestation before the respondent Courtsf,owing pictures to the respondent court that variousprop"tii.,*s of the estate is already in a state of neglect and/or*r."t". copy cf the Manifestation filed on June 28, 2Ol2 ishereto attached as Annex ttF";

104. Af,ter one (u year and two l2l months front theftlimg of the said Urgent Motion for Assistance, the urgency

of the resolution of the said Urgent Motion for Assistance was

again reiterated by the petitioner himseif in open court when he

declared that he was receiving informations that documents are

already being burned in Tagaytayu and substantial assets of the

Univeisity left bl, his father were being indiscriminately spent

without any transparency or receipts6. copies ol th9 pertinenttranscript of Stenographic notes are hereto attached as Annex6(rt1t?.$,

l-05. In add,ition to such manifestations of petitioner

himself, the und.ersigne,C counsel also consistently beg the

presiding judge in open court for the release of the resolution on

it " oppo*itoi*' Moiion for Urgent Assistancb explaining thataccess to the documents is ,r*i"*"*ry to avoid concealment of

the evidence by the adverse parties who are in control of the

University of Manila;?

106. on the face of such petitioner's consistent plea for

the presiding judge to rule on their motion which was filed for

r:nore than ^"y"i, the presid,ing judge endlessly justified his

delay or refusr.l tt rule on the putitiot er's motion sounding and

' TSN, October 2,z)ll.page 48-50, hereto atcached as Alnex "T"6 lbicl.. page 5o

' Ibid.. pages 41-"12.31

resounding hirnself like a laryyer for the petitioner in open

Court, thus:

..COURT:

But when it comes to corPoratepapers, do You think ttre Probateiourt has jurisdiction when it comesto corPorate PaPers?

ATTY. LUIS:Your Honor, the oPPositors here arenot asking for the papers by virtue ofhis position as a stockholder, YourHonor but bY virtue of his Positionas a court appointed administratorin which under the law he musthave an access to those d ocumentsand other assets under hisadministration. So the fact that theoppositor is asking for !h"documents, he is exercising hisfunctions as a court aPPointedadrninistrator.s"

107. The court conlinued" his refusal to rule on the

petitioner's motion for Urgent Assistance banking on the

petitioners old age claim, in this wise, thus:

COURT:Because according to them, the Court stil1

remembers, according to them, I don't knowif its according to Atty. Aquino or. eitherAtty. Carullo either one of them, it seerns

that they claimed, there was one hearing,the Court can no longer remember, butthere was one hearing in which theY

claimed that. Anyway, what is i:rrportant is

the share, the Personal share of thedeceased, of the testator and the personalshares are alreadY identified.

ATTY. CARULLO:In fact, Your Honor, they have the copy ofthe Stock and Transfer Book, Your Honor'

COURT:

8 tSN. October' 2.2012, Page 42.)L

So, here, wB are concerned with the divisionand eventual partition and assignment ofthe shares but outside of that as to thequestion of how the University will run2 Idon't know if the Probate court hascompetence over that. That's the issue thatconcerns us.

ATTY. LUIS:Actually, Your Honor, in our Urgent Motionfor Assistance, we explicitly stated thepertinent law that the oppositor is claiminghis right a.s a court appointed specialadministrator not as a stockholder, yourHonor, not as a board member or not as anexecutive vice president of the Universitybut as a court appointed administratorwhich is within the province of thisFlonorable Court, Your honor.e

108. Tired of hearing the petitioner's basis of claim as aduly appointed court appointed special administrator tostrengthen their plea, the court bank on another issue ofatteged generality of the rlocuments stated in the said UrgentMotion for Assistance, thus:

..COURT:

Anyway, if you can be more specific inthe interim, you must have some ideabut this is just a general request.

ATTY. LUIS:No, Your Honor, we alreadYenumerated one by one the documentswe submitted to Banaria and Banaria,Your Honor, the external auditor ofUM, we specified alreadY thedocuments one by one and specificallywith dates, Your Honor. It is just thatthe Banaria and Banaria refused, so Iattached our letter to Banaria andBanaria to our Urgent motion forassistance, your Honor, to determine

n October 2^2012, pages 46-17-lJ

or identify those specific documentsthat we will be needirg'o;

109. The presiding judge also justified his refusal to ruleby reason of the fact that there is another co- administrator andthe exercise of power if any, of a joint administrator has to be ajoint decision of the t.vo co-administratorsrl."

110. The undersigned counsel respectfully argued on suchpoint raised by the presiding judge, in this wise, thus:

"ATTY. LUIS:We agree, Your Honor to the Court butcan we raise t*,vo points raised by thegood counsel, Your Honor. First, histalking of a joint administration. If it isreally joint, Your Honor, the other co-administrator has fuII access and in factfull eontrol over UM but the jointadministrator here has even no access,Your Honor.l2"

1 1 1. On another formal issue raised by the presidingjudge that a formality like an oath has to be taken by theadministrator prior to the exercise of power, the undersignedcounsel gracefully informed him that oppositor Ernesto De losSantos already took his oathI3;

I12. Finally, when the court run out of justificationsand the undersigned counsel attempted to reiterate her needfor the resolution of her Urgent Motion for Assistance prayingfor an access to secure documents from UM, the presidingjudge merely brushed it aside and instead declared, thus:

..COURT:

No, You just file your request forSubpoena. We will try to act on it.14"

113. Hence, pursuant to such hope given by therespondent and for purposes of presenting another witness forthe petitioner, petitioner's counsel requested the respondent

"t rbid., page 43.

" Ibid.. page 4412 Ibid.. page 44.r3 Ibid., page 45.

'o lbid., page5234

court to issue a Subpoena Decus Tecum to Atty. Diosdado

Madrid. However, in arL ord,er dated October 25, 2012, the

request of herein petitioner to present Atty. Madrid as histrostite witness was denied and the continuation of trial was set

on Novernber 22,2072. Copy of the Order of denial is heretoattached as Annex ttII";

Il4. Prior to the scheduled hearing on November 22, 2Ol2or on November 8, 2012, petitioner filed an Urgent OmnibusMotion for Reconsideration; Inhibition and for the Deferment ofall other proceedings pending the resolution of the instantMoti6n for Inhibition. Copy of the motion is hereto attached as

Annex tn[";

1 15. Cn the scheduled hearing of November 22, 2012,,

which is also the date set for the presentation of hereinpetitioner's evid"ence, petitioner's counsel at the outset of theproceedings manifested that a pending Motion for Inhibitionand to Deier Proceedings was filed before the Court and in fact,

she already received thi comments on the said motion filed by

the "o.rnu"I" for the ad,verse parties, Atty. Aquino and Atty.

Carullo;

116. Much to the petitioner counsel's surprise and on the

face of her vigorous objection, the Presiding Judge withoutruling on the Motion for Inhibition and Deferment of ali otherpro""ldings a.sked her to rest her case and rendered in open'

tourt an order dated Novemb et 22, gALZ which reads, thus;

"It appearing that the oppositorshave already been given sufficient timeand still failed to present their intendedsecond and last witness as announced bythe counsel themselves, the oppositorsare deemed to have waived their- right topresent further evidence and areconsidered to have rested their case'"

Copy of the Order dated November 22, 2012 is hereto

attached as Annex otJ";

117. On December 7, 2OL2, petitioner vigorouslyquestioned the above order requiring him to rest his case and

fit"a a Motion for Reconsideration indicating, thus:

35

"The above order is not only bereft ofany factual basis, contrary to the-

court records but is also a display ofpure bia.s and PartialitY againstherein oppositors, bY reason of thefollowing grounds:

1. First, the witness for theoppositor in the Person of AttY'Ernesto de Los Santos was firstpresented for direct examination onSeptember 13, 2012. On the samed.y, his direct examination wasconcluded and the court set his crossexamination on the subsequenthearing date;

2, On October 2, 2012, AttY.Carullo, counsel for the heir RamonaDe Los Santos concluded his crossexamination while Atty. RobertsonAquino, counsel for the Petitionerconcluded his cross-examination onOctober LO, 2AL2;

3. Upon conclusion of thecross examination on October 10,

2OL2, the Court issued an order,thus:

"Set continuation of hearing forpresentation of intended secondwitness for the oppositor Atty. De LosSantos to October 25, 2Ol2 at 8:30am."

4. On October 25,20L2, theundersigned counsel upon inquiry ofthe court as to the oppositors'secondwitness replied, thus:

"Atty. LUIS:Your honor Please, during the lasthearing, I mentioned the name of Ms'Delilah Daguinsi.n as our secondwitness, your honor but...

COURT:

36

Could you mention that name again?Atty. LUIS:

Delilah Daguinsin, Your Honor.COURT:

Who is she?Atty. LUIS:

Your Honor, she is the mother of thethree (3) children of oppositor Atty'Ernesto De Los Santos.

COURT:I think she was here the last time'

Atty. LUIS:Yes, your Honor.

COURT:What happened?

Atty. LUIS:After I mentioned her name, YourHonor, and after the commotions, andafter hearing that, the body guard ofthe adverse party approached her atthe back, I think the court personnelsaw it, and bY virtue of such, Yourhonor, she changed her mind aftersome time and uP to now, YourHonor, I am stiIl convincing her buthopefully, we could convince her bY

the next hearing; she failed to appearin the office to sign the judicialaffidavit we prepared. "

15

5. On that same occasion, thgundersigned counsels manifested16that so as not to waste the time ofthe florrorable Court, the counselsfor the oPPositors requested topresent a liostile witnesS in thep"t*o, of petitioner Atty' Diosdadoil4adrid, t* ih* second witness for theoppositors, who was then Present iniolrt, invoking Rule 21, section 7 ,

on the SubPoena Provision of theRules of Court;

's TSN. October 25,2012, Pages 3-4'

'u TSN.Ibid., page 6.37

6. Much to the undersignedcounsel's dismay, the Court deniedlTthe oppositors' request to PresentAtty. Diosdado Madrid as oppositors'hostile witness though explicitlymandated under the rules;

7. On that same hearing date, whenthe Court inquired whether DelilahDaguinsirr would still be included inthe list of oppositors' witnesses, theund ersigned counsel did not rule herout as possible oppositors' witnessand replied thus:

"Atty. LUIS:We are still in the Process ofconvincing her, Your Honor"l8

8. Despite the foregoing exPlicitd eclarations, the Court scornfullyinquired, thus:

"Do you think do You stilI need ahearing to present Your witness?le"

9. The foregoing open courtdeclarations of the presiding judgedisplay his lost of slightestforbearance to hear the oppositors'evidence. It must be stated that thoseopen court statements of thepresiding judge were made only aftersixty nine (69) days from the time theoppositor commenced thepresentation of their case ln chief.bespite this, the presiding judge hadthe temerity to declare, thus:

"It is the sense of the Courtthat the issue is not about delaY inthe presentation of the evidence. It isthe issue of whether the oppositorshave further evidence to present. The

u TSN, october 25,2012, pages 16-17.r8 TSN. October 25,2012,page 17.

'' TSN. October 25.20L2, page 18.38

Court and the other Parties cannotbe made to wait indefinitelY."

10. WorthY of note, however isthe fact that, oppositors request topresent a hostile witness was refusedonly on October 25, 2012. Hence, itwas less than a month or onIY twentYeight (28) days to be exact, when thecourt lost its patience waiting for theoppositors to present their second*iit e** promPting him to order thetermination of oPPositor'spresentation of evidence;

1 1. IronicallY, the court wholost its patience for barely less than amonth from the time the courtrefused the oPPositors request topresent a hostile witness was also thesame court who generously affordedand" patiently waited for the petitionerto present their case for a Periodco**"t.cing on December 15, 2008up to July 1 1, 2Ol2 or a Period ofalmost four (4) Years;

L2. Considering the foregoingevents tlrat transpired from the timeof the presentation of the oppositors'first witness in the person of Atty'Ernesto De Los Santos on SePtember13, 20 12 uP to Novembet 22, 2012, ttis evident that no ample time had yetbeen afforded to herein oppositors topresent their witnesses' thdt wouldivarrant the order of termination ofthe oppositors presentation of theircase in chief;

13. Second, &s can be gleaned

from the records, it was never theintention of the oppositors to waivetheir right to present their secondwitness. In fact, they consistentlyd.isplayed before the honorable Court,

39

their persistent desire to present theirwitness. Hence, the declaration thatthe oppositors have deemed to havewaive their right to Present theirsecond witness is not only contrary tothe records, unfitting but indecorous;

14. In fact, as earlY as October2, 2012, or even during the first crossexamination of Atty. Ernesto De Los

Santos, herein oPPositor counselalready declared her intention topresent several witnesses, thus:

"Atty. LUIS:Yes, Your Honor, Please. I would

certainly sound rePetitious, YourHonor, but I beg the kind indulgenceof the Honorable Court. I tried tointerview witnesses but nobodYwanted as of this moment but I trY tointerview more by next week )o(x"'2o"

15. In fact, after the denial ofthe oppositor's motion to Present a

hostile witness, the oppositors evenattempted to request the Court for theissuance of a SubPoena DucesTecumfor the oppositors to present a secondwitness itt tfre person of Atty. Madridbut was fikewise denied, bY the Courtdeclaring, thus:

..COURT:

There is already a ruling,' perhaps it'sup to You wha-t remedY to take, bY'there is alreadY a ruling and it'salreadY been dictated. If You want,you can...I don't know if you want tomove orally, now for reconsiderationor not todaY.

Atty. LUIS:We \MiIl just Put in writing YourFIonor."21

?o TSN. October 2.2012, Page 39t'TSN. October 25.2012, Page 18'

40

L6. It is worth noting that thesuggestion for the parties to resort tothe processes of the honorable Courtlike the issuance of a subpoena or thepresentation of a hostile witness evencr.*e from the Court when itdeclared, thus:

COURT:Yes. Okay. Anyr,vaY, don't worry. Toall the parties, this will be rnadeavailable to all the parties that if youfeet that there are certain things youneed to use the compulsory processesof the Court which is through asubpoena, the court will obligereadily. So now, the witnesses, Youcan also request for subPoena forwitnesses and then if You want,quaffi them as hostile witnesses ifyou feel. I think you know.Atty. LUIS:

Yes, Your Honor."22

L7 . SurprisinglY, it may well be

surmised that something happened inthe interregnum that the honorableJudge himself who ProPosed saidremedies of resort to court processesoutrightly denied the oPPositors'request without hesitation in opencourt;

18. Third, the declhratfon of thejuclge in the contested order ofNovember 22, 2Ol2 that the counselthemselves announced that theoppositors second witness will be

their last witness is again notsupported by the court records. OnOctober 10, 2AL2, the undersignedcounsel even declared her explicitintention to present a maximum ofthree (3) witnesses, thus:

=t TSN. October 2,2012. pages 40-41'41

"Atty. LUIS.Actually, we are contemPlating to

present Ms. Delilah Daguinsin, YourHonor, we might be Presenting,maximum. of, in addition to Delilah,we might be presenting two more. Somaximum of three, Your Honor."23

19. The concerted intentionsnot only of the adverse Parties butincluding the presiding judge for theoppositors to present no otherwitnesses but Delilah Daguinsin canalso be gleaned in their statements inopen court, thus:

.,COURT:

There is an express desire for anopportunity to present witness, whatsay counsel?

ATTY. AQUINO;Yo ur Honor, at this Point, theY caneven state the tenor as to the purposeof the testimony of the witness. Idoubt they may be able to Presentthis witness.

COURT:What say you?

ATTY. CARULLO:Yes your Honor, we also object thepresentation of another witnessprecisely because they did not evenmention the name of the otherwitness and the PurPose bf suchtestimony, your Honor, and in fact, itis our considered view that they areonly delayrng the case your Honor.

ATTY. ANDRES:No your Honor please, the PurPose ofwhich we are going to present witnessis of course in'support of the groundswe alleged in our opposition.

COURT:

2' TSN, October 10,2012, Page 5642

It should be material and it shouidrelate specificatly just to the dueexecution and genuineness of the wiil.

ATTY. ANDRtrS:Yes.

CCURT:This is what we are concerned with,not yet with the disposition.

ATTY. ANDRES:We understand your Honor. And thenames of the witnesses that weintend to present, as of now, we couldnot give because of the sensitivity.

COURT:If you will be given another chance bythe Court, wilI you commit that Youwill submit a Judicial affidavit at leastthree days before the hearing date'Are you willing to commit yourself.?That's the question now?

ATTY. ANDRtrS:Yes your honor.

COURT:The arguments of AttY. Carullo andAtty. Aqu.ino aPPeared to becompelIing, but in the interest ofjustice, and over and above theiro'bjection, the Court resol,ves tc)

gramt osle last opportunity for theoppositor to present his intendedwiiness IMs" Delil.ah Daguinsin.za"

20. F"ourth, the holidaY seasonis fast approaching. The contestedorder dated Novembef 12, 2012,mandating the oppositors to rest theircase is actually prompted not by theoppositors alleged delay to presenttheir second witness but bY theobvious intention of the presidingjudge to rush the termination of thecase prior to Christmas season, thus:

to TSN, October 25"ll\L}"pages 19-20.

.,COURT:

43

The arguments of AttY. Carullo andAtty. Aquino aPPeared to be

compelling, but in the interest ofjustice, and over and above theirobjection, the court resolves to grantone last opportunity for the oppositorto present his intended witness Ms.Delilah Daguinsin. First, w€ will allowthe parties to agree on the date, if notwe will arbitrarily set a date. Middle ofNovember, if possible.

ATTY. LUIS:Okay, November 28,

Your Honor.COURT:

You know, because the Court will go

on leave because of the extended longholiday. So, third week which is 13,

t4, 15."2s

21. In fact, this intention of thepresid ing judge to rush thelermination of this case before theonset of the Christmas season can begleaned as earlY as Octobet 2, 2Ol2or during the first cross examinationof Atty. Ernesto De Los Santos whenit addressed to the undersignedcounsel, thus:

..COURT:

Now, we wiil be forced to have acontinuance not onIY for the crossexamination because the crossexamination may not be too long butplease prepare your next'witri.ess also

"o thal we1l not waste too muchtime." 26

22. After such hearing onOctober 2, 2A12, another hearing washeld on October 10, 2Ol2 and duringsuch October 10, 2012 hearing, theinLention of the judge to rush thetermination of the case prior to the

" TSN, october 25.2012, pages 2o-21.tu TSN, October 2,2a12, Page 41.

44

Christmas season was again evidentlydeclared when he requested in oPen

court for another hearing in thesame monttr of, October, thus:

..COURT:

'You know, actuallY, w€ have alreadYdelayed because the Court at least*.rl* to finish at least the receptionof evid"ence for the first stage'

UnforttrnatelY, we lost in a sense ahearing date because of Yourindisposition which is somethingbeyond our control;. Let's have adate this October please. Let's havean October date. If You don't want todisclose the identity; could you give

the court the sense of the number ofyour witnesses so that we canadjust?"27

23. fifth, the foregoingnarrations showed the audacity of thepresid ing judge to disPenseproceedit S" in the quickest andshortest time possible if desirecl;

24. If not desired, deliberateactions of the presiding judge to Celay

the proceedings are apparent and hisefforts to delay even in open court are

grossly lacking in subtletY' As

[reviouslY stated, for more than a

year ago or on SePtember 6, 2otl,bppositor-heir Atty. Ernesto De Los

Slntos filed an Urgent Motion forAssistance before the Court due tothe imminent dissipation of estateunder his administration;

copy of txre Motion for Reconsideration questioning the

crr.der of the respond"ent court dated November 22, 2OL2 is

hereto attached as Anmex otK";

t'TSN. october io.20I2. Page 5645

l- 18. nn no time from the filing of the said Motion forReconsideratl-on, gf, on December 27, 2012, the respondent

coltrt issued an Crder approving the allowance of the will' Copy

of ttrre Crder dated Decimber 27,2Ol2 is hereto attached as

Affiseex d6Le,. The dispositive portion of which is hereunderquotecl, thus:

"WHEREFORE IN VIEW OF ALL THEF"OREGOII\G, in the interest of justice, theCourt hereby rules on the following:

1. The Urgent Motion for Assistancedated 6 September, 201 1 is DENIED foriack of rnerit;

2. The Motion to Cite Atty. Carullo incontempt and to cite Adverse Party andCounsel in Contempt of Court dated 2February 201,2 is DENIED for lack of merit;

3. The Urgent Omnibus Motion dated5 November 2OL2 1. For reconsideration 2 '

For lnhibition 3, To Defer Resolution of thelnstant Motion for ReconsiderationFending resolution of the Instant Motionfor Inhibition and all other Proceedings incase is DENIED for iack of merit;

4. The undated Motion forReconsid eration (Re: Order dated 22November), which appears similar inobjective to the above Urgent OmnibusMotion of 5 November 2012, is DENIBD fornack of merit.

5. The oPPosition dated 19 August2008 is DENIED for lack of merit;

FURTHtrRMORtr, premises considered,relative to the MA]N AGENDA of theproceeding at this stage, the probate of theiviLl is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the three(3) Pagehotrographic will dated 3 February 2005 ishereby APPROVED and ALLOWED.

Let letters testamentary and1\Cn-rinistration be issued to petitioner Atty'Diosdado G. Madrid, without requirennent

16

of anytestator.

new bond as wished for bY the

Upon due AssumPtion of Office,petitionershallactasanddischargehisduties as the sole and generaladministrator of the Estate of theDeceased Dr. Virgilio D' De Los Santos'

SO ORDERED.Manila, 27 December, 2012"

1i9. On January 22,2013, peti.tioner filed a Motion for

R.econsideration q.ru*iiorling the above quoted Order but in an

Crder dated nAarcir 1. 1, 2013, said Motion for Reconsideration

was Cenied.. Colry of the Motion for Reconsideration and the

Order Cenying -such

Motion for Reconsideration are hereto

attached as .Amnexes n'M" amd 66N"'

120. By virtue of the denial of the petitioner's Motion for

Reconsideration, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and

deposited with the-Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila the appeal bond of Php 4,030.00 as evidenced by an

Cni.iut neceiii no. 2072627. Cbpy of the Notice of Appeal and

tire cfficial Receipt indicated theiein as proof of payment of the

corre*sponding docket fee is hereto attached as Annex 660"'

\2L . In an crd er d ated septemb er 25, 2 0 13, copy of which

is hereto attached as Alr.nex eetrlrr, the respondent court denied

tlre Notice of epp"ai filed by the petitioner declaring in the said

order, thus:

"It is the view of the Court thatSection 6 of Rule 41, which mandates, thatthe record on appeal 'shall inciude"COPIES" of only such pleadings, petitions,motions and all interl'ocutory orders as

related to the appealed judgment or finaiord"er," does not ailow the mere re-typing ofthe same.

Moreover, in the order dated Jurre 25,

2013, the oppositor Atty. De Los Santos,

through counsel, was given fifteen (15)

days ftom receipt of the orCer to file its

47

consolidated reply but he never did, up totoCay.

In view of allconsiderations, findingNotiee of Appeal to beamd suhstance, theN&NIED.

the foregoingthat the undateddefective in forntsame is &rereby

Let the records show that this Order wasprorrrulgated in open Court.

As prayect f,or, Atty. ,{ndres is given ten(10) days from today to file her intendedrejoinder to the reply dated September 23,2013 which was filecl only today.

To keep track of the pending incidentsand for further proceedings of the case, seta hearing on October 23, 20 13 at 8:30 am.

SC ORDERED." i

L22. Fron:. the above quoted order demyimg thepetflti*rrner's [ffotiee of Appeal, petitioner filed his Motion forReconsideration. Copy cf the Motion for Reconsideration datedCctober 10, 2013 is hereto attached as Annex "Q";

123, In a. subsequent Order issued by the respondentcourt dated January 24, 2OL4, the public respondent iikewiseDEIIIIED the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Copy of theOrder d"ated January 24, 2014 is hereto attached as Anmex"S";

L24" . Cn Aprii 3, 20 13, herein petitioner fitred a Motionbefore the responrCent corrrt, seeking an etdditional period withinwhich to file their record on appeal setting the same for hearingon Apnil 8, 2013 at 8:30 o'cLock in the morning. Copy of theh4otiorr is hereto attached as Annex 66Vt''

X25. Cn ApriL S, 2013, when the petitioner's counsel wentto the court to attend the hearing on her motion, she learnedfrom the court records that as early as March 19, 2OI3, LettersTestarnentary and Administration was already issued in favor ofAtty. Diosdado hzladriC and the latter already took his oath ofoffice as adrninistrator;

4B

126. Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari.

GROUNEIS FOR THE ALL01[I^A.I{CE OFJHE PETrTION

L27 , Tiirie public respondent, Branch 49 of the RegionalTrial Cor-rrt of Manila erred and gravely abused its discretion,amounting to iack or excess of jurisdiction, when it deniedpetitioneris Notice of Appeal contrary to the evidence on recordand mandates of the 1aw or jurisprudence;

^ESSTGNMENT OE'ERRORS

T

PUtsT,IC RESPONDESIT GRAVEI,YAtsTISEP TTS DISCRETION IN DENYTNGTHE Iq'OTTCE CIF APPEAL ON GROUNDTETAT' THE R,UN,E ON THE RECORD ON

APPE"SL DOES NOT ALLOW MER'ERffiTYPTIIG OF THE PT,EADINGS.

ffi

PUELIC RESPO$DEI{T GRAVELYAtsUSEE TTS DISCRETION TN

I}ECT"ARING THAT T'HE NOTTCE OF.A,PPEAt IS DEFEC'TIVE IN }.ORM .A.ND.

SUESTAIqCE.

DISCUS$TONS

X"28. Traclitionaily, by grave abuse of discretion is meant

such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as isequivatrerrt to lack of jurisd.iction, and it must be shown that thediscretion was .**r"i**d arbitrarily or despotically.2s The abuse

of discretion rnust be patent and gross as to amount to an

evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a dutyenjoined by 1a*, as not to act at all in contemplation of law or

."h.ru power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner

,,pMl Cotteges vs. /VLRC and Aleiandro Galvan, G.R. /Vo. 121466, August 15, 1997.49

by reason of passion or hostility.ze Itshowever, already includes acts doneconstitution, the law, or jurisprudence;so

expanded meaning,contrary to the

Lzg. The pivotal issue for resolution is whether or not thepublic respond.ent courts committed grave abuse of discretionlmountinf to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying thepetitioner's Notice of APPeal;

130. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, provides,

tkrus:

Appea} Frorut The R'egional ?rial Courts

Seetiour S.Period of ordinary appeal. - Tlne

appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15)

days from notice of the judgment or finalorder appealed from. Where a record onappeaX is required, the appellant shall filea notiee of, appeal and a record on appealurithin thirty tSOl days from notice of thejudgrnent or final order-

The period. of appeal sha1l be interrupted bya iimely motion for new trial orreconsideration. No motion for extension oftime to file a motion for new trial orreconsideration shal1 be allowed. (n)

13i. Considering that the instant case is one for allowance

of a will or a probate case, requiring the filing of a'record on

appean, herein petitioner filed a timely Notice of Appeal and

nelord on Appe*t .* can be gleaned under the following:

a. Decemb er 27 , 2012 - Order was rendered by the

respondent court approving the allowance of the will'Copy of the Crd"er is hereto previously attached as Annexagrr- This Order was received by the petitioner on January7, 2AL3. Hence, petitioner has until January 22, 2013 toquestion this order;

- Petitioner filed a Moticn forDec. 27, 2012. CoPY of the Motion

2ePanaligan vs. Adolfo,67 SCRA 176.*'tiiriiZiion iecinotogy Foundation of the Philipptnes vs. Commission on Elections, 419

SCRA 141.

b. January 22,2073Reconsideration of the

50

for Reconsideration showing at the signature portion thatit was filed thru Registered Mail on January 22,2013 ishereto attached as Axlnex "&I";

c. March11,2013- Order was rendered by therespond.ent court denying the January 22, 20 13 Motion forReConsideration filed by the Petitioner. This order wasreceivecl by the petitioner on March 25, 20 13. Hence,petitioner has until April 10, 2013, within which to submithis I'{otice of Appeal and Record on Appeal;

c. April 3, 20tr3 - Petitioner filed a l\otice of Appeal andpaiC the corresponding appeal bond. Copy of the l\otice ofAppeai and the corresponding official receipt showing suchAocket fee payment are hereto attached as Annexes €60"

arnd or@- 1rr, alomg with a Motion f,or Extem.siorr to filethe Record, on Appeal, seekimg five {5} days f,romr Apritr10, ?O13 or umtitr April 3.S, 2013 to file the saffilei

e. April 12, 2OL3 -Appeal. Copy of the thesuch was filed on APriiAmgrex 6d2:!e'

Petitioner filed his Record onRecord on Appeal, showing that12, 2013 is hereto attached as

1,32 " The foregoing ind.ubitably shows the timely fiiing bydr.e petitioner of his Notice of Appeal, timely payment of the.o""i"ponding appeai fee and the timely filing of his Record onAppeai. If the petitioner perforrned his right to appeal in a

timely fashion, what prompted the respondent to deny thepetitioner's I'{otice of APPeal?

i33. A reading of the Order dated September 25, 2013,denying the petitioner's Notice of Appeal would disclose thefbllowing:

"Itrtr a Comment and/ or Oppositiond.ated June 26 , 2 0 13, the oPPositorthrcugh Att1.. Robertson Aquino allegedsi-tbstantially that a Record on Appealcannot be a rflere retyping and that so farthere has been no formal entry ofappearance fiLed by Atty. Andres.

It is the view of th.e Court that Section6 of Rutre 4L, which illandates that the

51

recordonAppealshailinclude..CoPIES,,ofonly sucl:

-plead'ings, petitions' motionsand interlocutory orders as related to the

appealed judgment or final order"' does

**t allow ttle mere re-typing of, thesasffie.

Moreover, in the Order dated June26 , 20 13, the oppositor Atty' de-

- Los

Santos, through counsel, was given lftegn(15) days fro receipt of the Order to file its"consol-idatedreply"butheneverdiduptotodaY.

In view of all the foregoingconsiderations, find'ing that the undatedNoticeofAppealtobedefectiveinformandsubstano",-ih* same is hereby DENiED'"

134. The above order denying the Notice of Appeal also

adopted the position of the private respondent that the Record

on Appeal is patently incomplete *rr9 deficient as oppositor-

heirs (herein p*titiorretl omitted several pleadings and orders' 3r

135. As can be glearred' from the foregoing, the denial by

the respondent couri of the petitioner's Notice of Appeal was

due to the fact that herein p"iitiot er did not attach photocopies

but inst**O ,*-typed the pieadings, petitions and motions and

atrI orders of the court as ,.r. ,.ir.Ied to the order subject of the

appeatr;

i36.Byvirtueoftheabovefind.ingsprompting.thed.enial,rf ttre Notice c,f Appeal, pe[itioner filed a Motion seeking to

reconsider the *t oie denill and fiiecl an Amended Record on

Appeal to meet the requirement of the respondent court' Copy

of the Amend.ed record on Appeal is hereto dttached as '&nmexnoR.";

.I.3T.TheAmerrdedrecordonAppealwasfiledbyhereinpetitioner pr.trsuant to Section 7, Rule 4f of the Revised Rules of

bourt which Provides, thus:

Seetflom Y "Approuat af record on appe*l'

Upon the filing of the record on appeal for

ufrpro'rui and If tt' objection is filed by the

.t Orde, dated Septernber 25. 2013. page 2" paragraph 3' hereto attached as Afilex "P"' 52

appellee within five (5) days from receipt ofa copy thereof, the trial court may approveit as presented or upon its own motion or atthe instance of the appellee, may direct itsamend.ment by the inclusion of any omittedmatters which are deemed essential to thedetermination of the issue of law or factinvolved in the appeal. If the trial courtord,ers the amendment of the record', theappellant, within the time lirnited in theoid"., or such extension thereof as may be

granted, or if no time is fixed by the order

-itt it ten (10) days from receipt thereof,shalI redraft the record by incltl"dingtherein, in their proper chronologicalsequence, such add'itional matters as thecourt may have directed him to incorporate,and shall thereupon subrnit the redraftedrecord" for approval, r.rpon notice to theappetrlee, in tit e manner as the originaldraft. (7a)

138. Under the aforequoted law, it is explicit that if the

appeilant failed to include any matters which are d'eemed

essential to the Ceterrnination of facts or issues involved in the

appeal, the court may direct the arnendment of the record on

^bbeaf or di.rect the appeilant to incorporate matters or re-draft

tkre record on aPPeal;

139. In the case at bar, no oppCIrtunity to correct, amend,

or r.e-draft the record on appeal- was afforded by 'the public

respond"ent to herein appeilint. Consistent with the sharn

character of the trial conducted before his sala for the all0wance

of ttrre wiIl, the public respondent not only p;revented petitioner

to presenl his *itrr*""es but also disregarded his fundamental

right to appeal;

140" As r,vas helcl i.n the case of Roman vs' Tizon et a1., 32

We cited in the Ozaeta decision the cases ofGuerra Enterprises Company, Inc' vs' Court'

of First instance of Lanao del Sur I and

"[e .n.No. l--30345. March 27,1974.!;THELMATANALEGA, and FERNANDo ROMAN, petitioners,

vs. HONORABLE TITO V. TIZON, as Presiding Judge of the cFl of Bataan; ANTONIO DELGADO' and

NEI-LlE C. DELGAD0, resPondents'

53

Dela Torre vs. Ericta, et al' 10 In the formercase, we ruled that "since the record onappeal wa,s still within the control of therespondent court, all that was needed*** to order aPPellant to make ttrerequisite amendments, and not to barthe appeal . . . ." 11 Thus, it was held thatalthough the record on appeal failed tospecify the date when certain orders werereceived it was not proper for respondentcourt to bar the appeal. What it should havedone was to order the appellant to amendthe r,ecord on appeal to incorporate thereinthe omitted data pursuant to its powersunder Sec. 7, Rule 4l- of the Revised Rulesof Court. L2 In the latter case of Dela Torrevs. Ericta, this Court stressed:"There can be no question, therefore, thathe could determine, bY examining the wholerecord before him, what said date was and,consequently, whether or not the appeaihad been perfected on time. He seems to be,

however, under the impression that - even ifsaid record warranted an affirmative answer

he could not order the amendment ofpetitioner' record on appeal for thecompletion of the data lacking in theoriginal record on appeal." 13

)o(xxx>ua(Ernphasis was also rnade of the fact thatim cases of incomplete or defectiverecord on appeal, Section 7, RuIe 4L, 'L4clearly efilpowers the court to order theanaendment of the same and, to grant theappetrlant time within which to submit orfi!,e the amended record on irpp6al' 15In the instant case, the "intervening facts"which petitioners failed to incorporate intheir record on appeal were particularlyknown to respondent Judge because he

hirnself granted petitioners' motion forextension to file record on appeal in hisorder of November 26, L968, as follows:". Consid.ering the motion ex-parte forextension of time to file record on appeal by

the defendants thru counsel for a period offifteen (15) days from November 29, 1968 to

54

beinorderandjustified",thecourtherebygrantsthesamewithunderstandingthatnofurther extension shall be granted"'RespondentJudgeshouldnotsimplyhaveclosedhiseyes,obliviousofhisownorderapproving the extension, specially sincep"iitiorrers complied with the said order andsubmitted the record on appeal well withintheperiodallowedintheorder.sounddiscretionandacleardutybehoovehimto have rxtilized his powers under Sec' 7'rr.l.le 4L, supra, by directing petitioners toa.mend, the record' on appeal to includethereintheex.partemotionforextensionamd order granting the sarne' Etris

adarmag'strefusaltoreconsiderhispositionr'lnd'erthecircunrstancesdespitea mrotiom for reconsideration bY

petitionerswaswhimsicalandarbi'trary,arnountingtograveabuseofdiscretioR.

l4l"Inthecaseatbar,therecord'onAppealfiledbyherein petitioner complied rn'ith the rules on the form and

contents of the reccrd on Appeal. Section 6 of Rule 41 provid'es'

thus:

Sectiora 6.Record on appeal; for* andcontents thereof. - The fulI names of all theparties to the proceedings shall be stated inih" ".ption

of th" record on app-eal- and itshall include the judgment or finaL ' orderfrom which the appeal is taken and' inchronological ordei, copies of only suchpleadings, petitions, motionS and allinterlocutory orders as are related to the

appealed judgment or ,fi1at order for thepiop"t .lt d"t*tanding of the issue involved'iogutfr*t with such data as rn'ill show thatth; appeal was perfected on time' If at1

issue of fact is to be raised on appeal, the

record on appeal shall include by reference

all the evidence, testimonial and

docutnentary, taken upon the issueinvolved" The reference shal1 specify thedocumentary e'u'idence by the exhibit

5i'

nuilrbers or letters bY which it wasidentified when admitted or offered at thehearing, and the testimoniatr evidence by thenames of the corresponding witnesses. Ifthe whole testimoniai and documentaryevidence in the case is to be included, a

statement to that effect will be sufficientwithout mentioning the names of thewitnesses or the numbers or letters ofexhibits. Every record on appeal exceedingtwenty (20) pages must contain a subjectindex.

tr42. The Record on Appeal filed by herein petitioner,heneto attached as ,S,m,nex ttU", as well as the Amended Recordon Appeal, hereto attached as Amnex 6(R", included thefollowing, thus:

a. Ttre fulL names of the parties to the proceedingsas stated in the caption of the record on appeal33;

b. The Crder of Judgment frorn which the appealis taken chronologically al'ranged in the AmendedRecord on Appeai as follows:

b.1. Order ciated Novemb er 22, 2O123a, wherethe respondent Court required the petitioner torest his case;

b.2. Order dated December 27,2OL235, wherethe petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration ofthe Crder dated November 22, 2A72 wasdenied;

b.3.Orden dated March Ll, 2A13tu, where the ,

pubiic respondent denied the petitioner'sMotion for Reconsideration of the orderrendered on December 27, 2Ol2;

b.4. Order dated" September 25, 20L337, wherethe pubtric respondent denied the Notice of

3i Amencled Record on Appeal. page 1rr Amended Record on Appeai, page 1233rs Aruendecl Recorci on Appeal. page 12.75.}j Aruencied Record ot Appetrl. page i307.irArnencled Record ori Appetrl. page 1331.

56

Appeatr filed by the petitioner;

c. Copies of such pleadings, petitions, motions,and interl.ocutory orders as are related to theappealed order and necessary for the properunderstanding on the issue involved. The subjectindex with the corresponding table of pagesi.ncorporated in the petitioner's Record onAppeal38 would show this compliance;

d. Data as wiltr show that the appeal was perfectedon'l time. Page 374 of the Record on Appealexplicitly indicated the material dates when theotd*r* subject of the appeal was rendered, appealboncl was paid and the dates where said orderswere received;

e. Issues of fact if there are any. Considering thatthe issue subject of the record on appeal were theCrders dated ldovernbet 22, 2Ol2 and December27 , 2072, where the respondent court bluntlydeprived herein petitioner of his right to presenthis witnesses and compelled herein petitioner torest his case on the face of his vigorous objection,the original record on appeal, merely enllmeratedthe contested orders and the pleadings filed by thepetitioner contesting such orders;

f. The rule mandates the inclusion of the subjectinclex if the record" on appeal exceeds twenty (20)

pages. F{ence, petitioner included a subject indexin his Record on APPeal;

143. A reading of the Record on Appeal, previouslyattached hereto as fuinex "U", filed by the petitioner before therespondent court would undeniably show the petitioner'scompliance with the rules. The only error if such would be

"on*id*red an error, is the fact that the court orders and the

pleadings of the parties were not photocopies but instead re-

iyped by the petitioner in his Record on Appeal;

38 Record on Appeais, Subject index. pages 2 to 5'

57

L44. And such defect, if it will be considered a defect atalL, was in f,act, corrected by the petitioner himself when he filedieis Amended Record on Appeal3e and attached thereto byreference the photocopies of the court orders and the pleadingsof ttrre parties;

145. Consiclering such error found by the respondentcourt and further considering the immediate action of thepetitioner in filing the Amended RecorC on Appeal to meet theiequinements of the Court, it is indeed grave abuse of discretionamounting to trach or excess of jurisdiction on the part of thenespondurrt

"o,rrt to deny herein petitioner of his right to appeal

the contested orders;

tr46. Xn the recent case of De La Rosa vs. the Court ofAppeals, et al.ao, the highest Court declared, thus:

"AsB appeal fls affi. essemtial part of ourjlxdic$al systent. We have advised thecottnts to proceed with caution so as not tod.epnive a party of the right to appeal(National Waterworks and SewerageAuthority vs. Municipality of Libmartart, 97SCRA 138) and instructed that every partyiitigant should be afforded the amplestopportunity for the proper and justdiJposition of his cause, f'reed from theconstrair^rts ot" technicalities (A-One Feeds,

inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 590)."The rules of procedure afe i-ot to beapplied in a very rigid and technicatr sense.The rules of procedure are used only to helpsecure, not override substantial justice"

le Arnenclecl Record on Appeal. hereto attaclted trs fuu ex "R';uo

[C.R. No. 103028. October 10, ].997.1;CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA, petitioner, vs,

COURI'OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF MARCIAT\A RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN, NAMCIY: GUILLERMO R.

DAMTAN & JOSE R. DAMTAN; HETRS OF HORTENCIA RUSTIA CRUZ, namely:TERESITA CRUZ-SISON,

HORACIO R. CRUZ, JOSEFINA CRIJZ-RODIL, AMELIA CRUZ-ENRIQUEZ ANd FIDEL R. CRUZ, JR,; HEIRS

OF ROMAN RUSTIA, namely: JOSEFINA RUSTIA-ALBANO, VIRGINIA RUSTIA-PARAlS0, ROMAN

RUSTIA, JR., SERGIO RUSTIA, FRANCISCO RUSTIA, LETICIA RUSTIA-MIRANDA; GUILLERMINA R.

R U STIA and G I.J I LLE R MA R USTIA-ALARAS, respondents'

5B

(Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRAL2A\. Therefore, we ruled in Republic vs.Court of Appeals (83 SCRA 453) that a six-day Celay in the perfection of the appealdoes not warrant its dismissal. And again inRamos vs. Bagasao, (96 SCRA 3951, thisCourt held that the delay of four (4) days infiling a notice of appeal and a motion forextension of time to file a record on appealcan be excused on the basis of equity'"

147 . Also, in the case of serina vs. the court of Appeals et

&1.o', the highest court declared, thus:

"Moreover, despite the procedural lapse,there is no gainsaying that the appeal wasindeed perfected on time because the noticeof appeal, the record on appeal and theappeal bond were all filed within thereglementary period.

The petitioners have not in our viewcommitted such a serious omission as todeserve the dismissal of their appeal. Eventhe private respondent cannot deny that theappeal was perfected on time and merelyfaults the record on appeal because of whathe caIls a fatal defect. The defect was notfatal and in any event should be deemedwaived by his failure to object seasonably, ifnot cured by the subsequent tirire filing ofthe appeal bond. Reinstatement of thepetitioners' appeal is therefore in order.

*,[G.R. No. L-28661. February 21, 1989.]; RAYMUNDO SrRtNtR, SATURNINA SERINIR, ttruo srRtNa,

LADTsLAo M. sERrNrA, TIRSo srRrNtA, FAUSTINo v. srntNtR, JUAN M. sERlNlA, zoslMo M. sERlNlA,

RosALlA sgRtNtA, GoMoLo, vtcToRtco, coRAZoN, and PILAR ALL sURNAMTo srRtNta BY RIGHT

oF REpRESENTATIoN oF vtcroRlo srntNte (DECEASED); RosALlA sERlNlA, and JUSTO srRtNtn

sALVE By RTGHT oF REpRESENTATIoN oF ANDREA srRtNtR (DECEASED), PRlsclLA G' DE

DAGONGON AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE MINOR SALUSTIANO STNINE ANd RUFO EDSIOMA'

petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO PELAEZ, respondents'

59

Once again we end as in LeYte v. Cusi:"While it is desifable that the Rules of Courtbe faithfully and even meticulouslyobserved, courts should not be so strictabor.lt procedural lapses like this that donot reatrly impair the Properadministration of justice. If the Rules ofCourt are intended to ensure the order[ycomduct of titigation, it is because of thehigher objective they seek, which is ttree

protectlom of the substantive rights ofthg parti,es. "

PK.&YER,

$,VE[mR,ErORE, all premises considered, petitioner mostrespectfully prays of this Honorable Court to render an Order:

Dectraring the Order dated September 25, 2013and the brder dated January 24, 2014 nuI1 andvoid; anri

Approving the Notice of Appeal and theAmendeC R""ord on Appeal or directing hereinPetitioner to submit a redrafted record on

appeal, if necessary.

other relief, just and equitable under the premises is

likewise prayed for.

1)

2)

60

Mokoti City (for Monilo) , 3lst do rch 2O14.

ELIZABETH A. ANDRES Z. LUISfor PetitionerJ. Vicior St.

Counsel for P iitioner2nd & 3rd Flrs.,rE.A.A. Bldg,Project 5, Q. C" I l00Tel. Nos. (02) 929-2343

(02) ?2?-2s83

PTR NO. 9043391Jonuory 2,2014; Quezon CityIBP No. (Lifetime) 000969; Q.C.Roll No. 27133MCLE No. 4-00,l0685; Dec. 20,2012

LOpy FUrnrsneo:

Regionol Triol Court, MoniloBroch 49

Atty. Roberison R, AquinoCounsel for Privqte RespondentAtty. Diosdodo ModridSuite 305-A Deltq Bldg.Cor. West & Quezon Ave., Q.C.

Atty. Alvin A. CorulloCounsel for Privaie RespondentDr. Mq. CorozonRomono LL. Delos SontosSuite I60? l6lF Jollibee PlozoF. Oriigos Jr. Rood (ex-Emerold Ave.)Ortigos Center, Posig Ciiy 1605

del Pilqr, Mokoii City822-4?091468-0612

PTR No. 9280944Jon. 28 ,2014; Quezon CiiyIBP Lifeiime No. 0395.l; Q.C.

Roll No. 38963MCLE 4 - 00.l866; April 26,2CI13

.r' lirir,lill'.. 1-.

',,\ i t

',4i'6i / r fl

JUDICounNo. 7256Brgy. PioTel. Nos.

REPUBi,IC OF THE PHILIFPINES }} S.S.

I, .A.tty; Eruesto De tr,os Santos, of legal age, Filipino, and- wittr residence at No' 108'

Cenacle Drive, Sanville, Tandang Sora, Quezoi Cit!, afterbeing duly sworn in accordance with

law, herebY dePoses and states that:

1. That I am the petitioner in the above captioned "*: Td. have caused the

preparation of the foregoing Egti4tn =for

,Certiorari and I have read and know the contents

thereof and the ul"gutiEnr Ioffiand cortect based on my owu knowledge

and authentio records;

2. T;,,at I have not heretofore cornmenced any other action inyolvrle the same issues

before the supreme Court, in the Court of Appeals rr th. different divisions thereof, or any other

tribunal or agency;

3. If I should thereafter leam ttrat a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is

pending before rhr l;il;. Corrt, or in the Court of Appeals, br different divisions thereof' or

any other trib,nal o, igrn"y, I hereby undertake to promptty infonn this Honorable Court and

the aforesaid tribunal oiag"*y within five (5) days therefrom.

ffi;il:#:eo"ot< t'i".]tr;Series of 2014.

t,*ffi"1r&r^oMAtty. Ernesto De Los Sautos

SUBSCRIBED.{1.{D swoRN ro before me this da$t&r&&dUi834+014'/,.1 fl4.[/'u n / '{',rililrtd*trarfiftr,rutie. ""' . '

)

) SS.

x

RI

aX

PUBLIC OF IHE PHILIPPINES

UEZON CITY

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WITH EXPLANAIION

l, MARILyN E. PURISIMA , of legol oge, monied, Filipino ond with office oddress

of EAA Bldg. No. 6 Rood 3, Project 6 , Quezon City , ofier hoving been duly sworn in

occordonce with low, depose ond soy ihot i

t. I om q stoff of E.A. ANDRES LAW OFFICE with office oddress ot EAA Bldg'

No. 6 Rood 3 Project 6, Quezon CitY ;

2. On April 4.2014, I personolly served copies of the foregoing Petition forCertiorori in cose docketed qs CA G,R. SP. No.- entitled "

Atty. Ernesto L. Delos Sontos vs. Hon. Doniel Villonuevcr. Presiding Judge, Regionol Triol

Court of Monilo, Bronch 49, Atty. Diosdodo Q. lvtodqid ond Dr. Mo. Romono delos

Sontos " to tfle following :

o) Hon. Doniel C. VillonuevqBronch 49. RegionolTriol CourlMonilo

b) Aity. Robertson R. AquinoCounsel for Privote ResPondentAtiy. Diosdodo ModridSuite 305-4 Delto Bldg., cor. West &Quezon Avenues, Q.C.

c) Aity. Alvin A. CorulloCounsel for Privqte ResPondeniDr. Mo. Romono delos Sontos r.Suite I 609 16/F Jolibee Plozo , F. Ortigos Jr' Rood(ex-Emerold Ave.) Orligos Center, Posig City

.l605

rN wrTNEss wHEREoF, I hove hereunto offiv.ed my sisnoirr*t'flX * { m'i April

20'14 crt Quezon Ciiy"

rlfu>fuu'Lv"MARTLYNt. pUktStn^n

SUBSCRTBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th doy of April 2014 oteuezon City by the offioni who personolly oppeored before me exhibiting os

her competent evidence of identity her SSS lD with No. 33-4724653-7.

,-JI lir 1*. -i

r"ii.,iic.A,'\{ J7r.t,l lt11!\l. ro).{/ .'-.li r-...

Doc. t to. .j#;Poge No. Z;Book No. 4 ;

Series of 2014. h'{ i-li. i:l i j r,,. i .t. i'i' I i'i J'.i: l,r''r, rl':l'" l? -i

" I i.;

Il:iL, I,jil. t|iij'irr ::. i "j ir,t-'l,i,_(;).{."j,

["i';1.]rllr.liliii':,:,;, ,I:, i i ,;,:.- I':{,, i-.1.{.-'

A,r1m. Irlo. l'l f i-I, .;,.i ..:'. ;.. i1-,.1 -1,ii ipu'p. iit)'i 'JBi'il }.r' 1,:. i.'l':.'' 11,

SCOUT i'ii t1'1'{.1'11i:;1, '. ;i,;li]l 'i',. ,l :'i,-,i'i

{lueetirr u)itv