Sie sind auf Seite 1von 50

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

FIRST DIVISION

ROMEO B. RAMIREZ, Represented by: Atty-In-Fact

Narciso Luisto A. Ordoña; Petitioner,

-Versus

1. Associate Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO

2. Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG

3. Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES

4. Judge ANGELENE MARY QUIMPO-SALE

5. Judge ALMA CRISPINA C. LACORTE

6. Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA

7. Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO

8. Sheriff III ARNIEL S. APOSTOL, and,

9. CARMEN A. SALVADOR,

Respondents.

X-----------------------------------------------X

G.R. A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ

MeTC-51 Civil

For: Collection of Money & Damages

Case No. 03-27338

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI, and For ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT on the GROUNDS OF LACK OF JURISDICTION & EXTRINSIC FRAUD

(As provided for under Rule 65 and Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

COMES NOW, PETITIONER’s Representative by himself, and hereby petitions this

Honorable Supreme Court to review on certiorari the October 25, 2005, DECISION,

rendered by the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, in Civil Case

No. 03-27338, for Collection of Sum of Money & Damages, (filed by therein Plaintiff, now

herein Respondent Carmen Salvador, vs. therein Defendant, now herein Petitioner

Romeo Ramirez), and likewise, seeks the Annulment of Judgment on further grounds of

Lack of Jurisdiction & Extrinsic fraud, as provided for under Rules 65 and 47 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure.

THE PARTIES

The Parties to this petition are:

PETITIONER’s representative Narciso Luisito A. Ordoña, of legal age, married,

Filipino, with residence at Lot 31, Blk.114, TowerVille 6B, NHA Relocation Site, Bgy. Gaya-

gaya, City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan; who, by virtue of the hereto attached August 8,

2011, Special Power of Attorney (SPA)[Annex-1] and Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court

(MeTC) April 16, 2012. ORDER,[Annex-2] is acting for and in behalf of his Uncle-In-Law,

Defendant-Petitioner Romeo B. Ramirez, who just DIED recently, on April 1, 2015, due to

sudden STROKE / Brain Attack;[Annex-3]

The NINE (9) RESPONDENTS are, (1) Retired Court of Appeals (C.A.) 8 th Division, Associate Justice RENATO C. DACUDAO; (2) Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG, Presiding

Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 128, and was formerly the Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, who rendered the herein DECISION being assailed; (3) Retired Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, former Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121; (4) Judge

ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO -SALE, Presiding Judge of Quezon City, Regional Trial

Court (RTC) Branch 106, and was formerly the Presiding Judge of Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 32, who instantaneously dismissed the Plaintiff-Respondent’s first Complaint despite vigorous objection of the Defendant-Petitioner; (5) Judge ALMA CRISPINA C. LACORTE, Presiding Judge of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, who issued a Writ of Execution prior to an ORDER for the release of such; (6)

Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent, with office

address at Medina Law Office, 3 rd Floor Doña Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza Rizal cor. Gen Luna St.,

Caloocan City;(7) Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, with office address at Suite 402,

Quezon City;(8) Sheriff III ARNIEL S.

APOSTOL , of Caloocan City, MeTC Branch 51; and ( 9) Plaintiff - Respondent Carmen A. Salvador, of legal age, Filipino, married and resident of No. 83, Malolos Ave., Bagong Barrio,

Caloocan City, where summons and other court processes may be served upon their

respective addresses.

JR.

Bldg.,

1520 Quezon Avenue,

South Triangle,

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This Petition for Certiorari seeks a review and annulment of the October 25, 2005

DECISION [Annex-4] of Caloocan City MeTC-branch 51, rendered by its former Presiding Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, the decreetal portion of which is quoted hereunder as follows;

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff Carmen A. Salvador and against the Defendant Romeo B. Ramirez, ordering the latter as follows:

1. To pay the plaintiff the remaining balance of the purchase price in the amount of Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 220,000.00).

2. To pay the plaintiff the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred (Php1,500.00) pesos a month, as rentals for the use and occupancy of the subject lot until the Defendant has fully paid the remaining balance of the purchase price.

3. To pay the Plaintiff the amount of Php 20,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and

4. To pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED. Caloocan City, Metro Manila, October 25, 2005.

(sgd)ELEANOR R. KWONG Presiding Judge

The aforesaid Decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City

and was raffled to Branch 121, presided by Judge Adoracion Angeles who affirmed the

MeTC Decision and dismissed the appeal in its March 30, 2006 Decision [Annex-5]. The

RTC decision was then elevated to the Court of Appeals which upheld and sustained the

same in its January 10, 2007 Decision [Annex-6], CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, through the

ponencia of Justice Renato Dacudao.

However, the Defendant as well as his 3 rd Counsel Atty. Ricardo Barba, was not

furnished and did not receive any copy of the C.A.’s January 10, 2007 Decision/Resolution,

thus, neither Motion for Reconsideration was filed, nor elevated the case to the Supreme

Court. Consequently, the assailed Decision became final and executory and was eventually

recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment on February 01, 2007.[Annex-7]

Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan City MeTC-51, now presided by

Judge Alma Crispina Collado-Lacorte, who issued the June 20, 2008 ORDER[Annex-8],

granting plaintiff’s Motion for the Execution of judgment.

[In view of that June 20, 2008 “ORDER”, Petitioner would like to raise in

particular, a very s ignificant issue , that PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that June 20,

2008 “ORDER”, granting Plaintiff’s Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution,

there was already a “WRIT OF EXECUTIONdated June 19, 2008 [Annex-9] that

by the same trial court’s new Presiding

Judge Alma Crispina B. Collado-Lacorte, herself, ordering Sheriff III Arniel Apostol,

to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment penned by former MTC-51 presiding

Judge Eleanor R. Kwong.]

HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???

,

Thus, by virtue of that June 19, 2008 Writ of Execution, (issued in advance, ahead of

the “ORDER” for the issuance of such), Sheriff III Arniel Apostol, (without even carefully

analyzing and understanding the contents of the Writ of Execution, had even mistakenly identified Judge Eleanor R. Kwong as the one who issued the Writ of Execution), then and

there, hurriedly prepared a “Sheriff’s Notice / Demand to Pay[Annex-10] and immediately

served it to Romeo B. Ramirez, demanding the immediate payment of THREE HUNDRED

EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P382,000.00), of which the same is hereby (word for

word using exactly the same format) quoted hereunder for quick and easy reference;

SHERIFF’S NOTICE/DEMAND TO PAY

TO: ROMEO B. RAMIREZ Blk 15, Lot 3 C.P. Garcia St. Bonifacio Drive Pasong Tamo, Quezon City

G R E E T I N G S:

You are hereby notified that by virtue of the W rit of Execution dated June 19, 2008 , issued by the Hon. ELEANOR R. KWONG, former Presiding Judge of this Court in the above - entitled case, copy of which is herewith attached and served

upon you, plaintiff thru this office hereby demands that payment of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND PESOS(P382,000.00) be made immediately upon receipt of this notice.

You are thereafter adviced to pay the said amount to the undersigned Sheriff so that we may apply the same to the full satisfaction of the Writ of Execution issued in the ins -

tant case. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)

Please be guied accordingly.

Caloocan City, Metro Manila.

November 14

,

2008

(SGD.) ARNIEL S. APOSTOL Sheriff III

attached: Writ of Execution x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Upon receipt of the Sheriff’s Notice, Petitioner hurriedly contacted his counsel Atty.

Ricardo Barba, just to find out that the latter was already suffering a seriously bad health

condition due to old age and that NO copy of CA Decision was also received by him.

Because of that development, Petitioner having a clear conscience and in good faith,

found it hard and difficult to accept the unfounded decision and injustices that were

deliberately inflicted upon him, thereafter sought again another legal assistance and hired the

services of his 4 th Private Lawyer, Atty. Oscar I. Mercado who was recommended to him by

his relative as a more competent and efficient private lawyer who can best represent him in

court and help obtain the true justice the he deserves. Unfortunately, all Manifestations and

Motions for Reconsideration to stop and set aside the “Sheriff’s Notice/Demand to Pay”, and

other legal actions and remedies available under the rules of court, being submitted and filed

by his 4 th counsel Atty. Mercado were time and again being “DENIED” by MeTC-51 of

Caloocan City.

Due to the seemingly hopeless and desperate situation and his inability to produce

the huge amount being demanded from him, Ramirez started to experience the feeling of

shyness and timidity not only among his friends, neighbors, and relatives, but more so to his

family particularly to his oldest daughter whose hard earned money from working as OFW in

Japan will be simply lost and gone. Petitioner Ramirez felt extreme embarrassment, deep

worry and fear leading to sleepless nights causing him to suffer serious anxiety and stress,

thus resulting for him to live a daily life suffering from severe headache, loss of appetite and

frequent rise of blood pressure, which extremely affected both of his eyes, thereby requiring

him to undergo series of eye treatment and surgery under Dr. Joel R. Castro, M.D. DBPO, of

Clinica Viras with clinic address at Rm. 201, Doña Consolacion Bldg., Gen. Santos Ave.,

Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City.(as already manifested on pages 5 & 6 of Petitioner’s August 19, 2011, “ Amended Complaint…” submitted and filed at the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator.)

Left with no more recourse, being financially drained and nothing left except poor

health and deteriorating physical condition, his family brought him to their hometown in

Roxas, Oriental Mindoro to hide away from extreme humiliation and shame, and to hopefully recuperate from his disconcertment. Unfortunately, the emotional feeling of having been victimized by the unjust decisions rendered by all the Justices who ruled out against him and in favor of the real culprit Respondent Carmen Salvador who victoriously emerged despite deliberately committing the unlawful acts of fraud and deceit, turned out into a horrible nightmare he couldn’t get through with, that ultimately dragged him into living an immeasurable worst kind of life full of sorrow, agony and pain which nobody could possibly imagine.

In the course of time, his hypertensive cardiovascular disease worsened even more with frequent incidents of blood pressure rising higher. His family decided to bring him back again here in Manila on the 2 nd week of March 2015, but few days later, he suffered stroke and sudden brain attack. Though he was immediately rushed and confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the New Era General Hospital, yet, Computerized Tomography (CT) Scan result showed enormous damage in his brain which eventually caused his untimely death on April 1, 2015, at the age of 69.

Fortunately, being a true Christian and devoted follower of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, his sincere devotion and prayer without ceasing night and day (while still alive in Roxas, Oriental Mindoro), was finally answered by the Almighty God, the Most High Judge who paved His way to divinely intervene by anointing a “SERVANT” from this globally proclaimed Nation of Servants” as declared to the world on March 27, 2009, by Hong Kong’s author & award-winning columnist Chip Tsao, which even caused furious anger and irritation not only to millions of Filipinos around the world but also to Philippine government officials who demanded public apology both from Hongkong online magazine and the Chinese writer/journalist who himself remained defiant and unapologetic, thus made him the Philippines’ public enemy No.1. In fairness to Tsao, perhaps his silence may probably suggest that he was not aware with what he actually wrote, for being unconscious that it was not actually his own doing but of an unseen force that only used him as an instrument to write down a prophecy that has been fulfilled.

Thus, on October 29, 2010, while solitarily celebrating his 50 th Golden Birthday, inside his newly-constructed room of worshipatop the roof of their rented 2-storey house located in one of the biggest squatter’s area beside Manila Memorial Park in Sitio Target, Bgy. BF Homes, Parañaque City, undersigned Petitioner’s representative, popularly known among his friends and relatives as “Brother LOUIEwas finally blessed and gifted with divine knowledge and wisdom, to be an instrument of Peace and ADVOCATE of Love, Obedience,

the

Unity,

SERVANT” tasked to defend and to fight for the constitutional rights of the numerous victims of injustices, in order that TRUTH, JUSTICE and EQUITY may in the end prevail.

Integrity

&

Excellence,

(LOUIE),

and

was

subsequently

anointed

to

be

Hence, the hereto attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated August 8, 2011, executed by Romeo Ramirez, appointing and constituting undersigned “Bro. LOUIE”, to be

the former’s legal counsel, representative & Attorney-in-fact, of which the same was officially noted by the Caloocan City MeTC-51, on its April 16, 2012 “ORDER”.

By virtue of the aforesaid SPA, undersigned Petitioner’s representative, by himself prepared, submitted and filed through the Office of Supreme Court Administrator, his August 19, 2011, 45-pages Verified Amended Complaint Against the Unfounded Decisionof

Caloocan City MeTC-51”, which was subsequently given due course and eventually ripened into an Administrative Matter for Agenda, with OCA -I.P.I. No. 11-3730-RTJ. (Narciso Luisito

A. Ordoña vs. 1) Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, Branch 128, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Caloocan City; 2) Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale, Branch 106, RTC, Quezon City; 3) Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Branch 51, RTC, Caloocan City; and 4) Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol, Branch 51, Metropolitan Trial Court [MeTC], Caloocan City).

PETITIONER’S PERSONAL STATEMENT

First and foremost, herein Petitioner (Bro. Louie) desires to reiterate and to manifest what he had previously stated on page 3, of his aforesaid August 19, 2011, AMENDED

COMPLAINT, that he is neither a lawyer nor had been a student of any law school, and nobody has ever taught him regarding Philippine Laws, Jurisprudence, Statutes and Codes, as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court.

He is just a 4 th year High School graduate, without any formal College education, and whose means of livelihood and employment to support his family’s (wife & 10 children) daily financial need for over thirty (30) years is by working as Master CARPENTER, both local and

abroad. It being so, does not necessarily mean, however, that he is no longer capable of preparing and filing this Petition, which is normally being done only by License Professional Lawyers who have earned not only diploma, but also Title/Degree, after successfully completing all academic requirements and subsequently passing the Bar Examination Tests.

His intense FAITH and BELIEF in the Most High Judge, and sincere devotion of continuously “Seeking the Will of God above everything else”, might have found favor in

the eyes of God who blessed and gifted him with divine knowledge and wisdom from above,

anointed by the power of the Holy Spirit, appointed to be the “Servant of the Poor,” … named as the Philippine EAGLE King” of Mindanao [ https://youtu.be/hh4CjbSxvgE ],

and is given the task to DEFEND and to FIGHT for the Constitutional RIGHTS of ALL VICTIMS of injustices, that made him competent (but not perfect), to effectively represent and proficiently act as the representative, Legal Counsel and Atty-in-Fact of Petitioner Romeo

Ramirez for the preparation, submission and filing of this Petition.

On the other hand, while it may be true that herein Petitioner has been actually gifted with a divine knowledge and wisdom, yet, his human nature, lack of formal education and

lack of legal practice and actual experiences in the courts of law, ( with respect to Judicial conduct and court processes), might limit his ability to fully comply with the prevailing requirements set forth under the Rules of Court and Rules of Civil procedure made by men.

Hence, above-mentioned manifestation is offered as a means to request for consideration in guiding and instructing him on any deficiencies and/or non-compliance whatsoever, that require corrections, amendments and/or modifications for this instant Petition.

Petitioner, further respectfully seeks the kind indulgence of this Honorable Supreme Court to bear with him in going over the records of the case for the LAST and FINAL TIME so that truth and justice may in the end prevail.

With due respect and candor, Petitioner begs this Honorable Supreme Court to give a final look and glimpse on the overlooked substantial FACTS, ISSUES and material EVIDENCES that require utmost consideration, which if proven and given credit in the appreciation and determination of the issue will surely alter the final outcome of the case.

It was just unfortunate that from the time the herein subject Decision became “Final & Executory” and has been recorded in the “Book of Entries of Judgment,” no one among the

many Private Professional Lawyers who were consulted and offered to be hired (aside from

Atty. Oscar Mercado), became interested anymore to assist Romeo Ramirez in finding a

remedy on how to obtain the “TRUE JUSTICE” that he deserves. Everybody believed that the case is already closed and nothing more can be done.

Even Lawyers at the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), at DOJ Agencies Bldg, NIA Road cor., East Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, refused, ignored and failed to provide the needed assistance being requested from them, despite the October 3, 2011, Indorsement letter of Atty. Bobby V. Dumlao, CESO III at Malacañang Presidential Action Center[ Annex-11], and the November 22, 2011, Letter of PAO Chief Percida V. Rueda-Acosta [Annex-12], inviting and promising the Petitioner to be given effective and speedy assistance, yet nothing happened.

Petitioner was briskly “DENIED” any form of assistance at the PAO-Quezon City District Office, particularly by PAO-NCR and PAO-Quezon City Officer-in-charge Atty. EMMANUEL H. DIONES, who merely ignored and delayed the timely processing of his

request. Upon follow-up after months of waiting, Atty. Diones still remained unaware of the

Ano ba kas i itong s inabm it nyo dito, ang kapa l-kapa l, na

Complaint? Kung ito ay reklamo nyo sa isang kaso na nadesisyonan na at gusto nyo i- apela, doon kayo dapat pumunta sa Head office ng PAO, meron doon para sa Special Appealed Cases, sakop nila ito… , hindi dito!

issue, simply said;

Contrary to what Atty. Diones said, Petitioner ended up again being ignored, blamed, criticized and scolded like little kid by someone who attended to him at the PAO Special Appealed Cases division, who explicitly said; eh, wala na ito… , this case a lready

attain fina lity, patay na ang kaso nasa archive na kas i na -enter na sa Book of Judgment. 2007 pa pala, PINAL na ang Desisyon ng KORTE at wa la na sa itinakdang panahon para mai-apela pa ito sa Supreme Court. Wala nang magagawa pa ang s inuman tungkol diyan. Tanggapin nyo na lang ang pagkatalo ninyo at huwag na kayo gumawa pa ng kung anu - ano, lalo ka na, (referring to

me), hindi ka naman pa la abogado, nagmamagaling ka pa, gagastos lang kayo at maaabala tayo pare-pareho,

Left with no other choice, Petitioner again earnestly prayed and sought Divine assistance and guidance from the Most High Judge to intervene and have his August 19, 2011 Amended Complaint, be given due course by the highest Tribunal of our land.

After THREE (3) years of waiting, finally on September 15, 2014, upon inquiry made

by the undersigned at the Office of Court Administrator’s Legal Office, regarding the update/status of his self-initiated August 19, 2011 Amended Complaint, he was informed and furnished with a “Notice of Resolution”, dated November 18, 2013, [Annex-13] which

is hereby reproduced hereunder, for quick and easy reference;

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

FIRST DIVISION

N O T I C E

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2013 which reads as follows:

“OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ (Narciso Luisito A. Ordoña vs. Judge Eleanor R. Kwong, Regional Trial Court, Branch 128, Caloocan City; Judge Angelene Mary Q. Sale, Regional Trial Court, Branch 106, Quezon City; Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City; and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51 Caloocan City).- Considering the “amended complaint against the alleged unfounded decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City in Civil Case No. 03-27338 ( Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez)” dated August 15, 2011 (with Enclosures) of Narciso Luisito A. Ordoña against Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, and Sheriff III Arniel S. Apostol relative to Civil Case No. 03-27338, entitled “Carmen A. Salvador vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, ” the Court resolves to NOTE:

(1)

the aforesaid amended complaint; and

(2)

the Report dated August 28, 2013 of the Office of the Court Administrator.

The Court further resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions

of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator in the attached Report

dated August 28, 2013 (Annex A). Accordingly, the instant administrative complaint against

Judges Eleanor R. Kwong, Angelene Mary Q. Sale, and Alma Crispina C. Lacorte and Sheriff

III Arniel S. Apostol is DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for utter lack of merit.”

BERSAMIN, J., on leave; CARPIO, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1597 dated November 12, 2013.

RESOLUTION

Very truly yours,

(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Division Clerk of Court

OCA IPI No. 11-3730-RTJ

November 18, 2013 x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

With all due respect to the Honorable Supreme Court, but just for clarification and for

the record, Judge Alma Crispina C. Lacorte, is NOT a Presiding Judge of Regional Trial

Court, (RTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City, as stated in the notice of resolution, but she is the new

Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, (MTC) Branch 51, Caloocan City;

In view of the aforesaid Notice of Resolution, Petitioner respectfully concurs with the

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court

Administrator in their August 28, 2013 “REPORT, accordingly recommending that, “the

instant administrative complaint against the respondent Judges be DISMISSED, on the basis

that the Complaint is judicial in nature; and likewise, with their EVALUATION, that “…the

correctness of a decision cannot be challenged in an administrative complaint against

the judge who rendered it; and that, an administrative complaint is not the proper

remedy

where

judicial

recourse

is

still

available ,”

of

which

Evaluation

and

Recommendation, was likewise, ADOPTED and APPROVED in the November 18, 2013,

Resolution of the Supreme Court’s First Division.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, as provided

for under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and, Petition for Annulment of

Judgment due to “Lack of Jurisdiction” and “Extrinsic Fraud” as provided for under Rule 47 of

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby submitted and filed as a judicial recourse to

rectify and correct the Judgment in the October 25, 2005 DECISION, that was rendered with

anomaly and partiality by Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51,

penned by its former Presiding Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION

While it may be argued that this Petition for Certiorari is dismissible for being filed out

of time, as provided for under Section 4, Rule 65, Petitioner humbly begs for this Honorable

Supreme Court to kindly consider and take into account the mitigating EVENTS, and

underlying CIRCUMSTANCES previously explained, as well as the vital ISSUES and

essential FACTS which shall be discussed henceforth. In the interest of substantial Justice,

let this Petition be given due course and be acted upon its merit. Furthermore, it has long

been settled already and was held in several cases, that;

“… the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense. Rules on procedure are used only to secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, then their aim would be defeated.” (Arsenio Reyes Jr.

vs. C.A. et al. G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000)

Howbeit, should this Petition for Review on Certiorari still be found dismissible

for being filed out of time, Petitioner invokes Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure and New Rules of Court, Revised and Approved on October 3, 2000,

which provides TWO (2) VALID GROUNDS for the ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT,

namely;

1.) LACK OF JURISDICTION; and 2.) EXTRINSIC FRAUD

It further states that if based on EXTRINSIC FRAUD, th e period for filing such action, is within FOUR (4) YEARS from its discovery (Sec. 3, Rule 47).

It bears stressing then, that this Petition is hinged not only for a review on Certiorari, but also on the grounds of “Lack of Jurisdiction” and “Extrinsic Fraud, which were the

primary reasons that prompted herein Petitioner to submit and file to the Office of Supreme Court Administrator, his December 22, 2010, original “Complaint ….”, and his August 19,

2011 “Amended Complaint….” against the subject Unfounded Decision, henceforth assailed

by this Petition.

EXTRINSIC

FRAUDS that abound in this case while reviewing the voluminous (TWELVE) 12-year

records on file with this case (from year 2000 -2012), after his Entry of Appearance was noted and approved by Caloocan City MeTC-Branch 51, on its April 16, 2012, ORDER.

Herein

Petitioner,

barely DISCOVERED some

of

the

numerous

Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, when herein Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN

SALVADOR concocted again and filed another fallacious and unfounded COMPLAINT for EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez [Annex-14],

before the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 13- 04180-CV, (Carmen A. Salvador, Plaintiff vs. Romeo B. Ramirez, et.,al., Defendants), more EXTRINSIC FRAUDS were DISCOVERED again by herein Petitioner, which prompted him

to finally file Criminal Cases against Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, namely;

1.)

For the crimes of SWINDLING /

ESTAFA thru Falsification of Public

Documents, (Luz G. Ramirez, represented by Atty-in-fact Narciso Luisito A.

Ordoña,

Parco,

Respondents),with I.S. No. XV-03-INV-14A-00635.

Complainant

vs.

Carmen

A.

Salvador

and

Alexander

A.

2.) For the crimes of Falsification of Private Documents; SWINDLING /ESTAFA, thru Falsification of Public Documents; PERJURY, Giving False Testimony and Specific Performance with Damages, (Romeo B. Ramirez, Lilibeth R. Ponce, and Eden G. Mostales, all represented by Atty-In-Fact Narciso Luisito A. Ordoña, Complainant vs. Carmen A. Salvador, Respondent), submitted and filed on October 01, 2014, with NPS Docket No. XV-03-INV-14J-9408.

WHEREFORE, from the first time the extrinsic frauds were discovered on April 16, 2012, the reglementary FOUR (4) year period (Sec. 3, Rule 47, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) within which to file this Petition is up to April 16, 2016, hence, the filing of this

Petition for Annulment of Judgment, not only on the ground of Lack of Jurisdictionbut also

on the ground of EXTRINSIC FRAUDis timely made.

PROPER VENUE OF ACTION

While the Rule on the Annulment of Judgment or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts asserts that it has to be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former

(Sec. 10, Rule 47), and that the Court of Appeals has exclusive original jurisdiction over

actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts ( Sec. 9(2) of BP 129, The

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980); however, if the ground for ANNULMENT is LACK

OF JURISDICTION, another remedy is CERTIORARI under RULE 65, in which case the

Court of Appeals does not have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction since the SUPREME

COURT also has JURISDICTION.

Be that as it may, and considering that the herein subject Decision, being sought to

be annulled by this instant Petition has already been affirmed, upheld and sustained by both

the appellate Court Caloocan City RTC-121, and the Court of Appeals (CA) Eighth Division,

hence, this Petition for Annulment of Judgment due to LACK OF JURISDICTION and

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI is now being filed at the proper venue, which is the Supreme

Court that holds the over-all jurisdiction above other courts and tribunals.

FACTS OF THE CASE

At the outset, it has to be emphasized that this Petition is predicated on the October

25, 2005 DECISION,rendered by the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch

51, on Civil Case No. 03-27338, for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages, filed by

therein

Plainti ff,

now

herein

Respondent

CARMEN

A.

SALVADOR ,

against

therein

Defendant

and

now

herein

Petitioner

ROMEO

B.

RAMIREZ,

represented

by

his

undersigned Atty. - in- fact NARCISO LUISITO A. ORDOÑA, a.k.a. “ Bro. Louie

That subject DECISION, penned by the trial court’s former Presiding Judge

ELEANOR R. KWONG, (now the Presiding Judge of Caloocan City, RTC, Branch-128), was

willfully and maliciously rendered with partiality in favor of RESPONDENT Carmen Salvador

and against PETITIONER Romeo B. Ramirez.

On March 30, 2006, Petitioner thru his 3 rd Counsel Atty. Ricardo Barba, appealed the

aforementioned DECISION and was raffled to Regional Trial Court, (RTC) Br-121, Caloocan

City, in which Petitioner raised SIX (6) ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the MeTC erred in not dismissing the case due to forum shopping.

2. Whether or not the MeTC had jurisdiction to try the case.

3. Whether or not the MeTC erred in holding that the Decision of Quezon City, RTC-79, in Civil Case No. Q-11138 (penned by Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal) had already attained finality.

4. Whether or not the MeTc erred in ordering the Plaintiff to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price.

5. Whether or not the MeTC erred in holding that Defendant is liable to pay plaintiff monthly rentals of Php 1,500.00 until Defendant has fully paid the remaining balance of the purchase price.

6. Whether or not the MeTC erred in awarding the Plaintiff the amount of Php 20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the cost of suit.

Addressing these issues, the Caloocan City RTC-121 ratiocinated, as follows;

xxxxxxx

“After a judicious scrutiny of the evidence and arguments ventilated by the parties, this Court accordingly rules in favor of the plaintiff-appellee.

The Court could not sustain defendant-appellant’s theory that there was forum shopping. While it may be true that at the time of the filing of the instant case before the court a quo there was still a similar pending case before the MTC of Quezon City, it is equally true that plaintiff- appellee had already filed a motion to withdraw the case before the MTC of Quezon City. The grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory decisions. (TF Ventures, Inc. vs. Matsura, 431 SCRA 526). Obviously, the rule against forum shopping could not be applied to plaintiff-appellee because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo was not to shop for a favorable judgment.

The Court also upholds the Bilihan between herein parties.

Where

parties

have

entered

into

a

well-defined

contractual

relationship, it is imperative that they should honor and adhere to their rights and obligations thereunder--- obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting par ties and should be complied with in good faith. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 427 SCRA 686). Equity demands that a party cannot disown its previous declaration to the prejudice of the other party who relied reasonably and justifiably on

such declaration. (Premier Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals, supra).

“A scrutiny of the contract between the parties discloses that the subject matter of the sale is not only the “HOUSE” but also the “RIGHTS” over the lot where the house stands. Defendant-appellant could not therefore claim that the consideration of Php 400,000.00 indicated therein is absurd.

“The stipulations in the contract relative to the payment of the consideration are likewise crystal-clear. Defendant-appellant has admitted not paying the balance of Php 220,000.00. The court a quo was therefore correct in ordering Defendant- appellant to pay the money pursuant to the provisions of the agreement.

The contention that the contract is not valid for being un-notarized is not ten able. This appears to be a mere afterthought contrived to avoid the effects of the agreement. It bears stressing that the parties have already partly executed the contract when defendant-appellant himself paid the initial payment. The notarization of the contract is not a requisite for its validity considering that it is merely consensual in character.

Moreover, paragraph 6 of the contract also provides for the payment of rentals in case of default in the payment of the balance of the purchase price. This provision must be correlated with paragraph 2 stating that the amount of rental is Php1,500.00 monthly.

Finally, defendant-appellant could not insist on the ownership of one Wilfredo Torres as the latter’s ti tle has already been nullified, c ontrary to d efendant-appellant’s assertion that the decision of the RTC of Quezon City is not yet final as the same is still on appeal. The withdrawal of the appeal has necessarily resulted to the said judgment ripening into finality .

(underscoring and emphasis supplied)

“As for the propriety of the award of attorney’s fees, the Court upholds the same considering that plaintiff -appellee was compelled to litigate to protect her rights.

Thus, the RTC concluded with this adjudicative pronouncement;

“WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

judgment

is

accordingly

rendered DISMISSING the appeal. With costs against defendant-appellant.

“SO ORDERED. “Caloocan City, March 30, 2006.

(SGD) ADORACION G. ANGELES

“Presiding Judge”

Thereafter, Petitioner by the same 3 rd Counsel (Atty. Barba) appealed the RTC

DECISION by way of Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals (C.A.) . It was assigned

to Ninth (9 th ) Division, however, a Group Resolution dated January 10, 2007, with CA-G.R.

SP NO. 94866, was issued by the Court of Appeals, Eighth (8 th ) Division, which upheld and

sustained the RTC Decision.

[In view of the above circumstances , Petitioner sincerely requests the Honorable Supreme Court to have a Resolution constituting a Panel of Investigators to conduct an honest and fair investigation regarding the aforementioned matter, and find out how the case initially assigned with the 9 th Division was eventually transferred to the 8 th Division. It has to be emphasized that the country's second highest courts, the Court of Appeals, had already been embroiled in scandal and controversy, wherein on August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court, in its bounden duty, constituted a three-person panel to assist in the investigation of the improprieties of the actions of the Justices of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 (Antonio V. Rosete, et al. v. SEC, et al.); to determine the culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.( A.M. No. 08-8-11- CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA -G.R. SP NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]

Thus, being unaware of the aforesaid C.A. 8 th Division’s Group Resolution, neither

Motion for Reconsideration was filed nor elevated the CASE to the Supreme Court, as

previously mentioned, mainly because neither the Defendant nor his 3 rd Counsel, Atty.

Ricardo Barba was furnished with a copy or notice of the Court of Appeals, EIGHTH (8 TH )

Division’s Group Resolution.

Hence, the October 25, 2005 DECISION rendered by Caloocan City, MTC-51,

became Final and Executory”, and was eventually, entered and recorded in the “Book of

Entries of Judgment” on February 01, 2007. Thereafter, the case was remanded to Caloocan

City MeTC-51.

Then, on June 18, 2008, at 3:05 p.m., Plaintiff by her Counsel Atty. Dayang Preciosa

M. Medina submitted and filed a “ Manifestation and Motionto resolve the Plaintiff’s

pending Motion for Execution of Judgment, dated August 10, 2007.

After only ONE (1) day, the aforesaid

Motion was immediately granted by the

Caloocan City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte , in an “ORDER”,

dated June 20, 2008, ordering for the issuance of a “Writ of Execution.”

However, as already manifested above (page 3), what is terribly significant to point out

here is that, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of that “ORDER”, dated June 20, 2008, ordering

for the issuance of a writ of execution, there was already a “WRIT OF EXECUTION, dated

June

19, 2008 that HAS BEEN ISSUED IN ADVANCE ???????, by the same Caloocan

City MTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma Crispina B. Lacorte, which was issued to Sheriff III

Arniel Apostol ordering him to execute the October 25, 2005 Judgment of former MTC-51

Judge Eleanor R. Kwong.

[ Herein Petitioner is somewhat confused on how was that made possible? Was it JUST a “SIMPLE MISTAKE”? a CLERICAL ERRORperhaps? or maybe it was a “CLEAR-CUT DEMONSTRATION” showing how INCOMPETENT are, the Caloocan City,

and Judicial

MeTC-51’s

Employees to diligently PERFORM their SWORN DUTIE S and RESPONSIBILITIES in

CLEAR

INDICATION”

ANOMALOUS

the

Ministerial Officers / Branch Clerk

of

Justice?

there

are

or,

most

really

of Court

Personnel

probably,

this

is

a

administration

that

“CRYSTAL

something

FISHY

and

TRANSACTIONS tainted with IRREGULARITIES, CORRUPTION and ANOMALIES that are actually “GOING ON,” “TAKING PLACE,” and PROLIFERATING in SOME or MOST,

if not

Clerk of Courts and Presiding Judges are conniving and conspiring with each other to further their dirty and devious tricks! …particularly in this City of Caloocan which based from what happened, may even be regarded now as a City of CALOKOHAN…!!!]

Philippine Judicial System, by which Lawyers,

ALL

Courts of Justice in

the

It is enormously alarming, shocking, and d isgusting to discover that these sorts of

things are actually happening and still proliferating within our very own Judicial System.

Anybody who would assess, evaluate and visualize the foregoing events and circumstances,

using their sound reasoning and impartial interpretation, can easily com prehend and realize

what actually happened at the Calo kohan City MeTC-51, by simply reading between the lines

and picturing in mind the factual scenario that might have transpired on those days of June

18, 19 and 20, 2008.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

[ It is again, quite noting to emphasize here a very relevant issue, by which, exactly on these dates of June 18, 19 & 20, 2008, in the much publicized dispute and charges of impropriety among the justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) involved in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 entitled "Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.", was a very similar anomalous transaction that was taking place, between and among the C.A. Justices, that resulted to the DISMISSAL from service of the “very notorious” (sic) Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas being found guilty of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the

best interest of the service. The similar events being compared with the same dates are as follows;

On June 18, 2008, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of five days or until June 23, 2008 within which to file their consolidated memoranda of authorities and reply to the comment of the SEC. On June 19, 2008, MERALCO filed an ex-parte manifestation together with their reply to the comment of the GSIS. Meanwhile, Justice B. L. Reyes asked Atty. Custodio to report on "what transpired between her and Justice Sabio" when she returned the cartilla. "Teary-eyed," Atty. Custodio begged off from making a report. Justice Reyes decided to consult the Presiding Justice "to avoid an ugly confrontation" with the Justices on the "highly politicized case involving giants of the Philippine society." He explained to the Presiding Justice his understanding of the relevant IRCA rules and "the actual practice in similar situations in the past." The Presiding Justice promised to talk with Justice Sabio and, "for the sake of transparency and future reference," Justice Reyes requested permission to write an inquiry on the matter.

On the same day, Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasque z a letter calling the

attention of Justice Edgardo P. Cruz ("Justice Cruz"), Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, to the "dilemma" as to who between him and Justice Sabio should "receive" CA -G.R. SP No.

103692. Justice Reyes posed these questions before the Presiding Justice:

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx………….

On June 20, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez referred the letter of Justice Reyes to Justice Cruz, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, noting "some urgency involved as the hearing of the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008." ( A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA - RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 ) [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --x

Going back to the anomalous advance issuance of the Wirt of Execution, (dated June

19, 2008), ahead of the ORDER for the issuance of such, (dated June 20, 2008), it is widely

accepted in every Court of Law and in all investigation processes that a slight variance on

specific DATES and TIMES is very critical and crucial in the determination of ones guilt and in

assessing and evalu ating the credibility of one’s testimony. An accused for example who

would testify and claim that he killed “Victim -X” on June 19, 2008, because he merely followed

and obeyed the instruction from a written ORDER given to and received by him on June 20,

2008, or a day after the crime has already been committed by him, is a totally absurd, bizarre

and ridiculous statement, that cannot be given any weight at all, and has to be immediately

stricken out, instead!

The

testimony

of

Sheriff

III

Apostol,

stated

and

contained

in

the

Sheriff’s

Notice/Demand to Pay, also clearly states the actual DATE of the Writ of Execution,

“…by virtue of the Writ of Execution dated June 19, 2008…”

But then, that would make someone to ask, how come that a Writ of Execution was

issued on June 19, 2008 considering that Caloocan City MeTC-51 new Presiding Judge Alma

Crispina B. Lacorte, only released the ORDERfor the issuance of such on June 20, 2008??

Now, the question is, which of the two (2) judicial documents came out first? The Writ

of Execution, dated June 19, issued to Sheriff Apostol ? Or the ORDER, of Judge Lacorte,

dated June 20 ordering for the issuance of the Writ?

Perhaps, the Writ of Execution itself would provide a vividly clear answer. And,

hereunder reproduced is the Writ of Execution for quick and easy reference;

WRIT OF EXECUTION

TO

ARNIEL S. APOSTOL Sheriff III of this Court authorized by law to serve process.

G R E E T I N G S:

WHEREAS, October 25, 2005, Decision in the above-entitled case was

rendered by this Court,….

xxxx

“WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007 and on June 18, 2008, a Motion for Execution and Manifestation and Motion were filed respectively by plaintiff’s counsel and the Motion for Execution was granted by this Court in its Order dated June 20, 2008.”

xxxx…

“GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of this Court this 19 th of June 2008 at Caloocan City, Metro Manila. (underscoring & emphasis supplied)

(SGD) ALMA CRISPINA B. COLLADO-LACORTE Presiding Judge

NOW, what sort of explanation would justify the enormous error

openly

manifested in the conflicting DATES presented above? Perhaps, there could only be

THREE (3) reasonable and realistic justifications;

1. THAT , it was just a simple m istake or clerica l error committed by the Ministerial Officers, Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and Judicial Employees, of Caloocan City, MeTC-51’s, which all of those involved had simply overlooked or had failed to SEE bec ause they were ALL BLIND- folded (similar to the blind -folded Lady Justice symbol in the Philippine Justice System), while performing their duties, including Judge Lacorte herself who, likewise, didn’t notice the conflicting dates when she signed it.

2. THAT, the Ministerial Officers, Branch Clerk of Court Personnel and Judicial Employees of the Caloocan City, MeTC- 51, had ALL became so INCOMPETENT to diligently PERFORM their SWORN DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES in t he administration of Justice? …which, perhaps

necessitates all of them t o undergo further trainings & seminars; and, that ALL these things were the result of JUDGE ELEANOR KWONG’s greediness in having numerous records of cases filed in her court , to the point of even admitting complaint outside her jurisdiction, which she should rather had dismissed right away, in order to lessen the job of her court’s personnel.

3. THAT, it is indeed a “CRYSTAL CLEAR INDICATION” pointing to the REALITY of something FISHY and ANOMALOUS TRANSACTIONS tainted with IRREGULARITIES and CORRUPTION that are actually “GOING ON,” “TAKING PLACE,” and PROLIFE RATING in SOME or MOST, if not ALL Courts of Justice in t he Philippine Judicial System, by which corrupt Lawyers, Clerk of Courts and Presiding Judges are conniving and conspiring with each other to further their dirty and devious tricks! A glaring FACT being tolerated by each and every one due to the main reason AGAIN, that ALL of them are actually performing their respective sworn DUTIES and RESPONSIBILTIES, but most often failed to do their jobs honestly, diligently and with accuracy because they have been BLIND-folded, similar to the existing classical SY MBOL in the Philippine Judicial System.

Irrefutable and indisputable here is the FACT, that when Petitioner submitted and filed

his numerous Motion to Dismiss due to FORUM-SHOPPING and LACK OF JURISDICTION, it

took almost a YEAR before it was resolved, whereas, on the other hand, when it comes to the

Respondent’s Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution to implement the Judgment, it

took only ONE (1) DAY for the court to resolve, notwithstanding the FACT that a Writ of

Execution has already been issued in advance.??? WERE THERE NO FAVORITISM,

PREDJUDICE and PARTIALITY IN THAT?

The Supreme Court in its “per curiam” DECISION, on CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692, entitled “Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.” [A.M. NO. 08-8-11-CA :

September 9, 2008], stated, thus;

The Judiciary, which is acclaimed as the firmest pillar of our democratic institutions, is vested by the Constitution with the power to settle disputes between parties and to determine their rights and obligations under the law. For judicial decisions, which form part of the law of the land, to be credible instruments in the peaceful and democratic resolution of conflicts, our courts must be perceived to be and, in fact be, impartial, independent, competent and just. To accomplish this end, it is imperative that members of the Judiciary from its highest magistrates to its humblest employees adhere to the strictest code of ethics and the highest standards of propriety and decorum. Indeed, it is unfortunate that one of the country's second highest courts, the Court of Appeals, should be presently embroiled in scandal and controversy. It is this Court's bounden duty to determine the culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ISSUES for Arguments / Discussions

Issue No. 1 : FORUM SHOPPING

When Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR filed her Complaint before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, [Annex-14] on June 17, 2003, For Collection of Sum of Money & Damages,there was still a PENDING, UNRESOLVED CASE of the SAME NATURE and ISSUE in Quezon City MeTC-32, [Annex-15] docketed as Civil Case No. 29501 For Specific Performance with Damages, which the same Respondent filed on October 30, 2002 against

the same Petitioner Romeo B. Ramirez.

In view of that first complaint filed in Quezon City, Petitioner by his 1 st Counsel Atty. Hilario Quiambao (now deceased) filed his ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIMon December

10, 2002,. However, instead of commenting on the Defendant’s “Answer with Counterclaim, Respondent filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case[Annex-16] on June 16, 2003, stating that “she is no longer interested to prosecute the instant case and she now

desires to withdraw the said case.

On the contrary, immediately on the following day, June 17, 2003, Respondent hurriedly filed again her readily prepared SIMILAR COMPLAINT of the SAME NATURE and

ISSUE, having IDENTICAL CAUSE OF ACTION before the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial

Court (MeTC) Branch 51.

It bears stressing here that the obvious REASON why Respondent filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the Casein Quezon City, and have another one filed in her

place of residence, was not merely to change the venue for her case and against this, no

serious objection can be raised”, (as ruled out by the Court of Appeals on p.10, DECISION,

CA- G.R. SP NO. 94866), of which the same was likewise asserted by the Caloocan City

RTC-121, which declared and gave an opinion that, “the rule against forum shopping could not

be applied to plaintiff -appellee because her intention in filing the case before the court a quo

was not to shop for a favorable judgment.” (p.4, of Caloocan City, RTC-121, DECISION) .

On the contrary, Plaintiff-Respondent evidently changed the venue for her case so she can

shop for a favorable judgment, by means of willfully, maliciously and abusively modifying her

COMPLAINT from claiming to be “the OWNER of a certain portion of undivided LOT 799, Piedad

Estate with LRC Record No. 5975,” in her FIRST COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter, DENIED her OWNERSHIP to the subject LOT and simply “claimed ONLY the OWNERSHIP to a

residential HOUSE which is allegedly erected over the said portion of land,” in her second

complaint filed in Caloocan City.

Thus, it is crystal CLEAR that both Caloocan City RTC-128, and Court of Appeals

8 th Division gravely “ERRED” in not sustaining defendant-appellant’s theory that there was forum shopping, when they issued their rulings, stating that, the chances that the evil

sought to be prevented or avoided by the rules on forum -shopping would have transpired by reason of the actions of the respondent in the Quezon City and

later in the Caloocan City, was remote, if not altogether nil

All

the respondent

did was to change the venue of her case -and aga inst this, no serious objection

can be raised,-paragraph 2, page 10, CA-G.R. SP No. 94866, January 10, 2007,

DECISION- (underscoring and emphasis supplied)

[WOW… WHAT A PERFECT PORTRAYAL OF BLIND-folded C.A. JUSTICE Renato Dacudao in the Philippine Judicial System!!! Is this the kind of Justice that has been multi-awarded with prestigious awards, such as; Outstanding State Prosecutor,

Ministry of Justice, 1978; Presidential Awardee, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all over the country, Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration June 9, 1989; Awardee, Best Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro Memorabilia Commission,

1995; Winner, The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as Outstanding RTC Judge, Foundation for Judicial Excellence, 1996. ????

DEAF and BLIND??? Mga Bulag na nga ba ang mga nakapwesto sa ating

naka-piring at

Judicial System? O sadyang nagbubulag-bulagan lamang?

dahil

may takip ang mga MATA na pati ang mga TENGA ay natakpan na rin kaya pati mahahalagang TESTIMONYA ay balewala na rin sa kanila.]

Being BLIND-folded Justices, they even FAILED to SEE (or perhaps deliberately ignored to SEE), that Respondent Carmen Salvador, LIED not only in Quezon City MeTC-

32, in stating that “she is no longer interested to prosecute the instant case and she now desires to withdraw the said case, but worst of all, she also LIED before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, by submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION [Annex-17] that she has not commenced any other ACTION and that no similar ACTION of the SAME NATURE

and ISSUE is pending with any other tribunal or agency, which is already a CLEAR VIOLATION of the Rule against Non-Forum Shopping, as provided for under the New

Rules on Civil Procedure.

Unaware of the second Complaint filed in Caloocan City, Petitioner was even caught in surprise to receive from Caloocan City MeTC-51, a copy of an Urgent Motion to Declare (him) Defendant (Ramirez) in Default, dated August 25, 2003. Upon receipt of the said

motion, Petitioner immediately submitted and filed in Caloocan City his ANSWER, dated September 01, 2003 and promptly sought the immediate DISMISSAL of the instant Complaint filed against him. Petitioner not only pointed out and raised before the Trial

Court that Plaintiff had willfully violated the Rule on Non-FORUM SHOPPING in submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION, but also raised the ISSUE that Caloocan City has NO JURISDICTION over the instant Complaint, on the basis that the PROPERTY (LOT

and HOUSE) that was fraudulently sold by the Respondent to Petitioner’s family is located in Quezon City, hence, only the proper Courts in Quezon City have the JURISDICTION over

the instant Complaint.

On the other side, upon ORDER of the Court in Quezon City, Petitioner by his 1 st Counsel Atty. Hilario Quiambao, on September 01, 2003 submitted and filed his COMMENT

on the Plaintiff’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case, and explicitly stated thereat his VIGOROUS OBJECTION” to it, in view of his ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM .

However, after FIVE (5) months, when Respondent failed to submit and file a REPLY to the Petitioner’s “vigorous objectionnot to grant the Plaintiff’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion

to Withdraw Case in view of his (Ramirez) Answer with Counterclaim, and upon failure of Ramirez’ Counsel Atty. Quiambao to file within the reglementary period of 15 days, a Manifestation of his preference for the court to resolve his counterclaim, the Plaintiff’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case was eventually RESOLVED by Quezon City

MeTC-32, in its ORDER, dated February 2, 2004, issued by its

ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO -SALE, granting the DISMISSAL of the Complaint, the

decreetal portion reads;

Presiding Judge

The court grants plaintiff’s motion for the dismissal of the complaint. Despite the opposition of the Defendant, he did not, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Plaintiff ’s motion to dismiss, file a manifestation of his preference for this court to resolve his counterclaim in this case.

Wherefore, the complaint is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the defendant’s filing of a separate action on his counterclaim.”

SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, February 2, 2004.

(SGD) ANGELENE MARY W. QUIMPO-SALE Presiding Judge

This above verdict of Judge Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale…,

(again, another muti-awarded Judge who was recently honored last year by the Judiciary and

was cited on the 23rd anniversary of the Judicial Excellence Awards (JEA), extolling her roles in moving

judicial reform forward and for being diligent in her duties ;??? received the Chief Justice Cayetano

Award for Outstanding Second Level Court Judge, for having “significantly contributed to judicial

as the Outstanding Trial Court Judge for First Level Courts in 2006, being the

reform…???

cited

“select few” to have won both excellence awards…???)

…in instantaneously GRANTING the Respondent’s Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Case and DISMISSING the case right away, despite Petitioner’s VIGOROUS OBJECTION to it in view of his ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM, and her Court’s failure to

notify or direct the Petitioner to file his Manifestation of preference to resolve his Counterclaim,

if such is still needed, is tantamount to neglect of duty and is not in accordance with the CANONS of the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. What was the point of filing again another separate action on the Counterclaim?Why go through long processes again of

filing a separate action for the Petitioner’s counterclaim? The case is already within her court and it was just a matter of resolving the Petitioner’s Counterclaim and the case could have been ended already.

Quite noting here is the FACT, that when Petitioner received the Plaintiff’s Urgent Ex- Parte Motion to dismiss, he immediately submitted and filed his ”COMMENT” with “VIGOROUS OBJECTION” to the said Motion in view of his “COUNTERCLAIM”. WAS IT NOT

THEN A SUFFICIENT COUNTERCLAIM?

MANIFESTATION OF HIS PREFERENCE TO RESOLVE HIS

It might be safe to say and assume therefore, that Judge Quimpo-Sale’s ACTION on instantaneously granting the Respondent’s MOTION to Dismiss, is a clear manifestation of her being influenced only by someone to DISMISS the Complaint within her jurisdiction in order

that the second complaint filed by the Respondent in Caloocan City can prosper and be brought to a full-blown trial…thus, Judge Quimpo-Sale’s unwarranted decision paved the way for the second complaint filed in Caloocan City to be somewhat justified “as if it had substantially complied with the Rules on forum shopping” as stated by the baseless ruling of

Judge Kwong. Was this one of the reasons or criteria for a Judge like Judge Quimpo-Sale to be conferred with a “Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award for Outstanding Second-

Level Court Judge”?

up to the Court of Appeals Tribunal, perhaps MOST if not ALL Judges are also BLIND- folded…. who cannot clearly SEE or maybe deliberately refused to SEE…???

another crystal clear indication that even in Quezon City MTC and

If so, “How can we ORDINARY, yet PEACEFUL and LAW -ABIDING Filipino Citizens of the Republic of the Philippines obtain TRUE JUSTICE then…???

Hence, Judge Quimpo-Sale’s award-winning “VERDICT” in instantaneously granting

the Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Case despite the Defendant’s vigorous objection to it in view of the latter’s Answer with Counterclaim, resulted into Caloocan City MTC-51 Presiding Judge Eleanor R. Kwong to pave a way and acquire jurisdiction over it, and found good reason to

DENY the Petitioner’s MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO FORUM SHOPPING, by coming up with her own shallow, unsound and untenable ruling that the Respondent’s action in submitting an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw case, which was eventually granted, will suffice her substantial compliance of non-forum shopping. ???

As previously stated above, starting on September 01, 2003, when Petitioner first raised the ISSUE of FORUM SHOPPING in his ANSWER; and was then pointed out and

repeatedly raised it over and over again, on October 03, 2003

COMMENT, to the Plaintiff’s Urgent Motion to Declare Defendant in Default; on November 19, 2003, in the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping; and finally, on June 24, 2004 in yet another Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping filed by

Defendant’s 2 nd Counsel Atty. Regidor Pablo Pablo, Jr., who bluntly quoted the Supreme Court’s pronouncement on the Rule on Forum Shopping in the case of “Prubankers

Association vs. Prudential Bank and Trust Company, 302 SCRA 74”, and stated, thus;

in the Defendant’s

“The Rule on Forum Shopping was first included in Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the Court on January 11, 1983, which imposed a sanction in this wise: “A violation of the rule

shall constitute

contempt of

court and shall be

a cause for the

summary DISMISSAL of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned .” Thereafter, the Court restated the Rule in Revised Circular No. 28-91

and Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Ultimately, the Rule was embodied in the 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court .”(Underscoring

and emphasis supplied).

It was ONLY then, AFTER almost a YEAR ( 10 months and 21 days), of repeatedly

showing, pointing and raising the ISSUE of Forum Shopping, that the Caloocan City

MeTC-51 former Presiding Judge Eleanor Kwong, finally decided to resolve said ISSUE, in

an ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, intentionally and maliciously DENYING the Defendant-

Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, and ruled out with partiality in

FAVOR of Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN SALVADOR, by merely stating that there was

substantial compliance of non-forum shopping, the dispositive portion of said ORDER

reads;

“Plaintiff’s counsel was given ten (10) days to comment but NONE was filed, hence, the motion is now considered submitted for resolution. “ Perusal of the records of this case shows that plaintiff filed before the said court an Urgent Ex - Parte Motion to Withdraw Caseon June 16, 2003, but the same was ONLY RESOLVED on February 2, 2004. The Complaint before this court was filed on June 17, 2003.

As the Motion to Withdraw case was filed before the filing of this instant complaint, there is substantial compliance of non- forum shopping.” (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )

In an ATTEMPT to further JUSTIFY her above-quoted shallow and petty-minded ruling, Judge KWONG, proceeded, thus;

“It was held in several cases that the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, rules on procedure are used only to secure, not override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated .

(Arsenio Reyes, Jr., vs. C.A. et. al., G.R. No. 136478, March 27, 2000).

If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had long

been

defendant

belatedly filed his Answer. This Court hereby accords both parties fair play and the opportunity to ventilate their issues in a full blown trial.” (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )

considered

submitted

for

decision,

since

the

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. Caloocan City, Metro Manila July 21, 2004

(SGD) ELEANOR R. KWONG Presiding Judge

This kind of interpretation and application of law presented by Judge KWONG in

DENYING the Defendant-Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, is not only a

clear demonstration of her IRRATIONAL and UNJUST ruling, but also clearly shows her

PARTIALITY, DISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDE, IGNORANCE of LAW and WILLFUL,

MALICIOUS, and HORRIBLE WAY of twisting and perverting the Rules of Court, as well as

DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to the Supreme Court’s Administrative Orders, Directives and

Circulars.

On the other hand, the above-quoted NONSENSE and BASELESS ruling of Judge

KWONG, and intentional mis-interpretation of the law, became a BIG stepping stone for

HER to be elevated and promoted to a higher position into becoming the Presiding Judge

NOW of the “CALOKOHAN” City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 128. This is an INSULT

to the FILIPINO people who are required by Law to give due RESPECT, HONOR and HIGH

REGARD to the JUDICIARY, being ONE of the THREE highly-revered branches of our

government!!! No doubt why most narrow-minded Filipino individuals pretending to be

patriotic ended up being rebellious to the government.

With all due respect to the NEW ADMINISTRATION of the Honorable Supreme Court

and the Highest Tribunal of our Land, from which former Chief Justice Renato Corona was

recently impeached and subsequently removed from his post, now facing multiple charges of

corruption, irregularities and anomalies, the undersigned sincerely SEEKS and REQUESTS

that an IMMEDIATE and URGENT ASSESSMENT and EVALUATION of ALL JUSTICES

appointed to preside in various Courts and Tribunals within the Philippine Judicial System

should be PRIORITIZED, in order to avoid having more VICTIMS of INJUSTICES who are

now suffering in JAILS, mainly because of some dishonest and deceitful Judges who normally

render such kind of BASELESS and UNFOUNDED RULING similar to Judge Eleanor Kwong.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES, PETITIONER IS OF HUMBLE SUBMISSION BEFORE THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW ON

CERTIORARI, IF INDEED, THE ACT OF FILING ANOTHER COMPLAINT IN ANOTHER TRIBUNAL CAN REALLY BE JUSTIFIED TO HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING, BY MERELY FILING A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE

FIRST COMPLAINT FROM THE OTHER TRIBUNAL

THEN FILE THE SAME AGAIN INTO

ANOTHER TRIBUNAL THE FOLLOWING DAY, and much more with THE SUBMISSION OF FALSE

VERIFICATION!!!

Perhaps it could have been more justifiable if the filing of another case in another

tribunal was done ONLY, AFTER an ORDER for the DISMISSAL of the first complaint has

already been GRANTED, and not just by simply filing a Motion for the dismissal of the first

complaint.

What was presented above is just a tip of an iceberg, yet, clearly demonstrates why

thousands of INNOCENT FILIPINOS are suffering in jail as VICTIMS of

there are many appointed JUSTICES who are not only “BLIND” not

being able to SEE or willfully and deliberately ignore to SEE the real issues, facts and

circumstances, but they also LACK the expertise, knowledge and necessary skills needed to

properly utilize the weighing scale of Justice, yet they still get promoted from being an MTC

Judge into becoming an RTC Judge.???

INJUSTICES!!!

because

On the other hand, Justices who have so much expertise, exceptional knowledge,

seasoned and skilled in the implementation and administration of justice had turned out to

become undesirable and corrupt in their practice of law. They normally connived with

undeserving, dishonest Counsels/Lawyers and together paved their own court’s playing field

and twist the Rules of Court inside their jurisdiction, in order to render kind judgment to

whoever party they favored with, hence, the Almighty God as the Most High Judge found it

proper to intervene, by anointing a “SERVANT” and guiding him to elevate this matter to the

respectable NEW Administration of the most Honorable Supreme Court and the Highest

Tribunal of the Land which has the inherent power not only to correct the mistakes of lower

courts, but also to initiate or recommend Disciplinary proceedings against the Counsel and

Judges involved, for the advancement of Justice.

It bears stressing and significant to note, that the Honorable SUPREME COURT had

already set a vividly clear, definitive and decisive guidelines regarding the Rules on Forum

shopping, which assert as follows;

The ESTABLISHED RULE is that FORUM SHOPPING EXIST, IF BOTH ACTIONS

and

INVOLVE

THE

SAME

TRANSACTIONS,

SAME

ESSENTIAL

FACTS

CIRCUMSTANCES and MUST RAISE IDENTICAL CAUSES of ACTIONS, SUBJECT MATTER and ISSUES. [International Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 389, 394-395, October 18, 1995; GSIS vs. Sandiganbayan, 191 SCRA 655, 660, November 26, 1990; and Silahis International Hotel, Inc. vs. NLRC, 225 SCRA 94 100, August 4,

1993.]

The RATIONALE for the requirement of a CERTIFICATION against forum

shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim

involving the same issues in another court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency,

and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation. Filing MULTIPLE

petitions or COMPLAINTS constitutes ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES. (Wee vs.

Galves, G.R. No. 147394, 11August 2004, 436 SCRA 96, 108-109, CITING Zebra Security Agency

vs. NLRC, Phil.200, 209), which tends to degrade the administration of justice,

havoc upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the congestion of

wreaks

the heavily burdened dockets of the courts. (Nacuray vs. NLRC, 336 Phil. 749, 756).

Furthermore, the rule proscribing forum shopping seeks to promote candor and

transparency among Lawyers and their Clients in the pursuit of their cases

before the courts to promote the orderly administration of justice, prevent undue

inconvenience upon the other party, and save the precious time of the courts.

(Solid Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 337 Phil. 605, 616.)

Significantly, to curb the malpractice of forum shopping, the Rule ORDAINS that a VIOLATION thereof would constitute CONTEMPT OF COURT and be a CAUSE FOR THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL of BOTH PETITIONS without prejudice to the taking of

appropriate ACTION AGAINST the COUNSEL of the PARTY CONCERNED.

FINALLY, the Supreme Court’s Administrative CIRCULAR No. 4-94, further states,

that;

Any VIOLATION of this CIRCULAR shall be a CAUSE for the DISMISSAL of the

any CLEARLY, WILLFULL and DELIBERATE FORUM SHOPPING

by any PARTY and HIS COUNSEL through the filing of MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS or other initiatory pleadings to obtain FAVORABLE ACTION shall be a GROUND for SUMMARY

COMPLAINT,…

However,

DISMISSAL thereof and shall CONSTITUTE DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Furthermore, the SUBMISSION OF FALSE CERTIFICATION or NON-COMPLIANCE

SHALL

with

the

UNDERTAKINGS

therein

as

provided

in

Paragraph

1

hereof,

CONSTITUE “INDIRECT CONTEMPT of COURT”, without prejudice to DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COUNSEL and the FILING of a CRIMINAL ACTION

against the GUILTY PARTY.(Underscoring and emphasis supplied)

Now, are these above-quoted JURISPRUDENCE, MEMORANDUM,

CIRCULARS & RULINGS of the Supreme Court regarding Forum-shopping unknown

to the multi-awarded Court of Appeals Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, and to

Caloocan City RTC-121 Presiding Judge Adoracion G. Angeles and much more to

Judge ELEANOR KWONG? If so, then what made her qualified to be elevated into

becoming a Regional Trial Court (RTC) JUDGE of Calokohan City?

FOR THE WELL-ACCEPTED RULE IS THAT, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE! and, CERTAINLY NOT A CREDENTIAL FOR PROMOTION, BUT PERHAPS A VALID GROUND FOR DEMOTION or rather TERMINATION OF SERVICE PARTICULARLY FROM BEING A JUDGE!

IT IS, THEREFORE, NEITHER BEFITTING NOR PROPER AND APPROPRIATE TO SIMPLY ALLEGE THAT CALOOCAN CITY Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch -51, as well as CALOOCAN CITY Regional Trial Court, Branch-121 and COURT OF APPEALS 8 TH DIVISION, JUST GRAVELY ERRED” IN NO T SUSTAINING THE Defendant-Petitioner’s THEORY THAT THERE WAS FORUM SHOPPING! IT WOULD ONLY FURTHER DEGRADE THE IMAGE AND CREDIBILITY OF THE PHILIPPINE JUSTICE SYSTEM… ALL THE THREE (3) TRIBUNALS WILLFULLY, KNOWINGLY, DELIBERATELY, MALICIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY IGNORED THE WELL-ACCEPTED RULE AGAINST FORUM-SHOPPING.

IF THEY ONLY ADHERRED IN THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE , THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED LONG TIME AGO JUST FOR WILFULL VIOLATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING ALONE, AND THE FILING OF APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST EVERYBODY INVOLVED SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIKEWISE, RECOMMENDED!

Issue No. 2 : LACK OF JURISDICTION

The Caloocan City MeTC-51 DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION over the instant

case filed therein by Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador (who, including her Counsel Atty.

Dayang Preciosa Medina are both residents of Calocohan City).

Nevertheless, being seasoned and expert, Judge Eleanor Kwong is skillful enough,

wickedly and immorally smart, clever and shrewd on what to do and how to acquire

Jurisdiction over the instant case, even if on its face alone she perfectly knew that she has no

jurisdiction over it. (perhaps there was a “SECRET DEAL” among them that she would get a

share from any amount that the Plaintiff may collect, for if not, then what reason did she have

in attending to such complaint? Unless, she wanted her court to have an overflowing cases to

attend to and to keep her court’s personnel busy every day. ). Thus, Judge KWONG started

her FIRST move;

TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION (by all means)

Knowing fully-well and being totally aware that Calokohan City MeTC-51, does not have jurisdiction over the instant COMPLAINT filed by Calokohan City resident, Plaintiff- Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, through her Counsel ATTY. DAYANG PRECIOSA M.

MEDINA, with office address at Medina Law Office, 3 rd flr., Doña Juana Bldg., No. 18 Plaza Rizal cor. Gen. Luna St., Caloocan City, Judge KWONG, willfully, deliberately and maliciously started to pave the way on how to illegally acquire her jurisdiction over the instant case, by way of her July 21, 2004, “ORDER”, in resolving the Petitioner-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

due to Forum Shopping. Judge Kwong ruled, thus;

Plaintiff’s counsel was given ten (10) days to comment but NONE was filed, hence, the motion is now considered submitted

for resolution.” (underscoring and emphasis supplied)

With all due respect your honor, but there was indeed a Plaintiff’s COMMENT, dated and filed by her Counsel “Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA” on July 26, 2004 or FIVE (5) DAYS later???, after the court has already issued its July 21, 2004, ORDER???

In fact, that belatedly filed COMMENT was intentionally DONE, SUBMITTED and FILED, then willfully and maliciously RECEIVED by the trial court, purposely to be transmitted

and forwarded to Caloocan City RTC-121, intended to be utilized as Plaintiff’s additional argumentative evidence to support the readily concluded DENIAL of the Petitioner’s expected future appeal.

While Judge Kwong seemed not to be aware of it, yet, former Calocohan City RTC- 121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, (who was compulsory RETIRED from SERVICE

after her CONVICTION in Quezon City for the crime of child abuse), maliciously utilized and applied

that COMMENT which was clearly mentioned and pointed out in the P laintiff-Appellee’s Memorandum filed by Counsel on March 23, 2006.

The “DECISION” dated March 30, 2006 of former Calokohan City RTC-121, Presiding Judge, now convicted Judge Adoracion Angeles, (which was instantaneously rendered after

ONLY SEVEN (7) days from the date Plaintiff filed her MEMORANDUM on March 23, 2006) openly

affirms;

xxx,She, Plaintiff-Appellee, by counsel (referring to the Plaintiff’s “NEW

Counsel” Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS-BERCASIO, who represented her in RTC), argues that

there was substantial compliance with the rule against forum shopping because

the motion to withdraw case was filed in Quezon City before the filing of this case.

Moreover, Defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss before the court a quo failed to

comply with the provisions of Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.xxx, ®

(That foregoing particular boldly-underlined sentence, with emphasis supplied by herein Petitioner, refers to the belatedly filed Plaintiff’s “COMMENT” of which Judge Kwong was seemed unaware of.)

® DECISION, penned by Caloocan City RTC-121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES, dated March 30, 2006,

- three (3) months prior to her being CONVICTED on JULY 17, 2006 at the

Cas e Nos. Q-97-69655-56,

Quezon City RTC Branch 100, in

CRIMINAL

for VIOLATION of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610 for CHILD ABUSE.

Plaintiff’s new Counsel Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio who represented Plaintiff

Carmen Salvador before Calocohan City RTC-121, in her “MEMORANDUM” for Plaintiff-

Appellee that she submitted and filed, in the ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION of, Issue No. I.

Whether or not the Trial Court erred in not Dismissing the Case due to Forum

Shopping”, therein argued, (despite of her personal knowledge that the Plaintiff’s COMMENT was

belatedly filed to and received by the trial court), still utilized the same to justify her baseless

argument, and frankly asserted, thus;

“Moreover, as stated in Plaintiff’s COMMENT on the

said

Motion to Dismiss, which was received by the trial court after it has already issued the aforementioned Order , the Motion to Dismiss itself should not have been given due course, in the first place, because of its failure to comply with the provisions of Section 4, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.®® (underscoring &

emphasis supplied)

®® MEMORANDUM (for Plaintiff-Appellee), submitted & filed on March 23, 2006 by Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio before Calocohan City RTC-121.

It bears stressing to lay emphasis on the foregoing argument of Petitioner’s new

Counsel Atty. Judina Fabros-Bercasio that it has no basis at all, considering that the Plaintiff’s

“COMMENT” was not raised at the trial court, it having been just intentionally and lately

received by MTC, and then maliciously forwarded to RTC where it was finally made an official

part of the records of the case.???????

These foregoing declarations contained in the Plaintiff-Appellee’s “MEMORANDUM”

and in the Caloocan City RTC-121 “DECISION”, are undoubtedly, crystal clear manifestations

of conspiracy among dishonest LAWYERS, deceitful CLERK OF COURTS and corrupt

JUDGES, which are substantial pieces of EVIDENCE that prove beyond reasonable doubt

about their willful and malicious way of manipulating and twisting the Rules of Court inside

their jurisdiction, which are specific acts constituting fraud or deceit not primarily on the part of

Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador but by and among her Counsels, Atty. Dayang

Preciousa Medina and Atty. Judina O. Fabros-Bercasio, in connivance with Calokohan City,

MeTC-51 Clerks of Court and convicted Calokohan City RTC-121, former Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES.

To further proceed and continue with the undersigned’ presentation on how Judge KWONG, willfully and maliciously paved the way to forcibly acquire improperly and unlawfully,

her JURISDICTION over the instant case, she EXPLOITED and TOOK ADVANTAGE of the very popular COMMON PRACTICE well-known to everyone as “delaying tactics” during the

entire initial period when she had “NO JURISDICTION” yet over the instant case. In so doing,

Judge KWONG WITTINGLY, DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY delayed to resolve for almost a YEAR, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping.

In reality, Judge KWONG cannot and could not actually resolve the Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, much more that she cannot and could not cite the Defendant-Petitioner in Default, not only because of her LACK OF JURISDICTION, but also because by doing so, would only mean the END of the CASE. (If ONLY Defendant Ramirez had

the undersigned already as Counsel with him during those times, he could have given him the best

advice to simply disregard the Complaint filed against him in Caloocan City and let him be cited there

in DEFAULT which cannot and would never actually happen, even if he failed or refused to file an

ANSWER or REPLY and totally ignored the Complaint, for as long as the one pending in Quezon City is

not yet resolved and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw is also not granted, then the grave evil sought

to be avoided by the rule against forum shopping which is the rendition by two competent tribunals

of two separate and contradictory decisions, is MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN.)

During those times, the Plaintiff-Respondent’s “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the casein Quezon City MeTC-32, remains pending, and the FIRST “COMPLIANT” was,

likewise, not yet been DISMISSED. Thus, Judge Kwong fully-well knew that she had actually “NO JURISDICTION” over the newly-filed case in Caloocan City, much more that she does not have the option to resolve the Defendant’s Motion to dismiss which she intentionally and

deliberately intends to DENY, hence, she waited unwearyingly until the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw the case filed by her favorite client Plaintiff Carmen Salvador in Quezon City was finally GRANTED. Thereafter, found her time at last to ultimately resolve the ISSUE

on Forum Shopping by issuing the aforementioned ORDER dated July 21, 2004, the dispositive portion of which is again quoted hereunder, which reads;

“ Perusal of the records of this case shows that plaintiff filed before the said court an Urgent Ex -Parte Motion to Withdraw Case” on June 16, 2003, but the same was ONLY RESOLVED on February 2, 2004. The Complaint before this court was filed on June 17, 2003. As the Motion to Withdraw case was filed

before

substantial compliance of non-forum shopping.”???????

(underscoring, emphasis and question marks supplied)

the

filing

of

this

instant

complaint,

there

is

Xxxxx….

If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had

the

been

long

considered

submitted

for

decision,

since

defendant belatedly filed his Answer. This Court hereby accords both parties fair play and the opportunity to ventilate their issues in a full blown trial.

“WHEREFORE, the Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.” (Underscoring and emphasis supplied )

SO ORDERED. Caloocan City July 21, 2004

(Signed) ELEANOR R. KWONG Presiding Judge

PERFECT! So now , the case is within Judge Kwong’s JURISDICTION in Caloc ohan City, where they can do all kinds of maneuvering and manipulation by setting their own rules of the game in their own court’s playing field and twisting the rules of procedure to suit for their favor.

Plaintiff-Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR, who willfully, knowingly, intentionally and deliberately violated the Rule on Forum Shopping by;

FIRSTLY, lying before the Quezon City MTC-32, in submitting her Urgent Ex-Parte

Motion to Withdraw the case, claiming that she is no longer interested in further prosecuting

the instant case and she desires to withdraw the said case, yet, on the following day

hurriedly submitted and filed another Complaint of the same nature, issue and

circumstances in Caloocan City;

SECONDLY, by lying again before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, for not informing

MeTC-51 regarding the pendency of the case before Quezon City MeTC-32, and

THIRDLY, by making MISREPRESENTATION when she submitted a FALSE

VERIFICATION, stating thereat that she has not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues in any other tribunal and agency, which is a clear violation of the

Rule on Non-Forum Shopping.

In the same manner, Plaintiff’s Counsel ATTY. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA

who is also liable and guilty of forum shopping for conspiring with her client in maliciously

and abusively modifying the Plaintiff’s Complaint from claiming to be the owner of a certain

portion of undivided lot 799 Piedad Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her FIRST

COMPLAINT filed in Quezon City, thereafter, denied her ownership to the subject LOT and

simply claimed only the ownership of an alleged residential HOUSE which is purportedly

erected over the said portion of land, in her SIMILAR COMPLAINT filed in Caloocan City.

Thereafter, used it to justify her client’s action of filing another case in Caloocan City by

arguing that the case filed in Quezon City involves a LOT whereas the one filed in Caloocan

City involves a HOUSE, and this, she (Atty. Medina) claimed, create the big difference.

On the contrary, whatever kind of reasoning and explanation they give will never

justify their action of filing multiple complaints and submitting False Verification attached to

their complaint.

Thus, the malicious ACTS, deceitful means and fraudulent way employed by both

Respondent-Plaintiff CARMEN SALVADOR together with her dishonest and undeserving

Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA MEDINA, resulted into their initial success that only

require a little finishing touch from the hand of Caloocan City MeTC-51, Presiding Judge

Eleanor Kwong, hence, her ORDER, dated July 21, 2004, which is not only ridiculous and

preposterous, but a whopping INSULT and direct DISOBEDIENCE to the Administrative

Circular 28-91, dated February 08, 1994 issued by the Supreme Court, and Administrative

Circular No. 04-94 made effective 01 April 1994, which expa nds the CERTIFICATION

requirement to include cases filed in Court and quasi-judicial agencies below the Supreme

Court and the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court adopted paragraphs (1) and (2) of said

Circular to become Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in order to deter

the EVILS of FORUM SHOPPING.

“Forum Shopping” is not comparable or similar to certain simple issues in which

technicality ought not to be applied in a very rigid technical sense, for it might override

substantial justice, as claimed and referred to by Judge Kwong in her bias ruling.

On the contrary, FORUM SHOPPING” is considered a “PERNICIOUS EVIL”. It

adversely affects the efficient administration of justice since it clogs the court

dockets, unduly burdens the financial and human resources of the judiciary, and

trifles with and mocks judicial processes.

evident where the elements of “litis pendentia” or “res judicata” are present.(United

Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, G.R. No.

135945, March 7, 2001, 353 SCRA 782).

It has been held that forum shopping is

While Civil Case No. 03-27338, may be mistakenly considered as a “PERSONAL

ACTION”, based from its caption or title being a “Collection of Sum of Money and Damages”,

it is also an undeniable FACT that the amount being collected by the Plaintiff-Respondent

Salvador from Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez is the alleged UNPAID BALANCE from the

fictitious SALE OF A PROPERTY that is located in Quezon City, of which alleged unpaid

balance, the Petitioner’s family refused to pay because they found out that Respondent only

got her “RIGHT” on the subject property illegally, by forging the signature of the rightful owner

Wifredo Torres, on the alleged Deed of Assignment and by fabricating a falsified (FAKE)

Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie,

(Respondent Carmen Salvador).

Among the many issues that were raised and argued in the court a quo and in the

appellate courts, are the TWO (2) most significant of all, to wit;

1. Whether or not the Defendant has to pay the P220,000.00 remaining balance of the purchase price; and,

2. Whether or not the Defendant is liable to pay plaintiff monthly rentals of Php 1,500.00 (for the use and occupancy of an alleged HOUSE) until the remaining balance is fully paid

These were the amounts being collected by Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador from

Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez, as allegedly arising from the fictitious deed of Sale,

denominated as “Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Aria-arianwhich the latter allegedly entered into

with the former, of which kind of ACTION for “Collection of Sum of Money and Damages

may be commenced and tried in the proper court where the Plaintiff resides (Sec. 2, Rule 4),

is somewhat correct.

However, it is also EQUALLY TRUE that the Plaintiff’s ACTION affects the TITLE

to or POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY, or INTEREST therein, and as such, it

should have been commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the

area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Sec. 1, Rule 4).

Therefore, the Plaintiff-Respondent’s ACTION is NOT purely a PERSONAL action. It

is a “REAL ACTION”, an “accion en rem” that affects TITLE to or POSSESSION of the

subject real property, or interest therein, which is located in Quezon City;

Relative thereat, is the Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which is based

on Supreme Court Circular No. 13-95, promulgated on June 20, 1995, providing a vividly

clear and well-defined guidelines that,

or “POSSESSION” of the real property), should be COMMENCED and TRIED in the

PROPER COURT which has TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION over the AREA wherein the

real property involved or a portion thereof is situated .

ALL

“REAL ACTIONS” (those affecting “TITLE” to,

It is very apparent from the very face of the Respondent’s Complaint, filed in and

brought before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, that the subject matter involved is an alleged

residential HOUSE supposedly erected on a parcel of land that is located in Quezon City. In

the Plaintiff’s Complaint submitted and filed in Caloocan City, it reads;

Xxxxx

1.

Plaintiff is the true and lawful owner of a residential HOUSE located at the

corner of Bonifacio Drive and Quezon St., Bgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City,

which is erected on a parcel of land consisting of One Hundred Twenty (120) square

meters, more or less. The “right” over the said parcel of land likewise belongs to the

plaintiff, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 29, 2000, executed in

her favor by the awardee of the said lot.(underscoring and emphasis supplied)

From its very face alone, the complaint is DISMISSIBLE and does not deserve to be

entertained by any other Courts outside Quezon City. Whether Plaintiff-Respondent’s action

is for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages, the FACT remains that she could not

have any amount collectible from the Defendant-Petitioner if not for the SALE of “REAL

PROPERTY” located in Quezon City which she fraudulently sold to Defendant’s wife LUZ

RAMIREZ and not to Defendant-Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, whom Plaintiff-Respondent had never met nor talk with personally, since time immemorial.

Obviously, The Respondent’s action of filing her Complaint to collect money and damages from the Petitioner depends from her rightful possession and proof of legal ownership over the subject property, which she has the burden to prove first in court. Her

demand to collect money and damages can only be justified if she can prove that she has the legal personality to sell the same, otherwise, if not, then she does not have any legal and valid cause of action against the Petitioner. It would even further give rise to her being held for a Criminal act of Swindling/ESTAFA thru fabrication and falsification of public documents.

Thus, the Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51, DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE.

However, the trial court maliciously justified the Respondent’s ACTION to collect money, when it ruled upon the OWNERSHIP and POSSESSION of the REAL PROPERTY located in QUEZON CITY, BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION. The trial court ruled, thus;

The Plaintiff’s right over the subject lot derived from a Deed of Absolute

Sale executed by Alexander A. Parco, an awardee-owner of the subject lot in favor

his

possession the subject lot through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 5, 1995, executed by one Remigio Tamayo in his favor. This Remigio Tamayo acquired the right over the subject lot from Wilfredo Torres through a Deed of Assignment dated February 2, 1993. Wilfredo Torres was the registered owner of the subject lot with Transfer Certificate of Title No. 118192, until the said title was declared null and void by the Decision dated February 28, 2000 of Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal Sr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City.”

of

plaintiff

Carmen A.

Salvador. Alexander

Parco

likewise,

came

into

The Trial Court further ruled;

At the time the Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-Arian was executed, the Plaintiff was still the lawful possessor of the right of the subject lot. It being so, there is no fraud nor deceit made by the Plaint iff, as being claimed by the defendant.

When the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 22, 2000 was executed between Wilfredo Torres in favor of Romeo Ramirez, Wilfredo Torres was no longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.”

From the foregoing, it is apparently clear that the case brought before the Trial Court was an “accion en rem” because it affected not only the POSSESSION but the TITLE of the

real property located in Quezon City. The trial court in Caloocan City did not have the jurisdiction in ruling upon the issue of possession much more ownership of the subject property in Quezon City.

It also bears stressing that while the Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule upon the ownership of the subject LOT, it is likewise significant to point out what was stated

in the Plaintiff’s instant complaint as well as what was claimed by her counsel in their

Comment to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss due to forum shopping, that the subject matter

involved in the case they brought in Caloocan City is NOT a LOTbut a HOUSE. It being

so, then, WHY DID CALOOCAN CITY, MeTC-51 JUDGE KWONG RULED OUT AND

DECIDED ON MATTER or ISSUE, NOT BEING BROUGHT BEFORE HER COURT?

way of coming out with a ruling as to who is the rightful owner of the LOT ??? instead of

by

deciding on whether there was really a HOUSE erected thereat, which Plaintiff-Respondent

alleged being rented by Defendant-Petitioner Ramirez.

IS

THIS

ANOTHER

CLEAR

EXCEPTIONAL IGNORANCE???

MANIFESTATION

OF

JUDGE

KWONG’s

Furthermore, the trial court’s ruling and insistence that Wilfredo Torres was no

longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality” was merely a court’s wrongful presumption

which cannot be justified, as it is baseless and bereft of merit, not only because it is not

supported by any evidence extant in the record, but mainly because the Decision of Quezon

City, Regional Trial Court Branch 79, was only declaring null and void the Transfer of

Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 118192 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of

Wilfredo Torres, but NOT the legality of Torres’ legal ownership to other portions of land

inside “WilTor” subdivision which include Lots No. 21 & 22, subject of the case, and are also

covered by TCT 118192.

Untenable also is the court’s opinion that, When the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

December 22, 2000 was executed between Wilfredo Torres in favor of Romeo Ramirez, Wilfredo Torres was no longer the owner of the subject lot as the Decision of Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Quezon City, had already attained its finality.

Common sense alone would suffice to say, that even if TCT No. 118192 in the name

of Wilfredo Torres was declared null and void, it does not necessarily mean that Torres is no

longer the legal owner of other lots covered by said TCT, and even assuming but not

admitting, but just for argument sake that the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79, has indeed,

already attained its finality, and that Torres was no longer the owner of the more than 40

hectares of land covered by TCT 118192, does it necessarily mean then that Respondent

Carmen Salvador automatically become its rightful owner? Where is the logic in that? This

does not make any sense at all, which again prove beyond reasonable doubt how

IGNORANT

are

the

kind of Justices who have

been appointed to preside

and

administer Justice in this particular case!

By simply reading, even without scrutinizing the Decision of Quezon City RTC-79,

anyone can easily understand and figure out that TCT 118192 was only declared null and

void, it being a derivative Title from TCT No. 56809 issued by the Registry of Rizal on March

7, 1939, which was eventually reconstituted only by the Quezon City Register of Deeds by

way of Wilfredo Torres’ mother Dominga Sumulong’s Petition on December 28, 1966.

The TCT No. 118192 containing an area of 416,533 square meters (41.65 hectares) is covered by Lot 799 of Piedad Estate, of which portions are presumed to be legally owned by the heirs of Kalaw family and other portions are also presumed to be absolutely owned by the heirs of Torres-Sumulong family. This land dispute between Torres and Kalaw family is a very complicated case for quieting of Title, which has long gone for a period of over 30 years until it was finally settled by the Supreme Court in its Decision dated September 10, 2003, G.R. No. 91486, declaring null and void all TCTs of “Piedad Estate” covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 614, including Lot 799, from which TCT-118192 that covers Lots 21 & 22 subject this case, emanated from.

Respondent submitted at the Trial court voluminous records of documents as their evidence to support their claim that Wilfredo Torres is no longer the absolute owner of Lots No. 21 and 22, inside his own Wiltor Subdivision.

The BLIND-folded Lady Judge KWONG, just admittedly placed all the Respondent’s voluminous documents into her weighing scale without even looking at and scrutinizing the contents of those documents whether they really support the claim and allegation of Respondent Salvador as the rightful owner with absolute and legal personality to sell or dispose the same.

However, by going over and scrutinizing the Plaintiff-Respondent’s evidences submitted at the trial court, marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit “K” (K1-14), (K15 K16), K17, K18- K19 and Exhibit L-L4, which Plaintiff presented in court as their documentary evidences to prove that TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres was already null and void, would only prove otherwise that Wilfredo Torres is indeed the le gal owner of Lots No. 21 & 22 subject of this case.

An evaluation of those docum entary evidences presented and submitted by the Plaintiff-Respondent Carmen Salvador, clearly shows that it was for an Action for quieting of Title, filed way back on March 31, 1967 before branch V, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City, re-raffled and transferred to branch 31, CFI of Rizal-Quezon City and branch 100 RTC Quezon City, until it was unloaded to Branch 79 in 1987 as a new created sala of RTC Quezon City.

On June 11, 1988 all the records of the case were burned during the fire that razed the Quezon city Hall Building where RTC 79 was then housed.

By way of Petition for Reconstitution of Judicial records, the records of the case were reconstituted as per Order dated August 22, 1989 and January 16, 1990. The Court also granted on MARCH 15, 1994 the Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Manifestation & Motion for the reconstitution of additional documents. Kalaw is the plaintiff and Wilfredo Torres is one among the Defendants in that case.

On May 26, 1993, while Wilfredo Torres was detained by then Pres. F.E. Marcos, as a political prisoner at the new Bilibid prison (Plaintiff’s Exhibit “L”), NAPLICO Officers led

by its President Leopoldo Zapi, offered to buy from Wilfredo Torres the 41.65 hectare land covered by TCT No. 118192 in the amount of P16,288,400.00.

In behalf of NAPLICO (NCR Urban Poor Multi-purpose Cooperative) Zapi as President, entered an agreement with Torres that the former shall pay a down payment of Php 400,000.00 and the remaining balance of Php 15,888,400.00 will be amortized at Php158,844.00 a month for a period of ten (10) years from June 15,1993 to June 15, 2003.

However, upon taking possession of the land (now popularly known and registered as WilTor Heights Subdivision) in honor of its absolute owner Wilfredo Torres, Zapi in

conspiracy with NAPLICO Officers and Members, including Respondent Carmen Salvador, sold, conveyed, disposed, occupied and appropriated for their own use and benefit, several portions of said land, but failed or ignored to pay Torres the monthly amortization indicated in their agreement. Despite verbal and written demands made, Zapi and his cohorts have failed and refused to vacate, return or peacefully turn-over a total of thirty (30) lots to Torres, hence the latter was compelled to file four (4) consolidated Estafa cases against Zapi and his cohorts, at the Department of Justice, NCR, Quezon City with I.S.No. 98-24390; 98-24866; 98-26175 and 99-0942. These cases were however dismissed by a Resolution dated June 27, 2000, issued by Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Jocelyn A. Solis -Reyes, on the basis that the acts committed by Zapi and his cohorts in selling lots owned by Torres does not constitute Estafa, because there was no provision in the agreement that prohibits the sale or disposition of said lots pending full payment of the purchase price. Their non-compliance in turning over to Torres the thirty (30) lots only give rise to civil liability.

Therefore, it was only the Civil Case for Annulment of Contract and Damages, No. Q- 94-19204, at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, branch 101, filed by Torres through his Atty-in-Fact, Cesar Serrano, against Zapi and NAPLICO officers (including REYNALDO

PONCE, who is the aut hor of, and one of the witnesses in the Respondent’s fictitious

Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari-arian”), as the Civil Case that was won by Torres in a Decision

dated January 26, 1994, granting him to recover twenty-seven (27) out of the thirty (30) lots, by virtue of a Writ of Execution dated April 6, 1995.

Included among those 27 lots were lots 21 & 22, having a combined area of 240 square meters, which was fraudulently sold by Remigio Tamayo in favor of Alexander Parco, in the amount of Php 235,000.00, through a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 8, 1995 (while Torres was still detained in prison, and one month prior to the release of the April 6,

1995 Writ of Execution ). In the said Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed by Tamayo in

favor of Alexander Parco (nephew of Respondent Carmen Salvador), was the forged signature

of Wilfredo Torres as if showing that he gave his conformity to the said sale.

In view of that forged signature of Torres, he (Torres) executed an AFFIDAVIT, marked as Petitioner-Defendant’s Exhibit “8”. Mr. Wilfredo Torres further personally testified in court as witness for Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, to prove not only that his signature was forged in the Deed of Absolute Sale between Tamayo and Parco, but also to prove his

ownership over the subject property and that all transfer of “RIGHTS” over it are null and

void.

The trial court however, willfully and deliberately IGNORED to consider the Affidavit

and Testimony of Torres, including the genuine December 22, 2000, Deed of Absolute Sale

duly executed by Torres in favor of Petitioner Ramirez. When Petitioner presented it in court,

Respondent objected for its admittance for simple reason, which according to Plaintiff’s

consel (Atty. Medina), it was not and cannot be registered at the Registry of Deeds of

Quezon City. (p.9 of Plaintiff’s Memorandum, dated August 23, 2005). Plaintiff’s counsel Atty.

Dayang Preciosa Medina further contended in court that, since it cannot be registered with

the Registry of deeds, should create a doubt in the minds of every reasonable man to think that the

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) 118192 is indeed spurious.

Thus, even in the January 10, 2007 Court of Appeals, 8 th Division DECISION in CA-

G.R. SP NO. 94866, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal, the C.A. likewise, ruled out the same;

xxx…the purported certificate of title of Wilfredo Torres could be as apparently it was – a mere figment of petitioner’s imagination. In fact, what was presented in evidence in court was a xerox or a photocopy of a supposed certificate of title No. 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which was thus provisionally marked in evidence. This explained why the alleged Deed of Sale executed on December 22,

2000 by this Wilfredo Torres in favor of the

petitioner

was refused or denied

registration by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, because it was not accompanied by the owner’s copy of the authentic certificate of title .” Xxx (underscoring and emphasis

supplied)

[ What an EXCELLENT, award-winning reasoning of an Associate Justice who was conferred with a Presidential Award, Best Written Decision among RTC Judges all over the country, during the Supreme Court 88th Anniversary Celebration, June 9, 1989;……a summa

cum laude graduate at the Central Philippine university, Iloilo City and LL. M. with the highest honors at the Manuel L. Quezon University;…… Outstanding State Prosecutor, Ministry of Justice, 1978;….…. Awardee, Best Decision in Criminal Law, The Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro Memorabilia Commission, 1995;….…. Winner of The Chief Justice Cayetano Arellano Award as Outstanding RTC Judge, Foundation for Judicial Excellence, 1996; …… served as Judicial Supervisor and State Prosecutor at the Department of Justice from 1972 to 1987;….….

promoted to the Court

became a Regional Trial Court Judge in Cebu from 1988 to 1989;;;…

of Appeals in 1998;… just to betray the trust and confidence accorded to him, by coming out on January 10, 2007, six months prior to his compulsory retirement on June 19, 2007, with a foolish, irrational, senseless and ridiculous ruling as stated above .]

Admittedly, YES. But what about the Deeds of Absolute Sale that were executed for

the conveyance of property from Remigio Tamayo (alleged awardee of Torres) to Alexander

Parco (alleged 1 st buyer) and to Respondent Carmen Salvador (alleged 2 nd buyer)? All their

Deeds of Sale were also XEROX or PHOTOCOPIES too, NOT registered and CANNOT

likewise be registered with the Register of Deeds, because both Deeds of Sale pertain to

Lots 21 & 22, which are also covered by TCT 118192 in the name of Wilfredo Torres, which

Plaintiff-Respondent Salvador even supported with another documentary evidences, such as

the spurious Deed of Assignment, dated February 2, 1993, and the June 30, 1995, Affidavit

of Tamayo, which are all FAKE documents that were maliciously and unlawfully fabricated by Respondent Salvador in connivance with her nephew Parco and Torres’ caretaker Remigio Tamayo, intentionally & purposely done to deceive the Ramirez family in buying the property of which Respondent Salvador has no legal personality to dispose or sell.

While the Petitioner’s documentary evidence supported by testimonies and affidavits were all denied consideration, the Respondent’s unsubstantiated documents were all admitted by the trial court and placed into Judge Kwong weighing scale, and were all utilized in the promulgation of judgment.

And so, after employing ALL forms of FRAUD and DECEIT, made by the Respondent in bad faith and with intent to deceive, of which are hereunder summarized as follows;

1. Respondent Carmen Salvador’s deceitful and fraudulent way of filing an Urgent Ex- Parte Motion to Withdraw Case in Quezon City on June 16, 2003, and then filing again another ACTION with SIMILAR CAUSE, SAME ESSENTIAL FACTS, ISSUES and CIRCUMSTANCES, in Caloocan City on the following day, June 17, 2003;

2. Respondent Carmen Salvador’s deceitful and fraudulent way of submitting a FALSE VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION by concealing the fact that she had already commenced an ACTION of the same nature and issue in Quezon City, and that she already filed a Motion to withdraw the case, but, of which resolution is still pending;

3. Respondent Carmen Salvador’s deceitful and fraudulent way of conniving and conspiring with her Counsel in willfully, maliciously and abusive ly modifying

her COMPLAINT from “ cla iming to be the

undivided Lot 799, Piedad Estate with LRC Record No. 5975, in her FIRST COMPLAINT filed in Quezon C ity ”, thereafter, denied her ownership to the subject LOT and simply “claimed only the ownership to a residentia l house which is erected over the said portion of land ”, where in T RUTH and in FACT, the “dilapidated shanty ” or (small structure as described by Remigio Tamayo in his alleged AFFIDAVIT ), made up of scrap materials, which Respondent Carmen Salvador had been referring to as being rented from her by Eden Mostales way back in March 1999, was already DEMOLISHED immediately after she fraudulently sold the LOT to Petitioner’s wife, on May 15, 2000, in order to give way for the Petitioner’s family to construct a NEW CONCRETE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE that was BUILT AND CONSTRUCTED by Petitioner ROMEO RAMIREZ, and which is the one presently erected thereat since June 2000. And yet, Respondent Carmen Salvador is still f raudu lently and fictitiously insisting and continuously claiming to be her own, as evidenced by her concocting and filing again recently, another fallacious and unfounded COMPLAINT for EJECTMENT (Unlawful Detainer), against herein Petitioner Ramirez and his family, filed on September 26, 2013, before the Quezon City

owner of a certa in portion of

Metropolitan Trial Court,(MeTC) Branch 32, with Civil Case No. 13- 04180- CV, by way of Respondent Salvador using the herein assailed DECISION, including the RTC and Court of Appeals Decision, as her evidence to support her claim. However, that EJECTMENT case had already been “ DISMISSEDby an ORDER” dated June 30, 2014, of which the trial court of Quezon City MTC, branch 32, had likewise furnished the Office of Supreme Court Administrator, with a copy of the same.

4. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondent’s Counsel Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA in trying to justify that her client’s action in filing the case in Caloocan City involves a HOUSE while the first one filed in Quezon City involved a LOT, which according to her creates the big difference;

5. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Respondent’s Counsel Atty. Dayang Preciosa Medina in willfully, maliciously and dishonestly submitting a belatedly - filed COMMENT on the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum Shopping, FIVE (5) days later after an ORDER has already been issued, with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda to use it against the Petitioner’s appeal, which they actually did.

6. The deceitful and fraudulent way of the Caloocan City MeTC- 51, Clerks of Courts in intentionally and maliciously admitting that belatedly - filed comment and forwarding the same to Caloocan City, RTC-121

7. The deceitful and fraudulent way of both Respondent’s other Counsel Atty. JUDINA O. FABROS- BERCASIO and Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 121 Presiding Judge ADORACION G. ANGELES in willfully, maliciously and unscrupulously utilizing the belatedly filed COMMENT of Atty. DAYANG PRECIOSA M. MEDINA, in filing the former’s MEMORANDUM and in the latter’s ORDER dismissing the Defendant-Appellant’s appeal before Caloocan RTC-121.

8. The deceitful and fraudulent way of Caloocan City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 51 Pres iding Judge ELEANOR R. KWONG in willfully, erroneously, and knowingly;

8.1. Intentionally and maliciously ACCEPTING the Petitioner’s belatedly-filed Answer not to be cited in Default and then, subsequently used it as a means to justify and to neutralize Respondent’s clear violatio n of the rule on forum shopping, as clearly stated in her ruling, to wit;

If this court will resort to technicality, this case would had

long

defendant belatedly filed his Answer.

been

considered

submitted

for

decision,

since

the

8.2. Intentionally and deliberately DELAYING to resolve for almost a YEAR, the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to Forum shopping, which she only resolved after knowing the fact that the first case in Quezon City had already been dismissed.

8.3.

Deliberately DENYING the Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss due to forum shopping by making a pronouncement of her OWN baseless ruling that there was a substantial compliance of non-forum shopping, since according to her, a Motion to withdraw the first case in Quezon City had already been filed, prior to the filing of another case in Caloocan City;

8.4. Tenaciously BRINGING the case into a full blown trial as if granting both parties fair play to ventilate their issues in a full- blown trial but purposely meant to simply ACQUIRE JURISDICTION over the instant case, in order for her to set her own rules of the game a nd to eventually render kind judgment for the Respondent whom she favored with.

8.5. Rendering a DECISION that was primarily based on the purported, self - styled and fictitious contract denominated as “Katibayan sa Bilihan ng Ari- Arian ” of which due execution a nd authenticity was not proven in court, because the Respondent failed to identify the signature atop the name of Petitioner ROMEO B. RAMIREZ and for the Respondent not having a personal knowledge as far as the signature of Romeo Ramirez in the “Katibayan…” is concerned. (p 14, TSN, August 14, 2004);

8.6. Rendering a DECISION on a subject matter that was NOT BROUGHT or RAISED before her Court. Despite the Respondent’s claim in her

complaint and the insistence of her counsel that it was the HOUSE being the subject matter brought before the Court a quo, and was the one they alleged to as being rented by Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, Judge Kwong rendered a DECISION ordering the Petitioner; “ 1. Xxx

2. To pay the Plaintiff the amount of One thousand Five Hundred (Php 1,500.00) Pesos a month, starting May 15, 2000, as rentals for the use and occupancy of the subject LOT until the defendant has fully paid the remaining balance for the purchase price.”

Hence, after employing all crafty means in the foregoing DECEITFUL and FRAUDULENT acts, thus, the baseless and unfounded Complaint of herein Respondent CARMEN A. SALVADOR found its way to get a FAVORABLE JUDGMENT from a friendly court in her place of residence in Caloocan City, which has “NO JURISDICTION” over it and of which is exactly the GRAVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED OR AVOIDED BY THE RULE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.

As previously mentioned, when the aforesaid Sheriff’s Notice / Demand to Pay was served to Petitioner Romeo Ramirez, his health started to deteriorate. His whole family, wife and three children were all badly affected by the unfounded decision rendered against them. Knowing fully-well that they were the real victims of Respondent Carmen Salvador’s

fraudulent and deceitful acts, made it difficult for them to accept the injustices that were deliberately inflicted upon them.

Hence, they were compelled to hire again another private & license professional lawyer requiring them to pay another Php30,000.00 Acceptance fee and Php 3,000.00 per court appearances thereafter. Unfortunately, as already said, ALL Manifestations, Motions and

Remedies available under the Rules of Court being submitted and filed by their 4 th Counsel Atty. Oscar I. Mercado, were time and again being DENIED by the Caloocan C ity MeTC Branch 51, until Atty. Mercado decided to finally withdraw his appearance in court.

THENCEFORTH, herein Petitioner’s representative & Atty-In-Fact, stepped-in and took over, by submitting and filing before the Caloocan City MeTC-51, his Notice of Entry of Appearance, dated April 10, 2012, which was noted and approved by the court in its Orderdated April 16, 2012. It was only then that undersigned Petitioner’s Legal Counsel found out

and discovered, not only the aforementioned ANOMALIES and IRREGULARITIES, but also the fraudulently fabricated fictitious and falsified documents that were used by the Respondent as her evidence to prove her alleged claim of ownership and alleged rightful possession of the

subject property.

Issue No. 3 : FRAUDULENTLY FABRICATED FICTITIOUS AND FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS.

In an attempt to bolster the Plaintiff’s Complaint and support her allegations,

Respondent submitted voluminous documentary exhibits that were ALL admitted by the Trial Court and placed into Judge Kwong’s weighing scale of Justice, while that of the Petitioner’s meritorious documentary exhibits were ALL DENIED considerations and were NOT

ADMITTED to be placed into the weighing scale of the BLIND-FOLDED Lady Justice. Among the Plaintiff-Respondent’s documentary exhibits being referred to, were the following;

1.

The Respondent’s COMPLAINT S. The FIRST one filed in Quezon City on

October 30, 2002, and the SECOND one, filed in Caloocan City on June 17,

2003.

Evaluation: Both of these COMPLAINTS filed in Quezon City and in Caloocan City are unfounded, baseless and fictitious. Plaintiff DO NOT EXACTLY knew what she really own, whether a HOUSE or a LOT, because the TRUTH of the matter is that at the back of her mind, she perfectly knew that she actually does not OWN any property at all in Quezon City.

2. The DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, dated January 29, 2000, allegedly executed

by Alexander A. Parco in favor of her Auntie, Respondent Carmen A. Salvador;

(marked at the trial court as Plaintiff’s Evidence, EXHIBIT “