Case no. 61 G.R. No.

145169 May 13, 2004

SIENA REALTY CORPORATION, as re rese!"e# $y LY%IA CO &AO a!# LILI'ET& MANL(GON, petitioner, vs. &ON. LOLITA GAL)LANG, as Pres*#*!+ ,-#+e o. "/e RTC o. Ma!*0a, 'ra!1/ 442 ANITA CO NG *! "r-s" .or ROC3E4ELLER NG2 a!# "/e CO(RT O4 APPEALS, SPECIAL 13"/ %I5ISION, respondents. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.6 Challenged via petition for review on certiorari under Rule ! of the 1""# Revised Rules of Court is the Septe$%er 1&, '((( Resolution of the Court of )ppeals in C.).*+.R. S, No. !"("6, Siena Realty Corporation, as represented by Lydia Co Hao and Lilibeth Manlugon v. Hon. Lolita O. Gal-lang, as Presiding Judge o !r. "" o the R#C o Manila, and $nita Co %g in trust or Ro&'e eller %g. Since the petition attri%utes grave a%use of discretion on the part of the Court of )ppeals in the issuance of su%-ect resolution, what should have %een filed was one for certiorari under Rule 6!. On this score alone, the petition $ust %e denied due course. .ut even if technicalit/ were set aside, -ust the sa$e the petition fails. ,etitioners filed a petition for certiorari %efore the Court of )ppeals on 0une #, '((( or allegedl/ on the 6(th da/ fro$ their receipt of the 1arch '&, '((( Order of .ranch of the 1anila Regional 2rial Court den/ing their $otion for Reconsideration of said court3s Order #*s7*ss*!+, on $otion of private respondent, "/e*r 1o7 0a*!". 2he Court of )ppeals, %/ Resolution1 of 0une '(, '(((, dis$issed petitioner3s petition for certiorari, however, for %eing filed out of ti$e, it holding that4 ,er records, it appears that petitioners had onl/ until 1a/ '", '((( within which to file the ,etition for Certiorari considering the following4 1. ,etitioners received a cop/ of the Octo%er '(, 1""" Order den/ing their 5counsel3s6 Notice of 7ithdrawal 5and li8ewise den/ing petitioners3 1otion for Reconsideration of the Order dis$issing their co$plaint6 on Nove$%er 9, 1""": '. ,etitioners filed a $otion for reconsideration of the Octo%er '(, 1""" Order on Nove$%er 1#, 1""": and that &. ,etitioners received a cop/ of the 1arch '&, '((( Order den/ing their $otion for reconsideration on )pril 9, '(((. 2he instant petition was filed on 0une #, '((( or nine ;"< da/s late. 2hus, for %eing %elatedl/ filed, the instant petition is here%/ DIS1ISSED. ,etitioners thereupon filed ;on 0ul/ 1(, '(((< a $otion for reconsideration' of the a%ove*said 0une '(, '((( Order of the appellate court. In the $eanti$e, this Court issued in ).1. No. ((*'*(&*SC ;Regla(entary Period to )ile Petitions or Certiorari and Petition or Revie* on Certiorari< a Resolution dated )ugust 1, '((( approving the a$end$ent to the following provision of Section , Rule 6! of the 1""# Rules of Civil ,rocedure4

SEC2ION . 7here petition filed. = T/e e"*"*o! 7ay $e .*0e# !o" 0a"er "/a! s*8"y 960: #ays .ro7 !o"*1e o. "/e ;-#+7e!", or#er, reso0-"*o! so-+/" "o $e assa*0e# *! "/e S- re7e Co-r" or, if it relates to the acts or o$issions of a lower court or of a corporation, %oard, officer or person, in the Regional 2rial Courte>ercising -urisdiction over the territorial area as defined %/ the Supre$e Court. It $a/ also %e filed in the Court of )ppeals whether or not the sa$e is in aid of its -urisdiction. If it involves the acts or o$issions of a ?uasi*-udicial agenc/, and unless otherwise provided %/ law or these Rules, the petition shall %e filed in and cogni@a%le onl/ %/ the Court of )ppeals. I. "/e e"*"*o!er /a# .*0e# a 7o"*o! .or !e< "r*a0 or re1o!s*#era"*o! a."er !o"*1e o. sa*# ;-#+7e!", or#er or reso0-"*o!, "/e er*o# /ere*! .*8e# s/a00 $e *!"err- "e#. I. "/e 7o"*o! *s #e!*e#, "/e a++r*e=e# ar"y 7ay .*0e "/e e"*"*o! <*"/*! "/e re7a*!*!+ er*o#, $-" </*1/ s/a00 !o" $e 0ess "/a! .*=e 95: #ays *! a!y e=e!", re1>o!e# .ro7 !o"*1e o. s-1/ #e!*a0. No e8"e!s*o! o. "*7e s/a00 $e +ra!"e# e81e " .or "/e 7os" 1o7 e00*!+ reaso! a!# *! !o 1ase "o e81ee# .*."ee! 915: #ays . ;E$phasis and underscoring supplied< 2he a$end$ent to Sec. , Rule 6!, which too8 effect on Septe$%er 1, '(((, reads4 SEC2ION . 7hen and where petition filed. = 2he petition shall %e filed not later than si>t/ ;6(< da/s fro$ notice of the -udg$ent, order or resolution. I! 1ase a 7o"*o! .or re1o!s*#era"*o! or !e< "r*a0 *s "*7e0y .*0e#, </e"/er s-1/ 7o"*o! *s re?-*re# or !o", "/e s*8"y 960: #ay er*o# s/a00 $e 1o-!"e# .ro7 !o"*1e o. "/e #e!*a0 o. "/e sa*# 7o"*o!. 2he petition shall %e filed in the Supre$e Court or, if it relates to the acts or o$issions of a lower court or of a corporation, %oard, officer or person, in the Regional 2rial Court e>ercising -urisdiction over the territorial area as defined %/ the Supre$e Court. It $a/ also %e filed in the Court of )ppeals whether or not the sa$e is in the aid of its appellate -urisdiction, or in the Sandigan%a/an if it is in aid of its appellate -urisdiction. If it involves the acts or o$issions of a ?uasi*-udicial agenc/, unless otherwise provided %/ law or these rules, the petition shall %e filed in and cogni@a%le onl/ %/ the Court of )ppeals. No e>tension of ti$e to file the petition shall %e granted e>cept for co$pelling reason and in no case e>ceeding fifteen ;1!< da/s. ;E$phasis and underscoring supplied< 2he Court of )ppeals, acting on petitioners3 1otion for Reconsideration of its Order of 0une '(, '(((, denied, %/ Resolution of Septe$%er 1&, '(((,& said $otion in this wise4 >>> Aro$ the argu$ent espoused %/ petitioners3 counsel, it appears that he overloo8ed the provision of second paragraph of Sec. , Rule 6! of the 1""# Rules of Civil ,rocedure as a$ended per Supre$e Court Circular dated 0ul/ '1, 1""9, which provides as follows4 BIf the petitioner had filed a $otion for new trial or reconsideration after notice of said -udg$ent, order or resolution, the period herein fi>ed shall %e interrupted. If the $otion is denied, the aggrieved part/ $a/ file the petition within the re$aining period, %ut which shall not %e less than five ;!< da/s in an/ event, rec8oned fro$ notice of such denial. No e>tension of ti$e shall %e granted e>cept for the $ost co$pelling reason and in no case to e>ceed fifteen ;1!< da/s.B Ceril/, the si>t/ ;6(< da/ period within which to file a ,etition for Certiorari is not counted fro$ the date of the receipt of the denial of 1otion for Reconsideration, %ut fro$ the date of the receipt of the ?uestioned order or decision, e>cept that such 6(*da/ period is interrupted upon the filing of a 1otion for Reconsideration. 7DEREAORE, for reason a%ove*stated, the instant $otion is DENIED. Conse?uentl/, the present ,etition for Certiorari is DIS1ISSED with finalit/. ;Enderscoring supplied<

Dence, the petition at %ar, petitioners challenging the Septe$%er 1&, '((( Resolution of the appellant court as having %een . . . ISSEED 7I2D +R)CE ).ESE OA DISCRE2ION )S I2 7)S 1)DE 7I2DOE2 2)FIN+ ,RIOR 0EDICI)G NO2ICE OA SE,RE1E COER2 ).1. NO. ((*' * (& SC 7DICD RESOGE2ION 2OOF EAAEC2 ON SE,2E1.ER 1, '(((, )ND 7DICD )1ENDED 2DE SECOND ,)R)+R),D OA SEC2ION , REGE 6! OA 2DE 1""# REGES OA CICIG ,ROCEDERE. ;Enderscoring supplied< ,etitioner3s argu$ent is well*ta8en. Section 1, Rule 1'" of the Rules on Evidence reads4 SEC2ION 1. ,-#*1*a0 !o"*1e, </e! 7a!#a"ory. = ) court shall ta8e -udicial notice, <*"/o-" "/e *!"ro#-1"*o! o. e=*#e!1e, of the e>istence and territorial e>tent of states, their political histor/, for$s of govern$ent and s/$%ols of nationalit/, the law of nations, the ad$iralt/ and $ariti$e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor/ of the ,hilippines, "/e o..*1*a0 a1"s o. the legislative, e>ecutive and ;-#*1*a0 #e ar"7e!"s of the ,hilippines, the laws of nature, the $easure of ti$e, and the geographical divisions. ;E$phasis and underscoring supplied< Even if petitioner did not raise or allege the a$end$ent in their $otion for reconsideration %efore it, the Court of )ppeals should have ta8en $andator/ -udicial notice of this Court3s resolution in ).1. 1atter No. ((*('*(& SC. 2he resolution did not have to specif/ that it had retroactive effect as it pertains to a procedural $atter. Contrar/ to private respondent3s allegation that the $atter was no longer pending and undeter$ined, the issue of whether the petition for certiorari was ti$el/ filed was still pending reconsideration when the a$end$ent too8 effect on Septe$%er 1, '(((, hence, covered %/ the its retroactive application. 2he a$endator/ rule in their favor notwithstanding, petitioners3 petition fails as stated earl/ on. 2he order of the trial court granting private respondent3s 1otion to Dis$iss the co$plaint was a final, not interlocutor/, order and as such, it was su%-ect to appeal,! not a petition for certiorari. )t the ti$e petitioners filed %efore the appellate court their petition for certiorari on the 6(th da/ following their receipt of the Octo%er '(, 1""" Order of the trial court den/ing their 1otion for Reconsideration of its dis$issal order, the said Octo%er '(, 1""" Order had %eco$e final and e>ecutor/ after the 1!th da/ following petitioners3 receipt thereof. @&ERE4ORE, the instant petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, here%/ %ENIE%. SO OR%ERE%.

Case no 6' AIRS2 DICISION

AG.R. No. 149B24. A-+-s" 19, 2003C

DE,)R21EN2 OA ENCIRON1EN2 AN% NAT(RAL RESO(RCES, re rese!"e# /ere*! $y *"s Se1re"ary, &E&ERSON T. AL5ARED, petitioner, vs. %ENR REGION 12 EMPLOYEES, re rese!"e# $y 'AG(I%ALI 3ARIM, A1"*!+ Pres*#e!" o. CO(RAGE 9%ENR Re+*o! 12 C/a "er:, respondents. %ECISION YNARES)SANTIAGO, J.6 2his is a petition for review assailing the Resolutions dated 1a/ &1, '((( 516 of the Court of )ppeals which dis$issed the petition for &ertiorari in C)*+.R. S, No. !99"6, and its Resolution dated )ugust '(, '((15'6, which denied the $otion for reconsideration. 2he facts are as follows4 On Nove$%er 1!, 1""", Regional E>ecutive Director of the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and Natural Resources for Region HII, Israel C. +addi, issued a 1e$orandu$ 5&6 directing the i$$ediate transfer of the DENR HII Regional Offices fro$ Cota%ato Cit/ to Foronadal ;for$erl/ 1ar%el<, South Cota%ato. 2he 1e$orandu$ was issued pursuant to DENR )d$inistrative Order No. ""*1 , issued %/ then DENR Secretar/ )ntonio D. Cerilles, which reads in part4 S-$;e1"6 Pro=*#*!+ .or "/e Re#e.*!*"*o! o. 4-!1"*o!s a!# Rea0*+!7e!" o. A#7*!*s"ra"*=e (!*"s *! "/e Re+*o!a0 a!# 4*e0# O..*1es6 ,ursuant to E>ecutive Order No. 1"', dated 0une 1(, 1"9# and as an interi$ ad$inistrative arrange$ent to i$prove the efficienc/ and effectiveness of the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and Natural Resources ;DENR< in delivering its services pending approval of the govern$ent*wide reorgani@ation %/ Congress, the following redefinition of functions and realign$ent of ad$inistrative units in the regional and field offices are here%/ pro$ulgated4 Section 1. Realign(ent o $d(inistrative +nits4 2he DENR here%/ adopts a polic/ to esta%lish at least one Co$$unit/ Environ$ent and Natural Resources Office ;CENRO< or )d$inistrative Enit per Congressional District e>cept in the )utono$ous Region of 1usli$ 1indanao ;)R11< and the National Capital Region ;NCR<. 2he Regional E>ecutive Directors ;REDs< are here%/ authori@ed to realignIrelocate e>isting CENROs and i$ple$ent this polic/ in accordance with the attached distri%ution list per region which for$s part of this Order. Gi8ewise, the following realign$ent and ad$inistrative arrange$ents are here%/ adopted4 >>> >>> >>>

1.6. 2he supervision of the ,rovinces of South Cota%ato and Sarangani shall %e transferred fro$ Region HI to HII.5 6

Respondents, e$plo/ees of the DENR Region HII who are $e$%ers of the e$plo/ees association, JCOER)+EK, represented %/ their )cting ,resident, .aguindanai ). Fari$, filed with the Regional 2rial Court of Cota%ato, a petition for nullit/ of orders with pra/er for preli$inar/ in-unction. On Dece$%er 9, 1""", the trial court issued a te$porar/ restraining order en-oining petitioner fro$ i$ple$enting the assailed 1e$orandu$. 2he dispositive portion of the Order reads4 7DEREAORE, defendants DENR Secretar/ )ntonio D. Cerilles and Regional E>ecutive Director Israel C. +addi are here%/ ordered to cease and desist fro$ doing the act co$plained of, na$el/, to stop the transfer of DENR 5Region6 1' offices fro$ Cota%ato Cit/ to Forandal ;1ar%el<, South Cota%ato. >>> SO ORDERED.5!6 ,etitioner filed a 1otion for Reconsideration with 1otion to Dis$iss, raising the following grounds4 I. 2he power to transfer the Regional Office of the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and Natural Resources ;DENR< is e>ecutive in nature. II. 2he decision to transfer the Regional Office is %ased on E>ecutive Order No. '", which reorgani@ed Region HII. III. 2he validit/ of EO '" has %een affir$ed %/ the Donora%le Supre$e Court in the Case of Chiong%ian vs. Or%os ;1""!< ' ! SCR) '!!. IC. Since the power to reorgani@e the )d$inistrative Regions is E>ecutive in Nature citing Chiong%ian, the Donora%le Court has no -urisdiction to entertain this petition.566 On 0anuar/ 1 , '(((, the trial court rendered -udg$ent, the dispositive portion of which reads4 CONSEE(ENTLY, order is here%/ issued ordering the respondents herein to cease and desist fro$ enforcing their 1e$orandu$ Order dated Nove$%er 1!, 1""" relative to the transfer of the DENR Regional Offices fro$ Region 1' to Region 11 at Foronadal, South Cota%ato for %eing %ereft of legal %asis and issued with grave a%use of discretion a$ounting to lac8 or e>cess of -urisdiction on their part, and the/ are further ordered to return %ac8 the seat of the DENR Regional Offices 1' to Cota%ato Cit/. SO OR%ERE%.5#6 ,etitioner3s $otion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated )pril 1(, '(((. ) petition for &ertiorari under Rule 6! was filed %efore the Court of )ppeals, doc8eted as C)*+.R. S, No. !99"6. 2he petition was dis$issed outright for4 ;1< failure to su%$it a written e>planation wh/ personal service was not done on the adverse part/: ;'< failure to attach affidavit of service: ;&< failure to indicate the $aterial dates when copies of the orders of the lower court were received: ; < failure to attach certified true cop/ of the order den/ing petitioner3s $otion for reconsideration: ;!< for i$proper verification, the sa$e %eing %ased on petitioner3s J8nowledge and %elief,K and ;6< wrong re$ed/ of certiorari under Rule 6! to su%stitute a lost appeal.596 >>> >>>.

2he $otion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated )ugust '(, '((1. 5"6 Dence, this petition %ased on the following assign$ent of errors4 I REGES OA ,ROCEDERE C)N NO2 .E ESED 2O DEAE)2 2DE ENDS OA SE.S2)N2I)G 0ES2ICE II 2DE DECISION OA 2DE GO7ER COER2 D)2ED 1 0)NE)RL '((( 7DICD 7)S )AAIR1ED IN 2DE MEES2IONED RESOGE2IONS OA 2DE COER2 OA ),,E)GS D)2ED &1 1)L '((( )ND '( )E+ES2 '((1 IS ,)2EN2GL IGGE+)G )ND SDOEGD .E NEGGIAIED, CONSIDERIN+ 2D)24 ). RES,ONDEN2S D)CE NO C)ESE OA )C2ION )+)INS2 ,E2I2IONER )S 2DEL D)CE NO RI+D2 2O C)ESE 2DE DENR RE+ION 1' OAAICE 2O RE1)IN IN CO2).)2O CI2L. 2DE S2)2E DID NO2 +ICE I2S CONSEN2 2O .E SEED. 2DE DECISION OA 2DE GO7ER COER2 D)2ED 1 0)NE)RL '((( IS CON2R)RL 2O 2DE REGE OA ,RESE1,2ION OA RE+EG)RI2L IN 2DE ,ERAOR1)NCE OA OAAICI)G AENC2IONS. IN )NL ECEN2, 2DE DECISION OA 2DE GO7ER COER2 D)2ED 1 0)NE)RL '((( IS CON2R)RL 2O 2DE GE22ER )ND IN2EN2 OA EHECE2ICE ORDER NO. '" )ND RE,E.GIC )C2 NO. 6#& . 2DE DE2ER1IN)2ION OA 2DE ,RO,RIE2L )ND ,R)C2IC)GI2L OA 2DE 2R)NSAER OA RE+ION)G OAAICES IS INDEREN2GL EHECE2ICE, )ND 2DEREAORE, NON*0ES2ICI).GE.51(6

.. C.

D.

E.

In essence, petitioner argues that the trial court erred in en-oining it fro$ causing the transfer of the DENR HII Regional Offices, considering that it was done pursuant to DENR )d$inistrative Order ""*1 . 2he issues to %e resolved in this petition are4 ;1< 7hether D)O*""*1 and the 1e$orandu$ i$ple$enting the sa$e were valid: and ;'< 7hether the DENR Secretar/ has the authorit/ to reorgani@e the DENR. ,refatoril/, petitioner pra/s for a li%eral application of procedural rules considering the greater interest of -ustice. 2his Court is full/ aware that procedural rules are not to %e si$pl/ disregarded for these prescri%ed procedures ensure an orderl/ and speed/ ad$inistration of -ustice. Dowever, it is e?uall/ true that litigation is not $erel/ a ga$e of technicalities. 2i$e and again, courts have %een guided %/ the principle that the rules of procedure are not to %e applied in a ver/ rigid and technical $anner, as rules of procedure are used onl/ to help secure and not to override su%stantial -ustice. 5116 2hus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than pro$ote -ustice, it is alwa/s within the power of this Court to suspend the rules, or e>cept a particular case fro$ its operation.51'6 Despite the presence of procedural flaws, we find it necessar/ to address the issues %ecause of the de$ands of pu%lic interest, including the need for sta%ilit/ in the pu%lic service and the serious i$plications this case $a/ cause on the effective ad$inistration of the e>ecutive depart$ent. )lthough no appeal was $ade within the regle$entar/ period to appeal, nevertheless, the departure fro$ the general rule that the e>traordinar/ writ of certiorari cannot %e a su%stitute for the lost re$ed/ of appeal is -ustified %ecause the e>ecution of the assailed decision would a$ount to an oppressive e>ercise of -udicial authorit/.51&6 ,etitioner $aintains that the assailed D)O*""*1 and the i$ple$enting $e$orandu$ were valid and that the trial court should have ta8en -udicial notice of Repu%lic )ct No. 6#& , otherwise 8nown as J)n Organic )ct for the )utono$ous Region in 1usli$ 1indanao,K and its i$ple$enting E>ecutive Order '", 51 6 as the legal

%ases for the issuance of the assailed D)O*""*1 . 1oreover, the validit/ of R.). No. 6#& and E.O. '" were upheld in the case of Chiongbian v. Orbos.51!6 2hus, the respondents cannot, %/ $eans of an in-unction, force the DENR HII Regional Offices to re$ain in Cota%ato Cit/, as the e>ercise of the authorit/ to transfer the sa$e is e>ecutive in nature. It is apropos to reiterate the ele$entar/ doctrine of ?ualified political agenc/, thus4 Ender this doctrine, which recogni@es the esta%lish$ent of a single e>ecutive, all e>ecutive and ad$inistrative organi@ations are ad-uncts of the E>ecutive Depart$ent, the heads of the various e>ecutive depart$ents are assistants and agents of the Chief E>ecutive, and, e>cept in cases where the Chief E>ecutive is re?uired %/ the Constitution or law to act in person or the e>igencies of the situation de$and that he act personall/, the $ultifarious e>ecutive and ad$inistrative functions of the Chief E>ecutive are perfor$ed %/ and through the e>ecutive depart$ents, and the acts of the Secretaries of such depart$ents, perfor$ed and pro$ulgated in the regular course of %usiness, are, unless disapproved or repro%ated %/ the Chief E>ecutive, presu$ptivel/ the acts of the Chief E>ecutive.5166 2his doctrine is corollar/ to the control power of the ,resident as provided for under )rticle CII, Section 1# of the 1"9# Constitution, which reads4 Sec. 1#. 2he ,resident shall have control of all the e>ecutive depart$ents, %ureaus, and offices. De shall ensure that the laws %e faithfull/ e>ecuted. Dowever, as head of the E>ecutive Depart$ent, the ,resident cannot %e e>pected to e>ercise his control ;and supervisor/< powers personall/ all the ti$e. De $a/ delegate so$e of his powers to the Ca%inet $e$%ers e>cept when he is re?uired %/ the Constitution to act in person or the e>igencies of the situation de$and that he acts personall/.51#6 In !u'lod ng ,a*aning -..! v. /a(ora, 5196 this Court upheld the continuing authorit/ of the ,resident to carr/ out the reorgani@ation in an/ %ranch or agenc/ of the e>ecutive depart$ent. Such authorit/ includes the creation, alteration or a%olition of pu%lic offices. 51"6 2he Chief E>ecutive3s authorit/ to reorgani@e the National +overn$ent finds %asis in .oo8 III, Section '( of E.O. No. '"', otherwise 8nown as the )d$inistrative Code of 1"9#, vi04 Section '(. Residual Po*ers. = Enless Congress provides otherwise, the ,resident shall e>ercise such other powers and functions vested in the ,resident which are provided for under the laws and which are not specificall/ enu$erated a%ove or which are not delegated %/ the ,resident in accordance with law. Aurther, in Larin v. -1e&utive Se&retary,5'(6 this Court had occasion to rule4 2his provision spea8s of such other powers vested in the ,resident under the law. 7hat law then gives hi$ the power to reorgani@eN It is ,residential Decree No. 1##' which a$ended ,residential Decree No. 1 16. 2hese decrees e>pressl/ grant the ,resident of the ,hilippines the continuing authorit/ to reorgani@e the national govern$ent, which includes the power to group, consolidate %ureaus and agencies, to a%olish offices, to transfer functions, to create and classif/ functions, services and activities and to standardi@e salaries and $aterials. 2he validit/ of these two decrees is un?uestiona%le. 2he 1"9# Constitution clearl/ provides that Jall laws, decrees, e>ecutive orders, procla$ations, letters of instructions and other e>ecutive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall re$ain operative until a$ended, repealed or revo8ed.K So far, there is /et no law a$ending or repealing said decrees. )ppl/ing the doctrine of ?ualified political agenc/, the power of the ,resident to reorgani@e the National +overn$ent $a/ validl/ %e delegated to his ca%inet $e$%ers e>ercising control over a particular e>ecutive depart$ent. 2hus, in 2O#C Se&retary v. Mabalot,5'16 we held that the ,resident = through his dul/ constituted political agent and alter ego, the DO2C Secretar/ = $a/ legall/ and validl/ decree the reorgani@ation of the Depart$ent, particularl/ the esta%lish$ent of DO2C*C)R as the G2AR. Regional Office at the Cordillera )d$inistrative Region, with the conco$itant transfer and perfor$ance of pu%lic functions and responsi%ilities appurtenant to a regional office of the G2AR..

Si$ilarl/, in the case at %ar, the DENR Secretar/ can validl/ reorgani@e the DENR %/ ordering the transfer of the DENR HII Regional Offices fro$ Cota%ato Cit/ to Foronadal, South Cota%ato. 2he e>ercise of this authorit/ %/ the DENR Secretar/, as an alter ego, is presu$ed to %e the acts of the ,resident for the latter had not e>pressl/ repudiated the sa$e. 2he trial court should have ta8en -udicial notice of R.). No. 6#& , as i$ple$ented %/ E.O. No. '", as legal %asis of the ,resident3s power to reorgani@e the e>ecutive depart$ent, specificall/ those ad$inistrative regions which did not vote for their inclusion in the )R11. It is a>io$atic that a court has the $andate to appl/ relevant statutes and -urisprudence in deter$ining whether the allegations in a co$plaint esta%lish a cause of action. 7hile it focuses on the co$plaint, a court clearl/ cannot disregard decisions $aterial to the proper appreciation of the ?uestions %efore it. 5''6 In resolving the $otion to dis$iss, the trial court should have ta8en cogni@ance of the official acts of the legislative, e>ecutive, and -udicial depart$ents %ecause the/ are proper su%-ects of $andator/ -udicial notice as provided %/ Section 1 of Rule 1'" of the Rules of Court, to wit4 ) court shall ta8e -udicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the e>istence and territorial e>tent of states, their political histor/, for$s of govern$ent and s/$%ols of nationalit/, the law of nations, the ad$iralt/ and $ariti$e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor/ of the ,hilippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the $easure of ti$e, and the geographical divisions. ;E$phasis supplied< )rticle HIH, Section 1& of R.). No. 6#& provides4 SEC2ION 1&. 2he creation of the )utono$ous Region in 1usli$ 1indanao shall ta8e effect when approved %/ a $a-orit/ of the votes cast %/ the constituent units provided in paragraph ;'< of Sec. 1 of )rticle II of this )ct in a ple%iscite which shall %e held not earlier than ninet/ ;"(< da/s or later than one hundred twent/ ;1'(< da/s after the approval of this )ct4 Provided, 2hat onl/ the provinces and cities voting favora%l/ in such ple%iscite shall %e included in the )utono$ous Region in 1usli$ 1indanao. 2he provinces and cities which in the ple%iscite do not vote for inclusion in the )utono$ous Region shall re$ain in the e>isting ad$inistrative regions4 Provided, however, 2hat the ,resident $a/, %/ ad$inistrative deter$ination, $erge the e>isting regions. ,ursuant to the authorit/ granted %/ the afore?uoted provision, then ,resident Cora@on C. )?uino issued on Octo%er 1', 1""( E.O. '", J,roviding for the Reorgani@ation of the )d$inistrative Regions in 1indanao.K Section thereof provides4 SEC2ION . RE+ION HII, to %e 8nown as CEN2R)G 1IND)N)O, shall include the following provinces and cities4 ,rovinces Sultan Fudarat Cota%ato South Cota%ato Cities Cota%ato +eneral Santos 2he 1unicipalit/ of Foronadal ;1arindu?ue< in South Cota%ato shall serve as the regional center. In Chiongbian v. Orbos, this Court stressed the rule that the power of the ,resident to reorgani@e the ad$inistrative regions carries with it the power to deter$ine the regional centers. In identif/ing the regional centers, the ,resident purposel/ intended the effective deliver/ of the field services of govern$ent agencies. 5'&6 2he sa$e intention can %e gleaned fro$ the prea$%le of the assailed D)O*""*1 which the DENR sought to achieve, that is, to i(prove the e i&ien&y and e e&tiveness o the 2-%R in delivering its servi&es.

It $a/ %e true that the transfer of the offices $a/ not %e ti$el/ considering that4 ;1< there are no %uildings /et to house the regional offices in Foronadal, ;'< the transfer falls on the $onth of Ra$adan, ;&< the children of the affected e$plo/ees are alread/ enrolled in schools in Cota%ato Cit/, ; < the Regional Develop$ent Council was not consulted, and ;!< the Sangguniang ,anglungsond, through a resolution, re?uested the DENR Secretar/ to reconsider the orders. Dowever, these concern issues addressed to the wisdo$ of the transfer rather than to its legalit/. It is %asic in our for$ of govern$ent that the -udiciar/ cannot in?uire into the wisdo$ or e>pedienc/ of the acts of the e>ecutive or the legislative depart$ent, 5' 6 for each depart$ent is supre$e and independent of the others, and each is devoid of authorit/ not onl/ to encroach upon the powers or field of action assigned to an/ of the other depart$ent, %ut also to in?uire into or pass upon the advisa%ilit/ or wisdo$ of the acts perfor$ed, $easures ta8en or decisions $ade %/ the other depart$ents.5'!6 2he Supre$e Court should not %e thought of as having %een tas8ed with the aweso$e responsi%ilit/ of overseeing the entire %ureaucrac/. Enless there is a clear showing of constitutional infir$it/ or grave a%use of discretion a$ounting to lac8 or e>cess of -urisdiction, the Court3s e>ercise of the -udicial power, pervasive and li$itless it $a/ see$ to %e, still $ust succu$% to the para$ount doctrine of separation of powers. 5'66 )fter a careful review of the records of the case, we find that this -urisprudential ele$ent of a%use of discretion has not %een shown to e>ist. @&ERE4ORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is +R)N2ED. 2he resolutions of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. S, No. !99"6 dated 1a/ &1, '((( and )ugust '(, '((1, as well as the decision dated 0anuar/ 1 , '((( of the Regional 2rial Court of Cota%ato Cit/, .ranch 1!, in Civil Case No &9", are RECERSED and SE2 )SIDE. 2he per$anent in-unction, which en-oined the petitioner fro$ enforcing the 1e$orandu$ Order of the DENR HII Regional E>ecutive Director, is GIA2ED. SO OR%ERE%.

Case no. 6& T&IR% %I5ISION MACTAN)CE'( INTERNATIONAL +.R. No. 1# 6#' AIRPORT A(T&ORITY 9MCIAA:, ,etitioner, ,resent4 * versus * Lnares*Santiago, J. ;Chairperson<, )ustria*1artine@, Chico*Na@ario, Nachura, and Re/es, JJ.

&EIRS O4 MARCELINA L. SERO, Respondents. )pril 16, '((9 > **************************************************************************************** > DECISIO YNARES)SANTIAGO, J.4 2his petition assails the 1a/ 1', '((6 Decision 516 of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. CC No. #&1!", which reversed the 0une 1 , '((1 and )ugust 1(, '((1 Orders of the Regional 2rial Court ;R2C< of Ce%u Cit/, .ranch 9, in Civil Case No. CE.*' (1'. )lso assailed is the Septe$%er 1', '((6 Resolution den/ing the $otion for reconsideration. 2he facts of the case are as follows4 On 0ul/ 6, 1""", respondents, through their attorne/*in*fact )necito Invento, filed a co$plaint against several defendants for recover/ of ownership and declaration of nullit/ of several 2ransfer Certificates of 2itle ;2C2s<, four of which are registered in the na$es of the petitioner 1actan*Ce%u International )irport)uthorit/ ;1CI))< and the Repu%lic. 2he/ alleged that the su%-ect properties were owned %/ their predecessor Lsa%el Gi$%aga, %ut the Original Certificates of 2itle were lost during the Second 7orld 7ar. Respondents alleged that the $other of therein defendants Ricardo Inocian, E$ilia I. .acalla, Ol/$pia I. Esteves andRestituta I. 1ontana pretended to %e JIsa%el Gi$%agaK and fraudulentl/ succeeded in reconstituting the titles over the su%-ect properties to her na$e and in selling so$e of the$ to the other defendants.5'6 It will %e recalled that the su%-ect properties were ac?uired %/ the Civil )eronautics )d$inistration ;C))< through e>propriation proceedings for the e>pansion and i$prove$ent of the Gahug )irport,5&6 which was granted %/ the Court of Airst Instance ;CAI< of Ce%u Cit/, .ranch &, in Civil Case No. R*1991, on Dece$%er '", 1"61. Su%se?uentl/, however, Gahug airport was ordered closed on Nove$%er '", 1"9",5 6 and all its functions and operations were transferred to petitioner 1CI)) 5!6 after its creation in 1""( pursuant to Repu%lic )ct ;R.).< No. 6"!9, otherwise 8nown as the Charter o the Ma&tan-Cebu .nternational $irport $uthority. In its )nswer, petitioner denied the allegations in the co$plaint and %/ wa/ of special and affir$ative defenses $oved for the dis$issal of the co$plaint. Gi8ewise, defendants Ricardo Inocian, Daide Sun and spouses Cictor )rcinas and 1aril/n DueOas filed their separate $otions to dis$iss. On 0une 1 , '((1, the R2C dis$issed the co$plaint on the grounds that the respondents had no cause of action, and that the action was %arred %/ prescription and laches. 566 Respondents filed a $otion for reconsideration which was denied: hence, the/ filed an appeal with the Court of )ppeals which reversed the Orders of the R2C. 2he appellate court held that the co$plaint alleged Julti$ate factsK constituting

respondents3 cause of action: that the respondents cannot %e faulted for not including therein Jevidentiar/ facts,K thus causing confusion or dou%t as to the e>istence of a cause of action: and assu$ing the co$plaint lac8ed so$e definitive state$ents, the proper re$ed/ for the petitioner and other defendants should have %een a $otion for %ill of particulars, not a $otion to dis$iss. Aurther, the deter$ination of whether respondents have a right to recover the ownership of the su%-ect properties, or whether their action is %arred %/ prescription or la&hesre?uires evidentiar/ proof which can %e threshed out, not in a $otion to dis$iss, %ut in a full*%lown trial.5#6 2he dispositive portion of the Decision reads4 7DEREAORE, the assailed orders dated 1 0une '((1 and 1( )ugust '((1, %oth issued %/ the Regional 2rial Court of Ce%u Cit/, .ranch 9 in Civil Case No. CE.*' (1', are here%/ RECERSED and SE2 )SIDE. )ccordingl/, we RE1)ND the case to the court a ?uo for further proceedings. 7e are also directing the R2C of Ce%u Cit/, .ranch 9 to REINS2)2E the case, and to conduct a 2RI)G ON 2DE 1ERI2S and thereafter render a decision. SO ORDERED.596 ,etitioner $oved for reconsideration, however, it was denied in a Resolution dated Septe$%er 1', '((6.5"6 Dence, this petition for review %ased on the following grounds4 2DE COER2 OA ),,E)GS +R)CEGL ERRED IN DOGDIN+ 2D)2 RES,ONDEN2S D)CE ) C)ESE OA )C2ION )+)INS2 ,E2I2IONER IN CICIG C)SE NO. CE.*' (1'. 2DE COER2 OA ),,E)GS +R)CEGL ERRED IN NO2 )AAIR1IN+ 2DE GO7ER COER23S AINDIN+ 2D)2 RES,ONDEN2S )RE +EIG2L OA G)CDES )ND 2D)2 2DEIR C)ESE OA )C2ION, IA )NL, D)S ,RESCRI.ED.51(6 Respondents argue that the properties which were e>propriated in connection with the operation of the Gahug )irport should %e reconve/ed to the real owners considering that the purpose for which the properties were e>propriated is no longer relevant in view of the closure of the Gahug )irport.5116 ) cause of action is an act or o$ission of one part/ in violation of the legal right of the other. Its ele$ents are the following4 ;1< the legal right of plaintiff: ;'< the correlative o%ligation of the defendant, and ;&< the act or o$ission of the defendant in violation of said legal right. 51'6 2he e>istence of a cause of action is deter$ined %/ the allegations in the co$plaint.51&6 2hus, in the resolution of a $otion to dis$iss %ased on failure to state a cause of action, onl/ the facts alleged in the co$plaint $ust %e considered. 2he test in cases li8e these is whether a court can render a valid -udg$ent on the co$plaint %ased upon the facts alleged and pursuant to the pra/er therein. Dence, it has %een held that a $otion to dis$iss generall/ parta8es of the nature of a de$urrer which h/potheticall/ ad$its the truth of the factual allegations $ade in a co$plaint. 51 6 Dowever, while a trial court focuses on the factual allegations in a co$plaint, it cannot disregard statutes and decisions $aterial and relevant to the proper appreciation of the ?uestions %efore it. In resolving a $otion to dis$iss, ever/ court $ust ta8e -udicial notice of decisions this Court has rendered as provided %/ Section 1 of Rule 1'" of the Rules of Court,51!6 to wit4 SEC2ION 1. Judi&ial noti&e, *hen (andatory. P ) court shall ta8e -udicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the e>istence and territorial e>tent of states, their political histor/, for$s of govern$ent and s/$%ols of nationalit/, the law of nations, the ad$iralt/ and $ariti$e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor/ of the ,hilippines, the official acts of the legislative, e>ecutive and -udicial depart$ents of the ,hilippines, laws of nature, the $easure of ti$e, and the geographical divisions. In reversing the Orders of the R2C, the Court of )ppeals failed to consider the decision of this Court in Ma&tan-Cebu .nternational $irport v. Court o $ppeals ,5166 rendered on Nove$%er '#, '(((, which settled the issue of whether the properties e>propriated under Civil Case No. R*1991 will %e reconve/ed to the original owners if the purpose for which it was e>propriated is ended or a%andoned or if the propert/ was to %e used other than the e>pansion or i$prove$ent of the Gahug airport.

In said case, the Court held that the ter$s of the -udg$ent in Civil Case No. R*1991 were clear and une?uivocal. It granted title over the e>propriated land to the Repu%lic of the ,hilippines in fee si$ple without an/ condition that it would %e returned to the owners or that the owners had a right to repurchase the sa$e if the purpose for which it was e>propriated is ended or a%andoned or if the propert/ was to %e used other than as the Gahug airport.51#6 7hen land has %een ac?uired for pu%lic use in fee si$ple, unconditionall/, either %/ the e>ercise of e$inent do$ain or %/ purchase, the for$er owner retains no rights in the land, and the pu%lic use $a/ %e a%andoned, or the land $a/ %e devoted to a different use, without an/ i$pair$ent of the estate or title ac?uired, or an/ reversion to the for$er owner.5196 Dad the appellate court considered the i$port of the ruling in Ma&tan-Cebu .nternational $irport v. Court o $ppeals, it would have found that respondents can invo8e no right against the petitioner since the su%-ect lands were ac?uired %/ the State in fee si$ple. 2hus, the first ele$ent of a cause of action, i.e., plaintiff3s legal right, is not present in the instant case. 7e are not unaware of the ruling in Heirs o #i(oteo Moreno v. Ma&tan-Cebu .nternational $irport $uthority,51"6 concerning still another set of owners of lands which were declared e>propriated in the -udg$ent in Civil Case No. R*1991, %ut were ordered %/ the Court to %e reconve/ed to their previous owners %ecause there was preponderant proof of the e>istence of the right of repurchase. Dowever, we ?ualified our Decision in that case, thus4 @e a#/ere "o "/e r*!1* 0es e!-!1*a"e# *! !er" a!# *! #actan$Ce%u International &irport &uthorit", a!# #o !o" o=err-0e "/e7. Nonetheless the weight of their i$port, particularl/ our ruling as regards the properties of respondent Chiong%ian in Ma&tan-Cebu .nternational $irport $uthority, $ust %e co$$ensurate to the facts that were esta%lished therein as distinguished fro$ those e>tant in the case at %ar. Chiong%ian put forth inad$issi%le and inconclusive evidence, while in the instant case we have preponderant proof as found %/ the trial court of the e>istence of the right of repurchase in favor of petitioners. 5'(6 ;E$phasis provided< 2hus, the deter$ination of the rights and o%ligations of landowners whose properties were e>propriated %ut the pu%lic purpose for which e$inent do$ain was e>ercised no longer su%sist, $ust rest on the character %/ which the titles thereof were ac?uired %/ the govern$ent. If the land is e>propriated for a particular purpose with the condition that it will %e returned to its for$er owner once that purpose is ended or a%andoned, then the propert/ shall %e reconve/ed to its for$er owner when the purpose is ter$inated or a%andoned. If, on the contrar/, the decree of e>propriation gives to the entit/ a fee si$ple title, as in this case, then the land %eco$es the a%solute propert/ of the e>propriator. Non*use of the propert/ for the purpose %/ which it was ac?uired does not have the effect of defeating the title ac?uired in the e>propriation proceedings.5'16 Even assu$ing that respondents have a right to the su%-ect properties %eing the heirs of the alleged real owner Lsa%el Gi$%aga, the/ still do not have a cause of action against the petitioner %ecause such right has %een foreclosed %/ prescription, if not %/ la&hes. Respondents failed to ta8e the necessar/ steps within a reasona%le period to recover the properties fro$ the parties who caused the alleged fraudulent reconstitution of titles. Respondents3 action in the court %elow is one for reconve/ance %ased on fraud co$$itted %/ Isa%el Gi$%aga in reconstituting the titles to her na$e. It was filed on 0ul/ 6, 1""", or 34 /ears after the trial court in Civil Case No. R*1991 granted the e>propriation, or even longer if we rec8on fro$ the ti$e of the fraudulent reconstitution of titles, which date is not stated in the co$plaint %ut presu$a%l/ %efore the co$plaint for e>propriation was filed %/ C)) on )pril 16, 1"!'.5''6 )n action for reconve/ance is a legal re$ed/ granted to a landowner whose propert/ has %een wrongfull/ or erroneousl/ registered in another3s na$e.5'&6 Dowever, such action $ust %e filed within 56 /ears fro$ the issuance of the title since the issuance operates as a constructive notice. 5' 6 2hus, the cause of action which respondents $a/ have against the petitioner is definitel/ %arred %/ prescription.

Rule ", Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that when it appears fro$ the pleadings or the evidence on record that the action is alread/ %arred %/ statute of li$itations, the court shall dis$iss the clai$. Aurther, contrar/ to respondents3 clai$ that a co$plaint $a/ not %e dis$issed %ased on prescription without trial, an allegation of prescription can effectivel/ %e used in a $otion to dis$iss when the co$plaint on its face shows that indeed the action has prescri%ed5'!6 at the ti$e it was filed. 2hus, in Gi&ano v. Gegato45'66 7e have ruled that trial courts have authorit/ and discretion to dis$iss an action on the ground of prescription when the partiesQ pleadings or other facts on record show it to %e indeed ti$e* %arred: and it $a/ do so on the %asis of a $otion to dis$iss, or an answer which sets up such ground as an affir$ative defense: or even if the ground is alleged after -udg$ent on the $erits, as in a $otion for reconsideration: or even if the defense has not %een asserted at all, as where no state$ent thereof is found in the pleadings, or where a defendant has %een declared in default. 7hat is essential onl/, to repeat, is that the facts de$onstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period, %e otherwise sufficientl/ and satisfactoril/ apparent on the record4 either in the aver$ents of the plaintiffs co$plaint, or otherwise esta%lished %/ the evidence. 5'#6 ;Citations o$itted< In the instant case, although the co$plaint did not state the date when the alleged fraud in the reconstitution of titles was perpetuated, it is however clear fro$ the allegations in the co$plaint that the properties sought to %e recovered were ac?uired %/ the petitioner in Civil Case No. R*1991 which was granted %/ the trial court onDece$%er '", 1"61. Clearl/, the filing of the action in 1""" is wa/ %e/ond the ten 56 /ear prescriptive period. Aurther, while it is %/ e>press provision of law that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall %e ac?uired %/ prescription or adverse possession, it is li8ewise an enshrined rule that even a registered owner $a/ %e %arred fro$ recovering possession of propert/ %/ virtue of la&hes.5'96 2he negligence or o$ission to assert a right within a reasona%le ti$e warrants a presu$ption that the part/ entitled to assert it had either a%andoned it or declined to assert it also casts dou%t on the validit/ of the clai$ of ownership. Such neglect to assert a right ta8en in con-unction with the lapse of ti$e, $ore or less great, and other circu$stances causing pre-udice to the adverse part/, operates as a %ar in a court of e?uit/. 5'"6 Respondents3 inaction for a period of &9 /ears to vindicate their alleged rights had converted their clai$ into a stale de$and. 2he allegation that petitioner e$plo/ed threat or inti$idation is an afterthought %elatedl/ raised onl/ in the Court of )ppeals. )s such it deserves scant attention. @&ERE4ORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for review is GRANTE%. 2he 1a/ 1', '((6 Decision and Septe$%er 1', '((6 Resolution of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. CC No. #&1!" are RE5ERSE% and SET ASI%E. 2he Orders of the Regional 2rial Court of Ce%u Cit/, .ranch 9 dated 0une 1 , '((1 and)ugust 1(, '((1 in Civil Case No. CE.*' (1', dis$issing respondent3s co$plaint for reconve/ance on grounds of lac8 of cause of action, prescription and laches and den/ing the $otion for reconsideration, respectivel/, are REINSTATE% and A44IRME%. SO OR%ERE%.

Case no. 6 5S/lla%us6 AIRS2 DICISION

AG.R. No. 10B493. 4e$r-ary 1, 1996C

NATI5I%A% CAN%I%O, ass*s"e# $y /er /-s$a!# AL4RE%O CAN%I%O, a!# 5ICTORIA C. R(M'A(A, ass*s"e# $y /er /-s$a!# AMORR(M'A(A, petitioners, vs. CO(RT O4 APPEALS a!# SO4RONIO %A'(, respondents. %ECISION 'ELLOSILLO, J.6 2his petition for review on certiorari was instituted for the re*e>a$ination of the decision of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. No. S,*' !'' ;C)R< affir$ing that of the trial court which dis$issed the co$plaint of petitioners for failure to esta%lish their cause of action. ,etitioners Natividad Candido and Cictoria Ru$%aua are co*owners of a first*class irrigated riceland with an area of '1,1"& s?uare $eters located in Orion, .ataan. Respondent Sofronio Da%u served as their agricultural tenant. On '1 0ul/ 1"96 petitioners lodged a co$plaint516 with the Regional 2rial Court of .ataan against respondent Da%u for ter$ination of tenanc/ relationship and recover/ of unpaid rentals fro$ crop*/ear 1"9& plus attorne/3s fees and litigation e>penses. ,etitioners averred in their co$plaint %elow that a tea$ fro$ the 1inistr/ of )grarian Refor$ had fi>ed a provisional rental of twent/*si> ;'6< and twent/*nine ;'"< sac8s of pala/ for the rain/ and dr/ seasons, respectivel/, which respondent failed to pa/ %eginning the crop*/ear 1"9& dr/ season up to the filing of the co$plaint. ,rivate respondent denied the $aterial allegations of the co$plaint and clai$ed that until 1"9& their sharing s/ste$ was on a 76-76 %asis: that his share in the crop /ear 1"9& dr/ season was still with petitioner Natividad Candido who li8ewise retained his water pu$p. De denied an/ provisional rental allegedl/ fi>ed %/ the 1inistr/ of )grarian Refor$ and at the sa$e ti$e $aintained that onl/ a proposal for thirteen ;1&< cavans for the rain/ season crop and twent/*five percent ;'!R< of the net harvest during the dr/ season was put forward. De clai$ed that he paid his rentals %/ depositing thirteen ;1&< cavans of pala/ for the 1"9 rain/ season crop, thirteen ;1&< cavans for 1"9! and eight ;9< cavans representing twent/*five percent ;' 789 of the dr/ season harvest. On $otion of respondent upon issues %eing -oined, the case was referred to the Depart$ent of )grarian Refor$ ;D)R< for a preli$inar/ deter$ination of the e>isting relationship %etween the parties and for certification as to its propriet/ for trial. 2hereafter the D)R certified that the case was proper for trial %ut onl/ on the issue of non*pa/$ent of rentals and not on the e-ect$ent of respondent Da%u. )ccordingl/ trial proceeded on the issue of non*pa/$ent of rentals. )fter finding that no evidence was adduced %/ petitioners to prove the provisional rental alleged to have %een fi>ed %/ the 1inistr/ of )grarian Refor$, the lower court dis$issed the co$plaint. 2he counterclai$ of respondent Da%u was li8ewise dis$issed after it was esta%lished that the tenanc/ relationship prevailing %etween the parties was on a !(*!( %asis.5'6 2he Court of )ppeals5&6 confir$ed the findings of the court a :uo and affir$ed its -udg$ent thus = 7e have carefull/ e>a$ined the testi$onial and docu$entar/ evidence on record and found nothing therein a%out the so*called provisional rates supposedl/ fi>ed %/ the D)R and allegedl/ %reached %/ appellee. Indeed neither appellant herself Natividad C. Candido nor appellants3 other witness .en-a$in Santos ever $entioned

in the course of their respective testi$onies the alleged provisional rates fi>ed %/ the D)R. Aor sure, going %/ appellants3 evidence it would appear that no such rates were in fact fi>ed %/ the D)R.5 6 2he appellate court also found that no evidence was introduced to prove the e>penses incurred %/ the parties for planting and harvesting hence the a$ount of the net harvest was never deter$ined. Onl/ the transfer certificate of title of the propert/ and its corresponding ta> declaration were offered in evidence. 2he $otion of petitioners for reconsideration5!6 was $erel/ noted considering that under Sec. . par. ;d<, Rule 6, of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of )ppeals ;R0RC)<, the filing of a $otion for reconsideration in agrarian cases is not allowed.566 ,etitioners would i$press upon us that the verified co$plaint and the affidavit presented %/ petitioners to the D)R are proofs of the provisional rentals fi>ed %/ it and that it was error for the trial court not to have ta8en cogni@ance of these docu$ents. 7e are not persuaded. It is settled that courts will onl/ consider as evidence that which has %een for$all/ offered.5#6 2he affidavit of petitioner Natividad Candido $entioning the provisional rate of rentals was never for$all/ offered: neither the alleged certification %/ the 1inistr/ of )grarian Refor$. Not having %een for$all/ offered, the affidavit and certification cannot %e considered as evidence. 2hus the trial court as well as the appellate court correctl/ disregarded the$. If the/ neglected to offer those docu$ents in evidence, however vital the/ $a/ %e, petitioners onl/ have the$selves to %la$e, not respondent who was not even given a chance to o%-ect as the docu$ents were never offered in evidence. ) docu$ent, or an/ article for that $atter, is not evidence when it is si$pl/ $ar8ed for identification: it $ust %e for$all/ offered, and the opposing counsel given an opportunit/ to o%-ect to it or cross*e>a$ine the witness called upon to prove or identif/ it.596 ) for$al offer is necessar/ since -udges are re?uired to %ase their findings of fact and -udg$ent onl/ *and strictl/ * upon the evidence offered %/ the parties at the trial. 5"6 2o allow a part/ to attach an/ docu$ent to his pleading and then e>pect the court to consider it as evidence $a/ draw unwarranted conse?uences. 2he opposing part/ will %e deprived of his chance to e>a$ine the docu$ent and o%-ect to its ad$issi%ilit/. 2he appellate court will have difficult/ reviewing docu$ents not previousl/ scrutini@ed %/ the court %elow. 2he pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the inclusion on appeal of docu$entar/ evidence or e>hi%its in the records cannot %e stretched as to include such pleadings or docu$ents not offered at the hearing of the case.51(6 ,etitioners would insist that we ta8e -udicial notice of the affidavit of petitioner Natividad C. Candido despite a%sence of an/ for$al offer during the proceedings in the trial court. 2his is futile since this is not a$ong the $atters which the law $andatoril/ re?uires to %e ta8en -udicial notice of: 5116 neither can we consider it of pu%lic 8nowledge, or capa%le of un?uestiona%le de$onstration, or ought to %e 8nown to -udges %ecause of their -udicial functions.51'6 2he testi$on/ of petitioner Natividad Candido cannot even %e relied upon, to sa/ the least. Muite interestingl/, she could not even recall when private respondent first failed to pa/ his rent, if indeed there was an/ failure on his part to co$pl/ with his o%ligation. She onl/ said that it was so$eti$e in 1"9' or 1"9&, and did not even 8now precisel/ how $an/ cavans of pala/ were %eing harvested per crop*/ear. ,etitioners definitel/ failed to esta%lish their cause of action. 2he/ never proved that respondent Da%u failed to pa/ his rentals starting 1"9'. Neither were the/ a%le to co$petentl/ confir$ the provisional rate of rentals allegedl/ fi>ed %/ the tea$ of the 1inistr/ of )grarian Refor$. @&ERE4ORE, the petition is DENIED. 2he decision of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. No. S,*' !'' ;C)R< confir$ing the order of the Regional 2rial Court of .ataan in Civil Case No. ! '" dis$issing the co$plaint is )AAIR1ED, with costs against petitioners. SO OR%ERE%.

Case no. 6! G.R. No. 1BFF30 ,-0y 14, 200F

ROLEG S(PLICO, ,etitioner, vs. NATIONAL ECONOMIC AN% %E5ELOPMENT A(T&ORITY, > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *> RESOGE2ION REYES, R.T., J.' Ender consideration is the 1anifestation and 1otion1 dated Octo%er '6, '((# of the Office of the Solicitor +eneral ;OS+< which states4 2he Office of the Solicitor +eneral ;OS+< respectfull/ avers that in an Indorse$ent dated Octo%er ' , '((#, theGegal Service of the Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications ;DO2C< has infor$ed it of the ,hilippine +overn$ent3s decision not to continue with the S2E National .road%and Networ8 ,ro-ect ;see attach$ent'<. 2hat said, there is no $ore -usticia%le controvers/ for this Donora%le Court to resolve. 7DEREAORE, pu%lic respondents respectfull/ pra/ that the present petitions %e DIS1ISSED. On Nove$%er 1&, '((#, the Court noted the OS+3s $anifestation and $otion and re?uired petitioners in +.R. Nos. 1#99&(, 1#"&1#, and 1#"61& to co$$ent. On Dece$%er 6, '((#, Role> Suplico, petitioner in +.R. No. 1#99&(, filed his Consolidated Repl/ and Opposition,&opposing the afore?uoted OS+ 1anifestation and 1otion, arguing that4 66. )side fro$ the fact that the Notes of the 1eeting .etween ,resident +loria 1acapagal*)rro/o and Chinese ,resident Du 0intao held ' Octo%er '((# were not attached to the '6 Octo%er '((# 1anifestation and 1otion = thus depriving petitioners of the opportunit/ to co$$ent thereon = a $ere ver%all/ re?uested 1st Indorse$ent is not sufficient %asis for the conclusion that the S2E*DO2C N.N deal has %een per$anentl/ scrapped. 6#. Suffice to state, said 1st Indorse$ent is glaringl/ self*serving, especiall/ without the Notes of the 1eeting .etween ,resident +loria 1acapagal*)rro/o and Chinese ,resident Du 0intao to support its allegations or other proof of the supposed decision to cancel the S2E*DO2C N.N deal. ,u%lic respondents can certainl/ do %etter than that. ,etitioner Suplico further argues that4 #". )ssu$ing arguendo that so$e aspects of the present ,etition have %een rendered $oot ;which is vehe$entl/ denied<, this Donora%le Court, consistent with well*entrenched -urisprudence, $a/ still ta8e cogni@ance thereof.! ,etitioner Suplico cites this Court3s rulings in +on@ales v. Chave@,6 Rufino v. Endriga,# and )lunan III v. 1irasol9that despite their $ootness, the Court nevertheless too8 cogni@ance of these cases and ruled on the $erits due to the Court3s s/$%olic function of educating the %ench and the %ar %/ for$ulating guiding and controlling principles, precepts, doctrines, and rules. On 0anuar/ &1, '((9, )$sterda$ Doldings, Inc. ;)DI< and Nathaniel Sau@, petitioners in +.R. No. 1#"&1#, also filed their co$$ent e>pressing their senti$ents, thus4

&. Airst of all, the present ad$inistration has never %een 8nown for candor. 2he present ad$inistration has a ver/ nast/ ha%it of not 8eeping its word. It sa/s one thing, %ut does another. . 2his %eing the case, herein petitioners are una%le to %ring the$selves to feel even a %it reassured that the govern$ent, in the event that the a%ove*captioned cases are dis$issed, will not %ac8trac8, re* transact, or even resurrect the now infa$ous N.N*S2E transaction. 2his is especiall/ relevant since what was attached to the OS+3s 1anifestation and 1otion was a $ere one ;1< page written co$$unication sent %/ the Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications ;DO2C< to the OS+, allegedl/ rela/ing that the,hilippine +overn$ent has decided not to continue with the N.N pro-ect B> > > due to several reasons and constraints.B ,etitioners )DI and Sau@ further contend that %ecause of the transcendental i$portance of the issues raised in the petition, which a$ong others, included the ,resident3s use of the power to %orrow, i.e., to enter into foreign loan agree$ents, this Court should ta8e cogni@ance of this case despite its apparent $ootness. On 0anuar/ 1!, '((9, the Court re?uired the OS+ to file respondents3 repl/ to petitioners3 co$$ents on its $anifestation and $otion. On )pril 19, '((9, the OS+ filed respondents3 repl/, reiterating their position that for a court to e>ercise its power of ad-udication, there $ust %e an actual case or controvers/ = one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal clai$s suscepti%le of -udicial resolution: the case $ust not %e $oot or acade$ic or %ased on e>tra*legal or other si$ilar considerations not cogni@a%le %/ a court of -ustice." Respondents also insist that there is no perfected contract in this case that would pre-udice the govern$ent or pu%lic interest. E>plaining the nature of the N.N ,ro-ect as an e>ecutive agree$ent, respondents stress that it re$ained in the negotiation stage. 2he conditions precedent1( for the agree$ent to %eco$e effective have not /et %een co$plied with. Respondents further oppose petitioners3 clai$ of the right to infor$ation, which the/ contend is not an a%solute right. 2he/ contend that the $atters raised concern e>ecutive polic/, a political ?uestion which the -udicial %ranch of govern$ent would generall/ hesitate to pass upon. On 0ul/ ', '((9, the OS+ filed a Supple$ental 1anifestation and 1otion. )ppended to it is the Dighlights fro$ the Notes of 1eeting %etween ,resident +loria 1acapagal*)rro/o and Chinese ,resident Du 0intao, held in HI 0iao +uesthouse, Shanghai, China, on Octo%er ', '((#. In the Notes of 1eeting, the ,hilippine +overn$ent conve/ed its decision not to continue with the S2E National .road%and Networ8 ,ro-ect due to several constraints. 2he sa$e Notes li8ewise contained ,resident Du 0intao3s e>pression of understanding of the ,hilippine +overn$ent decision. 7e resolve to grant the $otion. Airstl/, the Court notes the triple petitions to %e for certiorari, prohi%ition and $anda$us, with application for the issuance of a 2e$porar/ Restraining Order ;2RO< andIor ,reli$inar/ In-unction. 2he individual pra/ers in each of the three ;&< consolidated petitions are4 +.R. No. 1#99&( 7DEREAORE, it is respectfull/ pra/ed of this Donora%le Court4 1. Epon the filing of this ,etition, pursuant to the second paragraph of Rule !9, Section ! of the Rules of Court, issue forthwith an e> parte te$porar/ restraining order en-oining respondents, their su%ordinates, agents, representatives and an/ and all persons acting on their %ehalf fro$ pursuing, entering into inde%tedness, dis%ursing funds, and i$ple$enting the S2E*DO2C .road%and Deal:

'. Co$pel respondents, upon 7rit of 1anda$us, to forthwith produce and furnish petitioner or his undersigned counsel a certified true cop/ of the contract or agree$ent covering the N.N pro-ect as agreed upon with S2E Corporation: &. Schedule Oral )rgu$ents in the present case pursuant to Rule " in relation to Section ', Rule !6 of the revised Rules of Court: and, . )nnul and set aside the award of the S2E*DO2C .road%and Deal, and co$pel pu%lic respondents to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent IC2 contracts and pu%lic %idding for the N.N contract.11 ;E$phasis supplied< +.R. No. 1#"&1# 7DEREAORE, petitioners )$sterda$ Doldings, Inc., and Nathaniel Sau@ respectfull/ pra/ as follows4 ). upon the filing of this ,etition for 1anda$us and conditioned upon the posting of a %ond in such a$ount as the Donora%le Court $a/ fi>, a te$porar/ restraining order andIor writ of preli$inar/ in-unction %e issued directing the Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unication, the Co$$ission on Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/, all other govern$ent agencies and instru$entalities, their officers, e$plo/ees, andIor other persons acting for and on their %ehalf to desist during the pendenc/ of the instant ,etition for 1anda$us fro$ entering into an/ other agree$ents and fro$ co$$encing with an/ 8ind, sort, or specie of activit/ in connection with the National .road%and Networ8 ,ro-ect: .. the instant ,etition for 1anda$us %e given due course: and, C. after due consideration of all relevant issues, -udg$ent %e rendered directing respondents to allow herein petitioners access to all agree$ents entered into with the +overn$ent of China, the S2E Corporation, andIor other entities, govern$ent instru$entalities, andIor individuals with regard to the National .road%and Networ8 ,ro-ect.1' ;E$phasis supplied< +.R. No. 1#"61& 7DEREAORE, it is respectfull/ pra/ed of this Donora%le Court to4 1. Co$pel respondents, upon 7rit of 1anda$us, to forthwith produce and furnish petitioner or his undersigned counsel a certified true cop/ of the contract or agree$ent covering the N.N pro-ect as agreed upon with S2E Corporation: '. Schedule Oral )rgu$ents in the present case pursuant to Rule " in relation to Section ', Rule !6 of the Revised Rules of Court: &. )nnul and set aside the award of the contract for the national %road%and networ8 to respondent S2E Corporation, upon the ground that said contract, as well as the procedures resorted to preparator/ to the e>ecution thereof, is contrar/ to the Constitution, to law and to pu%lic polic/: . Co$pel pu%lic respondent to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent infrastructure pro-ects, including pu%lic %idding for said contract to underta8e the construction of the national %road%and networ8.1& ;E$phasis supplied< On Septe$%er 11, '((#, the Court issued a 2RO1 in +.R. No. 1#99&(, en-oining the parties fro$ Bpursuing, entering into inde%tedness, dis%ursing funds, and i$ple$enting the S2E*DO2C .road%and Deal and ,ro-ectB as pra/ed for. ,ertinent parts of the said Order read4

7DERE)S, the Supre$e Court, on 11 Septe$%er '((#, adopted a resolution in the a%ove*entitled case, to wit4 B+.R. No. 1#99&( ;Role> Suplico vs. National Econo$ic and Develop$ent )uthorit/, represented %/ NED) Secretar/ Ro$ulo G. Neri, and the NED) Invest$ent Coordination Co$$ittee, Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications ;DO2C<, represented %/ DO2C Secretar/ Geandro 1endo@a, including the Co$$ission on Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/, headed %/ its Chair$an, Ra$on ,. Sales, 2he 2eleco$$unications Office, .ids and )wards for Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/ Co$$ittee ;IC2<, headed %/ DO2C )ssistant Secretar/ El$er ). Sone-a as Chair$an, and 2he 2echnical 7or8ing +roup for IC2, and DO2C )ssistant Secretar/ Goren@o Aor$oso, and )ll Other Operating Enits of the DO2C for Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/, and S2E Corporation, )$sterda$ Doldings, Inc., and )RESCO1, Inc.P)cting on the instant petition with pra/er for te$porar/ restraining order andIor writ of preli$inar/ in-unction, the Court Resolved, without giving due course to the petition, to >>>> ;d< Issue a 2E1,OR)RL RES2R)ININ+ ORDER, effective i$$ediatel/ and continuing until further orders fro$ this Court, en-oining the ;i< National Econo$ic and Develop$ent )uthorit/, ;ii< NED)*Invest$ent Coordination Co$$ittee, ;iii< Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications, Co$$ission on Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/, ;iv< 2eleco$$unications Office, .ids and )wards for Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/ Co$$ittee ;IC2<, ;v< 2echnical 7or8ing +roup for IC2, and all other Operating Enits of the DO2C for Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/, ;vi< S2E Corporation: ;vii< )$sterda$ Doldings, Inc., and ;viii< )RESCO1, Inc., and an/ and all persons acting on their %ehalf fro$ Tpursuing, entering into inde%tedness, dis%ursing funds, and i$ple$enting the S2E*DO2C .road%and Deal and ,ro-ect3 as pra/ed for.B NO7 2DEREAORE, effective i$$ediatel/ and continuing until further orders fro$ this Court, Lou, Respondents ;i< National Econo$ic and Develop$ent )uthorit/, ;ii< NED)*Invest$ent Coordination Co$$ittee, ;iii< Depart$ent of 2ransportation and Co$$unications, Co$$ission on Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/, ;iv< 2eleco$$unications Office, .ids and )wards for Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/ Co$$ittee ;IC2<, ;v< 2echnical 7or8ing +roup for IC2, and all other Operating Enits of the DO2C for Infor$ation and Co$$unications 2echnolog/, ;vi< S2E Corporation: ;vii< )$sterda$ Doldings, Inc., and ;viii< )RESCO1, Inc., and an/ and all persons acting on their %ehalf are here%/ EN0OINED fro$ Bpursuing, entering into inde%tedness, dis%ursing funds, and i$ple$enting the S2E*DO2C .road%and Deal and ,ro-ectB as pra/ed for.1! ;E$phasis supplied.< ,etitioners in +.R. Nos. 1#99&( and 1#"61& pra/ that the/ %e furnished certified true copies of the Bcontract or agree$ent covering the N.N pro-ect as agreed upon with S2E Corporation.B It appears that during one of the Senate hearings on the N.N pro-ect, copies of the suppl/ contract16 were readil/ $ade availa%le to petitioners.1#Evidentl/, the said pra/er has %een co$plied with and is, thus, $ooted. 7hen ,resident +loria 1acapagal*)rro/o, acting in her official capacit/ during the $eeting held on Octo%er ', '((# in China, infor$ed China3s ,resident Du 0intao that the ,hilippine +overn$ent had decided not to continue with the S2E*National .road%and Networ8 ;S2E*N.N< ,ro-ect due to several reasons and constraints, there is no dou%t that all the other principal pra/ers in the three petitions ;to annul, set aside, and en-oin the i$ple$entation of the S2E*N.N ,ro-ect< had also %eco$e $oot. Contrar/ to petitioners3 contentions that these declarations $ade %/ officials %elonging to the e>ecutive %ranch on the ,hilippine +overn$ent3s decision not to continue with the S2E*N.N ,ro-ect are self*serving, hence, inad$issi%le, the Court has no alternative %ut to ta8e -udicial notice of this official act of the ,resident of the ,hilippines. Section 1, Rule 1'" of the Rules of Court provides4

SEC2ION 1. 0udicial Notice, when $andator/. = ) court shall ta8e -udicial notice, without introduction of evidence, of the e>istence and territorial e>tent of states, their political histor/, for$s of govern$ent and s/$%ols of nationalit/, the law of nations, the ad$iralt/ and $ariti$e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor/ of the ,hilippines, the official acts of the legislative, e>ecutive and -udicial depart$ents of the ,hilippines, the laws of nature, the $easure of ti$e, and the geographical divisions. ;E$phasis supplied< Ender the rules, it is $andator/ and the Court has no alternative %ut to ta8e -udicial notice of the official acts of the ,resident of the ,hilippines, who heads the e>ecutive %ranch of our govern$ent. It is further provided in the a%ove*?uoted rule that the court shall ta8e -udicial notice of the foregoing facts without introduction of evidence. Since we consider the act of cancellation %/ ,resident 1acapagal*)rro/o of the proposed S2E*N.N ,ro-ect during the $eeting of Octo%er ', '((# with the Chinese ,resident in China as an official act of the e>ecutive depart$ent, the Court $ust ta8e -udicial notice of such official act without need of evidence. In David v. 1acapagal*)rro/o,19 7e too8 -udicial notice of the announce$ent %/ the Office of the ,resident %anning all rallies and canceling all per$its for pu%lic asse$%lies following the issuance of ,residential ,rocla$ation No. 1(1# and +eneral Order No. !. In Estrada v. Desierto,1" the Court also resorted to -udicial notice in resolving the factual ingredient of the petition. 1oreover, under Section ', paragraph ;$< of Rule 1&1 of the Rules of Court, the official dut/ of the e>ecutive officials'( of infor$ing this Court of the govern$ent3s decision not to continue with the S2E*N.N ,ro-ect is also presu$ed to have %een regularl/ perfor$ed, a%sent proof to the contrar/. Other than petitioner )DI3s unsavor/ insinuation in its co$$ent, the Court finds no factual or legal %asis to disregard this disputa%le presu$ption in the present instance. Conco$itant to its funda$ental tas8 as the ulti$ate citadel of -ustice and legiti$ac/ is the -udiciar/3s role of strengthening political sta%ilit/ indispensa%le to progress and national develop$ent. ,ontificating on issues which no longer legiti$atel/ constitute an actual case or controvers/ will do $ore har$ than good to the nation as a whole. 7ise e>ercise of -udicial discretion $ilitates against resolving the acade$ic issues, as petitioners want this Court to do. 2his is especiall/ true where, as will %e further discussed, the legal issues raised cannot %e resolved without previousl/ esta%lishing the factual %asis or antecedents. 0udicial power presupposes actual controversies, the ver/ antithesis of $ootness. In the a%sence of actual -usticia%le controversies or disputes, the Court generall/ opts to refrain fro$ deciding $oot issues. 7here there is no $ore live su%-ect of controvers/, the Court ceases to have a reason to render an/ ruling or $a8e an/ pronounce$ent. Fapag wala nang %uha/ na 8aso, wala nang dahilan para $agdesis/on ang Dusgado. In Repu%lic 2eleco$$unications Doldings, Inc. v. Santiago,'1 the lone issue tac8led %/ the Court of )ppeals ;C)< was whether the Securities Investigation and Clearing Depart$ent ;SICD< and Securities and E>change Co$$ission ;SEC< en %anc co$$itted reversi%le error in issuing and upholding, respectivel/, the writ of preli$inar/ in-unction. 2he writ en-oined the e>ecution of the ?uestioned agree$ents %etween Mualco$$, Inc. and Repu%lic 2eleco$$unications Doldings, Inc. ;RE2EGCO1<. 2he i$ple$entation of the agree$ents was restrained through the assailed orders of the SICD and the SEC en %anc which, however, were nullified %/ the C) decision. 2hus, RE2EGCO1 elevated the $atter to this Court pra/ing for the reinstate$ent of the writ of preli$inar/ in-unction of the SICD and the SEC en %anc. Dowever, %efore the $atter was finall/ resolved, Mualco$$, Inc. withdrew fro$ the negotiating ta%le. Its withdrawal had thwarted the e>ecution and enforce$ent of the contracts. 2hus, the resolution of whether the i$ple$entation of said agree$ents should %e en-oined %eca$e no longer necessar/. E?uall/ applica%le to the present case is the Court ruling in the a%ove*cited Repu%lic 2eleco$$unications. 2here 7e held, thus4

Indeed, the instant petition, insofar as it assails the Court of )ppeals3 Decision nullif/ing the orders of the SEC en %anc and the SICD, has %een rendered $oot and acade$ic. 2o rule, one wa/ or the other, on the correctness of the ?uestioned orders of the SEC en %anc and the SICD will %e indulging in a theoretical e>ercise that has no practical worth in view of the supervening event. 2he rule is well*settled that for a court to e>ercise its power of ad-udication, there $ust %e an actual case or controvers/ = one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal clai$s suscepti%le of -udicial resolution: the case $ust not %e $oot or acade$ic or %ased on e>tra*legal or other si$ilar considerations not cogni@a%le %/ a court of -ustice. 7here the issue has %eco$e $oot and acade$ic, there is no -usticia%le controvers/, and an ad-udication thereon would %e of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to ad-udicate $ere acade$ic ?uestions to satisf/ scholarl/ interest, however intellectuall/ challenging. In the ulti$ate anal/sis, petitioners are see8ing the reinstate$ent of the writ of in-unction to prevent the concerned parties fro$ pushing through with transactions with Mualco$$, Inc. +iven that Mualco$$, Inc. is no longer interested in pursuing the contracts, there is no actual su%stantial relief to which petitioners would %e entitled and which would %e negated %/ the dis$issal of the petition. 2he Court li8ewise finds it unnecessar/ to rule whether the assailed Court of )ppeals3 Decision had the effect of overruling the Court3s Resolution dated '" 0anuar/ 1""", which set aside the 2RO issued %/ the appellate court. ) ruling on the $atter practicall/ parta8es of a $ere advisor/ opinion, which falls %e/ond the real$ of -udicial review. 2he e>ercise of the power of -udicial review is li$ited to actual cases and controversies. Courts have no authorit/ to pass upon issues through advisor/ opinions or to resolve h/pothetical or feigned pro%le$s. 7hile there were occasions when the Court passed upon issues although supervening events had rendered those petitions $oot and acade$ic, the instant case does not fall under the e>ceptional cases. In those cases, the Court was persuaded to resolve $oot and acade$ic issues to for$ulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of %oth %ench and %ar. In the case at %ar, the resolution of whether a writ of preli$inar/ in-unction $a/ %e issued to prevent the i$ple$entation of the assailed contracts calls for an appraisal of factual considerations which are peculiar onl/ to the transactions and parties involved in this controvers/. E>cept for the deter$ination of whether petitioners are entitled to a writ of preli$inar/ in-unction which is now $oot, the issues raised in this petition do not call for a clarification of an/ constitutional principle or the interpretation of an/ statutor/ provision. '' Secondl/, even assu$ing that the Court will choose to disregard the foregoing considerations and %rush aside $ootness, the Court cannot co$pletel/ rule on the $erits of the case %ecause the resolution of the three petitions involves settling factual issues which definitel/ re?uires reception of evidence. 2here is not an iota of dou%t that this $a/ not %e done %/ this Court in the first instance %ecause, as has %een stated often enough, this Court is not a trier of facts. )ng pagpapasi/a sa tatlong petis/on a/ nangangailangan ng paglilitis na hindi gawain ng Du8u$ang ito. Respondent S2E, in its Co$$ent in +.R. No. 1#99&(,'& correctl/ pointed out that since petitioner Suplico filed his petition directl/ with this Court, without prior factual findings $ade %/ an/ lower court, a deter$ination of pertinent and relevant facts is needed. S2E enu$erated so$e of these factual issues, to wit4 ;1< 7hether an e>ecutive agree$ent has %een reached %etween the ,hilippine and Chinese govern$ents over the N.N ,ro-ect: ;'< 7hether the S2E Suppl/ Contract was entered into %/ the Repu%lic of the ,hilippines, through the DO2C, and S2E International pursuant to, and as an integral part of, the e>ecutive agree$ent: ;&< 7hether a loan agree$ent for the N.N ,ro-ect has actuall/ %een e>ecuted:

; < 7hether the ,hilippine govern$ent re?uired that the N.N ,ro-ect %e co$pleted under a .uild* Operate*and*2ransfer Sche$e: ;!< 7hether the )DI proposal co$plied with the re?uire$ents for an unsolicited proposal under the .O2 Gaw: ;6< 7hether the ,hilippine govern$ent has actuall/ ear$ar8ed pu%lic finds for dis%urse$ent under the S2E Suppl/ Contract: and ;#< 7hether the coverage of the N.N ,ro-ect to %e supplied under the S2E Suppl/ Contract is $ore e>tensive than that under the )DI proposal or such other proposal su%$itted therefor.' Definitel/, so$e ver/ specific reliefs pra/ed for in %oth +.R. Nos. 1#99&( and 1#"61& re?uire prior deter$ination of facts %efore pertinent legal issues could %e resolved and specific reliefs granted. In +.R. No. 1#99&(, petitioner see8s to annul and set aside the award of the S2E*DO2C .road%and Deal and co$pel pu%lic respondents to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent IC2 contracts and pu%lic %idding for the N.N contract. In +.R. No. 1#"61&, petitioners also pra/ that the Court annul and set aside the award of the contract for the national %road%and networ8 to respondent S2E Corporation, upon the ground that said contract, as well as the procedures resorted to preparator/ to the e>ecution thereof, is contrar/ to the Constitution, to law and to pu%lic polic/. 2he/ also as8 the Court to co$pel pu%lic respondent to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent infrastructure pro-ects, including pu%lic %idding for said contract to underta8e the construction of the national %road%and networ8. It is si$pl/ i$possi%le for this Court Bto annul and set aside the award of the S2E*DO2C .road%and DealB without an/ evidence to support a prior factual finding pointing to an/ violation of law that could lead to such annul$ent order. Aor sure, the Supre$e Court is not the proper venue for this factual $atter to %e threshed out. 2hirdl/, petitioner Suplico in +.R. No. 1#99&( pra/ed that this Court order Bpu%lic respondents to forthwith co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent IC2 contracts and pu%lic %idding for the N.N contract.B'! It would %e too presu$ptuous on the part of the Court to su$$aril/ co$pel pu%lic respondents to co$pl/ with pertinent provisions of law regarding procure$ent of govern$ent infrastructure pro-ects without an/ factual %asis or prior deter$ination of ver/ particular violations co$$itted %/ specific govern$ent officials of the e>ecutive %ranch. Aor the Court to do so would a$ount to a %reach of the nor$s of co$it/ a$ong co*e?ual %ranches of govern$ent. ) perceived error cannot %e corrected %/ co$$itting another error. 7ithout proper evidence, the Court cannot -ust presu$e that the e>ecutive did not co$pl/ with procure$ent laws. Should the Court allow itself to fall into this trap, it would plainl/ co$$it grave error itself. 1agiging 8apangahasan sa Du8u$ang ito na pilitin ang $ga pinipetis/on na tu$ali$a sa %atas sa pangongontrata ng pa$ahalaan 8ung wala pang pagtiti/a8 o ang8op na e%idensi/a ng nagawang pagla%ag dito. Get it %e clarified that the Senate investigation in aid of legislation cannot %e the %asis of Our decision which re?uires a -udicial finding of facts. 0ustice )ntonio 2. Carpio ta8es the view that the National .road%and Networ8 ,ro-ect should %e declared null and void. 2he foregoing threefold reasons would suffice to address the concern of Our estee$ed colleague. 2he Court is, therefore, constrained to dis$iss the petitions and den/ the$ due course %ecause of $ootness and %ecause their resolution re?uires reception of evidence which cannot %e done in an original petition %rought %efore the Supre$e Court.

7DEREAORE, the petitions are DIS1ISSED. 2he 2e$porar/ Restraining Order issued on Septe$%er 11, '((# is DISSOGCED.SO ORDERED. Case no. 66 G.R. No. 152392 May 26, 2005

EGPERTRA5EL H TO(RS, INC., petitioner, vs. CO(RT O4 APPEALS a!# 3OREAN AIRLINES, respondent. DECISION CALLE,O, SR., J.6 .efore us is a petition for review on &ertiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of )ppeals ;C)< in C)*+.R. S, No. 61((( dis$issing the petition for &ertiorari and (anda(us filed %/ E>pertravel and 2ours, Inc. ;E2I<. T/e A!"e1e#e!"s Forean )irlines ;F)G< is a corporation esta%lished and registered in the Repu%lic of South Forea and licensed to do %usiness in the ,hilippines. Its general $anager in the ,hilippines is Su8 F/oo Fi$, while its appointed counsel was )tt/. 1ario )guinaldo and his law fir$. On Septe$%er 6, 1""", F)G, through )tt/. )guinaldo, filed a Co$plaint' against E2I with the Regional 2rial Court ;R2C< of 1anila, for the collection of the principal a$ount of ,'6(,1!(.((, plus attorne/3s fees and e>e$plar/ da$ages. 2he verification and certification against foru$ shopping was signed %/ )tt/. )guinaldo, who indicated therein that he was the resident agent and legal counsel of F)G and had caused the preparation of the co$plaint. E2I filed a $otion to dis$iss the co$plaint on the ground that )tt/. )guinaldo was not authori@ed to e>ecute the verification and certificate of non*foru$ shopping as re?uired %/ Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court. F)G opposed the $otion, contending that )tt/. )guinaldo was its resident agent and was registered as such with theSecurities and E>change Co$$ission ;SEC< as re?uired %/ the Corporation Code of the ,hilippines. It was further alleged that )tt/. )guinaldo was also the corporate secretar/ of F)G. )ppended to the said opposition was the identification card of )tt/. )guinaldo, showing that he was the law/er of F)G. During the hearing of 0anuar/ '9, '(((, )tt/. )guinaldo clai$ed that he had %een authori@ed to file the co$plaint through a resolution of the F)G .oard of Directors approved during a special $eeting held on 0une '!, 1""". Epon his $otion, F)G was given a period of 1( da/s within which to su%$it a cop/ of the said resolution. 2he trial court granted the $otion. )tt/. )guinaldo su%se?uentl/ filed other si$ilar $otions, which the trial court granted. Ainall/, F)G su%$itted on 1arch 6, '((( an )ffidavit& of even date, e>ecuted %/ its general $anager Su8 F/oo Fi$, alleging that the %oard of directors conducted a special teleconference on 0une '!, 1""", which he and )tt/. )guinaldo attended. It was also averred that in that sa$e teleconference, the %oard of directors approved a resolution authori@ing )tt/. )guinaldo to e>ecute the certificate of non*foru$ shopping and to file the co$plaint. Su8 F/oo Fi$ also alleged, however, that the corporation had no written cop/ of the aforesaid resolution. On )pril 1', '(((, the trial court issued an Order den/ing the $otion to dis$iss, giving credence to the clai$s of )tt/. )guinaldo and Su8 F/oo Fi$ that the F)G .oard of Directors indeed conducted a teleconference on 0une '!, 1""", during which it approved a resolution as ?uoted in the su%$itted affidavit.

E2I filed a $otion for the reconsideration of the Order, contending that it was inappropriate for the court to ta8e -udicial notice of the said teleconference without an/ prior hearing. 2he trial court denied the $otion in its Order!dated )ugust 9, '(((. E2I then filed a petition for &ertiorari and (anda(us, assailing the orders of the R2C. In its co$$ent on the petition, F)G appended a certificate signed %/ )tt/. )guinaldo dated 0anuar/ 1(, '(((, worded as follows4 SECRE2)RL3SIRESIDEN2 )+EN23S CER2IAIC)2E FNO7 )GG 1EN .L 2DESE ,RESEN2S4 I, 1ario ). )guinaldo, of legal age, Ailipino, and dul/ elected and appointed Corporate Secretar/ and Resident )gent of FORE)N )IRGINES, a foreign corporation dul/ organi@ed and e>isting under and %/ virtue of the laws of the Repu%lic of Forea and also dul/ registered and authori@ed to do %usiness in the ,hilippines, with office address at +round Aloor, G,G ,la@a .uilding, 1' )lfaro St., Salcedo Cillage, 1a8ati Cit/, DERE.L CER2IAL that during a special $eeting of the .oard of Directors of the Corporation held on 0une '!, 1""" at which a ?uoru$ was present, the said .oard unani$ousl/ passed, voted upon and approved the following resolution which is now in full force and effect, to wit4 RESOGCED, that 1ario ). )guinaldo and his law fir$ 1.). )guinaldo U )ssociates or an/ of its law/ers are here%/ appointed and authori@ed to ta8e with whatever legal action necessar/ to effect the collection of the unpaid account of E>pert 2ravel U 2ours. 2he/ are here%/ specificall/ authori@ed to prosecute, litigate, defend, sign and e>ecute an/ docu$ent or paper necessar/ to the filing and prosecution of said clai$ in Court, attend the ,re*2rial ,roceedings and enter into a co$pro$ise agree$ent relative to the a%ove*$entioned clai$. IN 7I2NESS 7DEREOA, I have hereunto affi>ed $/ signature this 1(th da/ of 0anuar/, 1""", in the Cit/ of 1anila, ,hilippines. ;Sgd.< 1)RIO ). )+EIN)GDO Resident )gent SE.SCRI.ED )ND S7ORN to %efore $e this 1(th da/ of 0anuar/, 1""", )tt/. 1ario ). )guinaldo e>hi%iting to $e his Co$$unit/ 2a> Certificate No. 1 "1 ! !, issued on 0anuar/ #, '((( at 1anila, ,hilippines. Doc. No. 11": ,age No. '!: .oo8 No. HHIC Series of '(((. ;Sgd.< )22L. DENRL D. )D)S) Notar/ ,u%lic Entil Dece$%er &1, '((( ,2R V99"!9&I1G) 1I&I'(((6

On Dece$%er 19, '((1, the C) rendered -udg$ent dis$issing the petition, ruling that the verification and certificate of non*foru$ shopping e>ecuted %/ )tt/. )guinaldo was sufficient co$pliance with the Rules of Court. )ccording to the appellate court, )tt/. )guinaldo had %een dul/ authori@ed %/ the %oard resolution approved on 0une '!, 1""", and was the resident agent of F)G. )s such, the R2C could not %e faulted for ta8ing -udicial notice of the said teleconference of the F)G .oard of Directors. E2I filed a $otion for reconsideration of the said decision, which the C) denied. 2hus, E2I, now the petitioner, co$es to the Court %/ wa/ of petition for review on &ertiorari and raises the following issue4 DID ,E.GIC RES,ONDEN2 COER2 OA ),,E)GS DE,)R2 ARO1 2DE )CCE,2ED )ND ESE)G COERSE OA 0EDICI)G ,ROCEEDIN+S 7DEN I2 RENDERED I2S MEES2IONED DECISION )ND

7DEN I2 ISSEED I2S MEES2IONED RESOGE2ION, )NNEHES ) )ND . OA 2DE INS2)N2 ,E2I2IONN# 2he petitioner asserts that co$pliance with Section !, Rule #, of the Rules of Court can %e deter$ined onl/ fro$ the contents of the co$plaint and not %/ docu$ents or pleadings outside thereof. Dence, the trial court co$$itted grave a%use of discretion a$ounting to e>cess of -urisdiction, and the C) erred in considering the affidavit of the respondent3s general $anager, as well as the Secretar/3sIResident )gent3s Certification and the resolution of the %oard of directors contained therein, as proof of co$pliance with the re?uire$ents of Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court. 2he petitioner also $aintains that the R2C cannot ta8e -udicial notice of the said teleconferencewithout prior hearing, nor an/ $otion therefor. 2he petitioner reiterates its su%$ission that the teleconference and the resolution adverted to %/ the respondent was a $ere fa%rication. 2he respondent, for its part, avers that the issue of whether $odern technolog/ is used in the field of %usiness is a factual issue: hence, cannot %e raised in a petition for review on &ertiorari under Rule ! of the Rules of Court. On the $erits of the petition, it insists that )tt/. )guinaldo, as the resident agent and corporate secretar/, is authori@ed to sign and e>ecute the certificate of non*foru$ shopping re?uired %/ Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court, on top of the %oard resolution approved during the teleconference of 0une '!, 1""". 2he respondent insists that Btechnological advances in this ti$e and age are as co$$onplace as da/%rea8.B Dence, the courts $a/ ta8e -udicial notice that the ,hilippine Gong Distance 2elephone Co$pan/, Inc. had provided a record of corporate conferences and $eetings through Ai%erNet using fi%er*optic trans$ission technolog/, and that such technolog/ facilitates voice and i$age trans$ission with ease: this $a8es constant co$$unication %etween a foreign*%ased office and its ,hilippine*%ased %ranches faster and easier, allowing for cost*cutting in ter$s of travel concerns. It points out that even the E*Co$$erce Gaw has recogni@ed this $odern technolog/. 2he respondent posits that the courts are aware of this develop$ent in technolog/: hence, $a/ ta8e -udicial notice thereof without need of hearings. Even if such hearing is re?uired, the re?uire$ent is nevertheless satisfied if a part/ is allowed to file pleadings %/ wa/ of co$$ent or opposition thereto. In its repl/, the petitioner pointed out that there are no rulings on the $atter of teleconferencing as a $eans of conducting $eetings of %oard of directors for purposes of passing a resolution: until and after teleconferencing is recogni@ed as a legiti$ate $eans of gathering a ?uoru$ of %oard of directors, such cannot %e ta8en -udicial notice of %/ the court. It asserts that safeguards $ust first %e set up to prevent an/ $ischief on the pu%lic or to protect the general pu%lic fro$ an/ possi%le fraud. It further proposes possi%le a$end$ents to the Corporation Code to give recognition to such $anner of %oard $eetings to transact %usiness for the corporation, or other related corporate $atters: until then, the petitioner asserts, teleconferencing cannot %e the su%-ect of -udicial notice. 2he petitioner further avers that the supposed holding of a special $eeting on 0une '!, 1""" through teleconferencing where )tt/. )guinaldo was supposedl/ given such an authorit/ is a farce, considering that there was no $ention of where it was held, whether in this countr/ or elsewhere. It insists that the Corporation Code re?uires %oard resolutions of corporations to %e su%$itted to the SEC. Even assu$ing that there was such a teleconference, it would %e against the provisions of the Corporation Code not to have an/ record thereof. 2he petitioner insists that the teleconference and resolution adverted to %/ the respondent in its pleadings were $ere fa%rications foisted %/ the respondent and its counsel on the R2C, the C) and this Court. 2he petition is $eritorious. Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court provides4 SEC. !. Certi i&ation against oru( shopping.; 2he plaintiff or principal part/ shall certif/ under oath in the co$plaint or other initiator/ pleading asserting a clai$ for relief, or in a sworn certification anne>ed thereto and si$ultaneousl/ filed therewith4 ;a< that he has not theretofore co$$enced an/ action or filed an/ clai$ involving the sa$e issues in an/ court, tri%unal or ?uasi*-udicial agenc/ and, to the %est of his 8nowledge, no such other action or clai$ is pending therein: ;%< if there is such other pending action or clai$, a co$plete state$ent of the present status thereof: and ;c< if he should thereafter learn

that the sa$e or si$ilar action or clai$ has %een filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five ;!< da/s therefro$ to the court wherein his aforesaid co$plaint or initiator/ pleading has %een filed. Aailure to co$pl/ with the foregoing re?uire$ents shall not %e cura%le %/ $ere a$end$ent of the co$plaint or other initiator/ pleading %ut shall %e cause for the dis$issal of the case without pre-udice, unless otherwise provided, upon $otion and after hearing. 2he su%$ission of a false certification or non*co$pliance with an/ of the underta8ings therein shall constitute indirect conte$pt of court, without pre-udice to the corresponding ad$inistrative and cri$inal actions. If the acts of the part/ or his counsel clearl/ constitute willful and deli%erate foru$ shopping, the sa$e shall %e ground for su$$ar/ dis$issal with pre-udice and shall constitute direct conte$pt, as well as a cause for ad$inistrative sanctions. It is settled that the re?uire$ent to file a certificate of non*foru$ shopping is $andator/9 and that the failure to co$pl/ with this re?uire$ent cannot %e e>cused. 2he certification is a peculiar and personal responsi%ilit/ of the part/, an assurance given to the court or other tri%unal that there are no other pending cases involving %asicall/ the sa$e parties, issues and causes of action. Dence, the certification $ust %e acco$plished %/ the part/ hi$self %ecause he has actual 8nowledge of whether or not he has initiated si$ilar actions or proceedings in different courts or tri%unals. Even his counsel $a/ %e unaware of such facts." Dence, the re?uisite certification e>ecuted %/ the plaintiff3s counsel will not suffice.1( In a case where the plaintiff is a private corporation, the certification $a/ %e signed, for and on %ehalf of the said corporation, %/ a specificall/ authori@ed person, including its retained counsel, who has personal 8nowledge of the facts re?uired to %e esta%lished %/ the docu$ents. 2he reason was e>plained %/ the Court in %ational Steel Corporation v. Court o $ppeals,11 as follows4 Enli8e natural persons, corporations $a/ perfor$ ph/sical actions onl/ through properl/ delegated individuals: na$el/, its officers andIor agents. W 2he corporation, such as the petitioner, has no powers e>cept those e>pressl/ conferred on it %/ the Corporation Code and those that are i$plied %/ or are incidental to its e>istence. In turn, a corporation e>ercises said powers through its %oard of directors andIor its dul/*authori@ed officers and agents. ,h/sical acts, li8e the signing of docu$ents, can %e perfor$ed onl/ %/ natural persons dul/*authori@ed for the purpose %/ corporate %/*laws or %/ specific act of the %oard of directors. B)ll acts within the powers of a corporation $a/ %e perfor$ed %/ agents of its selection: and e>cept so far as li$itations or restrictions which $a/ %e i$posed %/ special charter, %/*law, or statutor/ provisions, the sa$e general principles of law which govern the relation of agenc/ for a natural person govern the officer or agent of a corporation, of whatever status or ran8, in respect to his power to act for the corporation: and agents once appointed, or $e$%ers acting in their stead, are su%-ect to the sa$e rules, lia%ilities and incapacities as are agents of individuals and private persons.B W W Aor who else 8nows of the circu$stances re?uired in the Certificate %ut its own retained counsel. Its regular officers, li8e its %oard chair$an and president, $a/ not even 8now the details re?uired therein. Indeed, the certificate of non*foru$ shopping $a/ %e incorporated in the co$plaint or appended thereto as an integral part of the co$plaint. 2he rule is that co$pliance with the rule after the filing of the co$plaint, or the dis$issal of a co$plaint %ased on its non*co$pliance with the rule, is i$per$issi%le. Dowever, in e>ceptional circu$stances, the court $a/ allow su%se?uent co$pliance with the rule.1' If the authorit/ of a part/3s counsel to e>ecute a certificate of non*foru$ shopping is disputed %/ the adverse part/, the for$er is re?uired to show proof of such authorit/ or representation.

In this case, the petitioner, as the defendant in the R2C, assailed the authorit/ of )tt/. )guinaldo to e>ecute the re?uisite verification and certificate of non*foru$ shopping as the resident agent and counsel of the respondent. It was, thus, incu$%ent upon the respondent, as the plaintiff, to allege and esta%lish that )tt/. )guinaldo had such authorit/ to e>ecute the re?uisite verification and certification for and in its %ehalf. 2he respondent, however, failed to do so. 2he verification and certificate of non*foru$ shopping which was incorporated in the co$plaint and signed %/ )tt/. )guinaldo reads4 I, 1ario ). )guinaldo of legal age, Ailipino, with office address at Suite '1( +edisco Centre, 1!6 ). 1a%ini cor. ,. +il Sts., Er$ita, 1anila, after having sworn to in accordance with law here%/ deposes and sa/4 2D)2 * 1. I a$ the Resident )gent and Gegal Counsel of the plaintiff in the a%ove entitled case and have caused the preparation of the a%ove co$plaint: '. I have read the co$plaint and that all the allegations contained therein are true and correct %ased on the records on files: &. I here%/ further certif/ that I have not co$$enced an/ other action or proceeding involving the sa$e issues in the Supre$e Court, the Court of )ppeals, or different divisions thereof, or an/ other tri%unal or agenc/. If I su%se?uentl/ learned that a si$ilar action or proceeding has %een filed or is pending %efore the Supre$e Court, the Court of )ppeals, or different divisions thereof, or an/ tri%unal or agenc/, I will notif/ the court, tri%unal or agenc/ within five ;!< da/s fro$ such noticeI8nowledge. ;Sgd.< 1)RIO ). )+EIN)GDO )ffiant CI2L OA 1)NIG) SE.SCRI.ED )ND S7ORN 2O %efore $e this &(th da/ of )ugust, 1""", affiant e>hi%iting to $e his Co$$unit/ 2a> Certificate No. ((6#1( # issued on 0anuar/ #, 1""" at 1anila, ,hilippines. Doc. No. 1((!: ,age No. 1"9: .oo8 No. HHI Series of 1""". ;Sgd.< )22L. DENRL D. )D)S) Notar/ ,u%lic Entil Dece$%er &1, '((( ,2R No. &'(!(1 1la. 1I I""1&

)s gleaned fro$ the afore?uoted certification, there was no allegation that )tt/. )guinaldo had %een authori@ed to e>ecute the certificate of non*foru$ shopping %/ the respondent3s .oard of Directors: $oreover, no such %oard resolution was appended thereto or incorporated therein. 7hile )tt/. )guinaldo is the resident agent of the respondent in the ,hilippines, this does not $ean that he is authori@ed to e>ecute the re?uisite certification against foru$ shopping. Ender Section 1'#, in relation to Section 1'9 of the Corporation Code, the authorit/ of the resident agent of a foreign corporation with license to do %usiness in the ,hilippines is to receive, for and in %ehalf of the foreign corporation, services and other legal processes in all actions and other legal proceedings against such corporation, thus4 SEC. 1'#. <ho (ay be a resident agent. = ) resident agent $a/ either %e an individual residing in the ,hilippines or a do$estic corporation lawfull/ transacting %usiness in the ,hilippines4 Provided, 2hat in the case of an individual, he $ust %e of good $oral character and of sound financial standing.

SEC. 1'9. Resident agent> servi&e o pro&ess. = 2he Securities and E>change Co$$ission shall re?uire as a condition precedent to the issuance of the license to transact %usiness in the ,hilippines %/ an/ foreign corporation that such corporation file with the Securities and E>change Co$$ission a written power of attorne/ designating so$e persons who $ust %e a resident of the ,hilippines, on who$ an/ su$$ons and other legal processes $a/ %e served in all actions or other legal proceedings against such corporation, and consenting that service upon such resident agent shall %e ad$itted and held as valid as if served upon the dul/*authori@ed officers of the foreign corporation as its ho$e office.1 Ender the law, )tt/. )guinaldo was not specificall/ authori@ed to e>ecute a certificate of non*foru$ shopping as re?uired %/ Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court. 2his is %ecause while a resident agent $a/ %e aware of actions filed against his principal ;a foreign corporation doing %usiness in the ,hilippines<, such resident $a/ not %e aware of actions initiated %/ its principal, whether in the ,hilippines against a do$estic corporation or private individual, or in the countr/ where such corporation was organi@ed and registered, against a ,hilippine registered corporation or a Ailipino citi@en. 2he respondent 8new that its counsel, )tt/. )guinaldo, as its resident agent, was not specificall/ authori@ed to e>ecute the said certification. It atte$pted to show its co$pliance with the rule su%se?uent to the filing of its co$plaint %/ su%$itting, on 1arch 6, '(((, a resolution purporting to have %een approved %/ its .oard of Directors during a teleconference held on 0une '!, 1""", allegedl/ with )tt/. )guinaldo and Su8 F/oo Fi$ in attendance. Dowever, such atte$pt of the respondent casts verita%le dou%t not onl/ on its clai$ that such a teleconference was held, %ut also on the approval %/ the .oard of Directors of the resolution authori@ing )tt/. )guinaldo to e>ecute the certificate of non*foru$ shopping. In its )pril 1', '((( Order, the R2C too8 -udicial notice that %ecause of the onset of $odern technolog/, persons in one location $a/ confer with other persons in other places, and, %ased on the said pre$ise, concluded that Su8 F/oo Fi$ and )tt/. )guinaldo had a teleconference with the respondent3s .oard of Directors in South Forea on 0une '!, 1""". 2he C), li8ewise, gave credence to the respondent3s clai$ that such a teleconference too8 place, as contained in the affidavit of Su8 F/oo Fi$, as well as )tt/. )guinaldo3s certification. +enerall/ spea8ing, $atters of -udicial notice have three $aterial re?uisites4 ;1< the $atter $ust %e one of co$$on and general 8nowledge: ;'< it $ust %e well and authoritativel/ settled and not dou%tful or uncertain: and ;&< it $ust %e 8nown to %e within the li$its of the -urisdiction of the court. 2he principal guide in deter$ining what facts $a/ %e assu$ed to %e -udiciall/ 8nown is that of notoriet/. Dence, it can %e said that -udicial notice is li$ited to facts evidenced %/ pu%lic records and facts of general notoriet/.51!6 1oreover, a -udiciall/ noticed fact $ust %e one not su%-ect to a reasona%le dispute in that it is either4 ;1< generall/ 8nown within the territorial -urisdiction of the trial court: or ;'< capa%le of accurate and read/ deter$ination %/ resorting to sources whose accurac/ cannot reasona%l/ %e ?uestiona%le.16 2hings of Bco$$on 8nowledge,B of which courts ta8e -udicial $atters co$ing to the 8nowledge of $en generall/ in the course of the ordinar/ e>periences of life, or the/ $a/ %e $atters which are generall/ accepted %/ $an8ind as true and are capa%le of read/ and un?uestioned de$onstration. 2hus, facts which are universall/ 8nown, and which $a/ %e found in enc/clopedias, dictionaries or other pu%lications, are -udiciall/ noticed, provided, the/ are of such universal notoriet/ and so generall/ understood that the/ $a/ %e regarded as for$ing part of the co$$on 8nowledge of ever/ person. )s the co$$on 8nowledge of $an ranges far and wide, a wide variet/ of particular facts have %een -udiciall/ noticed as %eing $atters of co$$on 8nowledge. !ut a &ourt &annot ta'e ?udi&ial noti&e o any a&t *hi&h, in part, is dependent on the e1isten&e or non-e1isten&e o a a&t o *hi&h the &ourt has no &onstru&tive 'no*ledge.1# In this age of $odern technolog/, the courts $a/ ta8e -udicial notice that %usiness transactions $a/ %e $ade %/ individuals through teleconferencing. 2eleconferencing is interactive group co$$unication ;three or $ore people in two or $ore locations< through an electronic $ediu$. In general ter$s, teleconferencing can %ring people together under one roof even though the/ are separated %/ hundreds of $iles.19 2his t/pe of group co$$unication $a/ %e used in a nu$%er of wa/s, and have three %asic t/pes4 ;1< video conferencing * television*li8e co$$unication aug$ented with sound: ;'< co$puter conferencing * printed co$$unication

through 8e/%oard ter$inals, and ;&< audio*conferencing*ver%al co$$unication via the telephone with optional capacit/ for telewriting or telecop/ing.1" ) teleconference represents a uni?ue alternative to face*to*face ;A2A< $eetings. It was first introduced in the 1"6(3s with )$erican 2elephone and 2elegraph3s ,icturephone. )t that ti$e, however, no de$and e>isted for the new technolog/. 2ravel costs were reasona%le and consu$ers were unwilling to pa/ the $onthl/ service charge for using the picturephone, which was regarded as $ore of a novelt/ than as an actual $eans for ever/da/ co$$unication.'( In ti$e, people found it advantageous to hold teleconferencing in the course of %usiness and corporate governance, %ecause of the $one/ saved, a$ong other advantages include4 1. ,eople ;including outside guest spea8ers< who wouldn3t nor$all/ attend a distant A2A $eeting can participate. '. Aollow*up to earlier $eetings can %e done with relative ease and little e>pense. &. Sociali@ing is $ini$al co$pared to an A2A $eeting: therefore, $eetings are shorter and $ore oriented to the pri$ar/ purpose of the $eeting. . So$e routine $eetings are $ore effective since one can audio*conference fro$ an/ location e?uipped with a telephone. !. Co$$unication %etween the ho$e office and field staffs is $a>i$i@ed. 6. Severe cli$ate andIor unrelia%le transportation $a/ necessitate teleconferencing. #. ,articipants are generall/ %etter prepared than for A2A $eetings. 9. It is particularl/ satisfactor/ for si$ple pro%le$*solving, infor$ation e>change, and procedural tas8s. ". +roup $e$%ers participate $ore e?uall/ in well*$oderated teleconferences than an A2A $eeting. '1 On the other hand, other private corporations opt not to hold teleconferences %ecause of the following disadvantages4 1. 2echnical failures with e?uip$ent, including connections that aren3t $ade. '. Ensatisfactor/ for co$ple> interpersonal co$$unication, such as negotiation or %argaining. &. I$personal, less eas/ to create an at$osphere of group rapport. . Gac8 of participant fa$iliarit/ with the e?uip$ent, the $ediu$ itself, and $eeting s8ills. !. )coustical pro%le$s within the teleconferencing roo$s. 6. Difficult/ in deter$ining participant spea8ing order: fre?uentl/ one person $onopoli@es the $eeting. #. +reater participant preparation ti$e needed. 9. Infor$al, one*to*one, social interaction not possi%le.'' Indeed, teleconferencing can onl/ facilitate the lin8ing of people: it does not alter the co$ple>it/ of group co$$unication. )lthough it $a/ %e easier to co$$unicate via teleconferencing, it $a/ also %e easier to $isco$$unicate. 2eleconferencing cannot satisf/ the individual needs of ever/ t/pe of $eeting.'&

In the ,hilippines, teleconferencing and videoconferencing of $e$%ers of %oard of directors of private corporations is a realit/, in light of Repu%lic )ct No. 9#"'. 2he Securities and E>change Co$$ission issued SEC 1e$orandu$ Circular No. 1!, on Nove$%er &(, '((1, providing the guidelines to %e co$plied with related to such conferences.' 2hus, the Court agrees with the R2C that persons in the ,hilippines $a/ have a teleconference with a group of persons in South Forea relating to %usiness transactions or corporate governance. Even given the possi%ilit/ that )tt/. )guinaldo and Su8 F/oo Fi$ participated in a teleconference along with the respondent3s .oard of Directors, the Court is not convinced that one was conducted: even if there had %een one, the Court is not inclined to %elieve that a %oard resolution was dul/ passed specificall/ authori@ing )tt/. )guinaldo to file the co$plaint and e>ecute the re?uired certification against foru$ shopping. 2he records show that the petitioner filed a $otion to dis$iss the co$plaint on the ground that the respondent failed to co$pl/ with Section !, Rule # of the Rules of Court. 2he respondent opposed the $otion on Dece$%er 1, 1""", on its contention that )tt/. )guinaldo, its resident agent, was dul/ authori@ed to sue in its %ehalf. 2he respondent, however, failed to esta%lish its clai$ that )tt/. )guinaldo was its resident agent in the ,hilippines. Even the identification card'! of )tt/. )guinaldo which the respondent appended to its pleading $erel/ showed that he is the co$pan/ law/er of the respondent3s 1anila Regional Office. 2he respondent, through )tt/. )guinaldo, announced the holding of the teleconference onl/ during the hearing of 0anuar/ '9, '(((: )tt/. )guinaldo then pra/ed for ten da/s, or until Ae%ruar/ 9, '(((, within which to su%$it the %oard resolution purportedl/ authori@ing hi$ to file the co$plaint and e>ecute the re?uired certification against foru$ shopping. 2he court granted the $otion.'6 2he respondent, however, failed to co$pl/, and instead pra/ed for 1! $ore da/s to su%$it the said resolution, contending that it was with its $ain office in Forea. 2he court granted the $otion per its Order'# dated Ae%ruar/ 11, '(((. 2he respondent again pra/ed for an e>tension within which to su%$it the said resolution, until 1arch 6, '(((.'9 It was on the said date that the respondent su%$itted an affidavit of its general $anager Su8 F/oo Fi$, stating, inter alia, that he and )tt/. )guinaldo attended the said teleconference on 0une '!, 1""", where the .oard of Directors supposedl/ approved the following resolution4 RESOGCED, that 1ario ). )guinaldo and his law fir$ 1.). )guinaldo U )ssociates or an/ of its law/ers are here%/ appointed and authori@ed to ta8e with whatever legal action necessar/ to effect the collection of the unpaid account of E>pert 2ravel U 2ours. 2he/ are here%/ specificall/ authori@ed to prosecute, litigate, defend, sign and e>ecute an/ docu$ent or paper necessar/ to the filing and prosecution of said clai$ in Court, attend the ,re*trial ,roceedings and enter into a co$pro$ise agree$ent relative to the a%ove*$entioned clai$.'" .ut then, in the sa$e affidavit, Su8 F/oo Fi$ declared that the respondent Bdo5es6 not 8eep a written cop/ of the aforesaid ResolutionB %ecause no records of %oard resolutions approved during teleconferences were 8ept. 2his %elied the respondent3s earlier allegation in its Ae%ruar/ 1(, '((( $otion for e>tension of ti$e to su%$it the ?uestioned resolution that it was in the custod/ of its $ain office in Forea. 2he respondent gave the trial court the i$pression that it needed ti$e to secure a cop/ of the resolution 8ept in Forea, onl/ to allege later ;via the affidavit of Su8 F/oo Fi$< that it had no such written cop/. 1oreover, Su8 F/oo Fi$ stated in his affidavit that the resolution was e$%odied in the Secretar/3sIResident )gent3s Certificate signed %/ )tt/. )guinaldo. Dowever, no such resolution was appended to the said certificate. 2he respondent3s allegation that its %oard of directors conducted a teleconference on 0une '!, 1""" and approved the said resolution ;with )tt/. )guinaldo in attendance< is incredi%le, given the additional fact that no such allegation was $ade in the co$plaint. If the resolution had indeed %een approved on 0une '!, 1""", long %efore the co$plaint was filed, the respondent should have incorporated it in its co$plaint, or at least appended a cop/ thereof. 2he respondent failed to do so. It was onl/ on 0anuar/ '9, '((( that the respondent clai$ed, for the first ti$e, that there was such a $eeting of the .oard of Directors held on 0une '!, 1""": it even represented to the Court that a cop/ of its resolution was with its $ain office in Forea, onl/ to allege later that no written cop/ e>isted. It was onl/ on 1arch 6, '((( that the respondent alleged, for the first ti$e, that the $eeting of the .oard of Directors where the resolution was approved was held via teleconference.

7orse still, it appears that as early as January 56, 5@@@, )tt/. )guinaldo had signed a Secretar/3sIResident )gent3s Certificate alleging that the %oard of directors held a tele&on eren&e on June A7, 5@@@. No such certificate was appended to the co$plaint, which was filed on Septe$%er 6, 1""". 1ore i$portantl/, the respondent did not e>plain wh/ the said certificate was signed %/ )tt/. )guinaldo as earl/ as 0anuar/ ", 1""", and /et was notari@ed one /ear later ;on 0anuar/ 1(, '(((<: it also did not e>plain its failure to append the said certificate to the co$plaint, as well as to its Co$pliance dated 1arch 6, '(((. It was onl/ on 0anuar/ '6, '((1 when the respondent filed its co$$ent in the C) that it su%$itted the Secretar/3sIResident )gent3s Certificate&( dated 0anuar/ 1(, '(((. 2he Court is, thus, $ore inclined to %elieve that the alleged teleconference on 0une '!, 1""" never too8 place, and that the resolution allegedl/ approved %/ the respondent3s .oard of Directors during the said teleconference was a $ere concoction purposefull/ foisted on the R2C, the C) and this Court, to avert the dis$issal of its co$plaint against the petitioner. IN LIG&T O4 ALL T&E 4OREGOING, the petition is +R)N2ED. 2he Decision of the Court of )ppeals in C)* +.R. S, No. 61((( is RECERSED and SE2 )SIDE. 2he Regional 2rial Court of 1anila is here%/ ORDERED to dis$iss, without pre-udice, the co$plaint of the respondent. SO OR%ERE%.

Case 6# EN .)NC

AG.R. Nos. 135695)96. O1"o$er 12, 2000C

PEOPLE O4 T&E P&ILIPPINES, plaintiff$appellee, vs. TOMAS T(N%AG, accused$appellant. %ECISION E(IS(M'ING, J.6 Aor auto$atic review is the -udg$ent of the Regional 2rial Court of 1andaue Cit/, .ranch '9, in Cri$inal Cases Nos.DE*6196 and DE*6'(&, finding appellant 2o$as 2undag guilt/ of two counts of incestuous rape and sentencing hi$ to death twice. On Nove$%er 19, 1""#, private co$plainant 1ar/ )nn 2undag filed with the 1andaue Cit/ ,rosecutor3s Office two separate co$plaints for incestuous rape. 2he first co$plaint, doc8eted as Cri$inal Case No. DE* 6196, alleged4 2hat on or a%out the !th da/ of Septe$%er, 1""#, in the Cit/ of 1andaue, ,hilippines, and within the -urisdiction of this Donora%le Court, the a%ove*na$ed accused, %eing the father of co$plainant 1)RL )NN 2END)+, who is a 1&*/ear*old girl, with deli%erate intent, did then and there wilfull/, unlawfull/ and feloniousl/ have se>ual intercourse with the said offended part/ against the latter3s will. CON2R)RL 2O G)7.516 2he other, doc8eted as Cri$inal Case No. DE*6'(&, averred4 2hat on or a%out the #th da/ of Nove$%er, 1""#, in the Cit/ of 1andaue, ,hilippines, and within the -urisdiction of this Donora%le Court, the a%ove*na$ed accused, %eing the father of co$plainant 1)RL )NN 2END)+, who is a 1&*/ear*old girl, with deli%erate intent, did then and there wilfull/, unlawfull/ and feloniousl/ have se>ual intercourse with the said offended part/ against the latter3s will. CON2R)RL 2O G)7.5'6 Epon arraign$ent appellant, assisted %/ counsel de parte, pleaded JNot +uilt/K to the charges. 2he two cases were consolidated and a -oint trial ensued. )ppellant3s defense was %are denial. De clai$ed that private co$plainant had fa%ricated the rape charges against hi$ since he and his daughter, Jhad a ?uarrel when he accordingl/ repri$anded her for going out whenever he was not at ho$e.K5&6 )ppellant did not present an/ witness to reinforce his testi$on/. On )ugust &1, 1""9, the trial court rendered its decision, thus4 7DEREAORE, foregoing pre$ises considered, 0oint 0udg$ent is here%/ rendered, to wit4 I. In Cri$inal Case No. DE*6196 *

a< Ainding the herein accused 2O1)S 2END)+ guilt/ %e/ond reasona%le dou%t for the cri$e of rape, said accused is here%/ sentenced to the penalt/ of death: %< 2o inde$nif/ the offended part/ 1ar/ )nn 2undag the following a$ounts4 ;1< ,!(,(((.(( %/ reason of the co$$ission of the offense of rape upon her: and ;'< )nother ,!(,(((.(( as $oral and e>e$plar/ da$ages under )rticle ''1" in relation to )rticles ''1# and ''&( of the New Civil Code for the pain and $oral shoc8 suffered %/ her and for the co$$ission of the cri$e of rape with one ?ualif/ing aggravating circu$stance: and c< 2o pa/ the costs. II. In Cri$inal Case No. DE*6'(& * a< Ainding the herein accused 2O1)S 2END)+ guilt/ %e/ond reasona%le dou%t for the cri$e of rape, said accused is here%/ sentenced to the penalt/ of death: %< 2o inde$nif/ the offended part/ 1ar/ )nn 2undag the following a$ounts4 ;1< ,!(,(((.(( %/ reason of the co$$ission of the offense of rape upon her: and ;'< )nother ,!(,(((.(( as $oral and e>e$plar/ da$ages under )rticle ''1" in relation to )rticles ''1# and ''&( of the New Civil Code for the pain and $oral shoc8 suffered %/ her and for the co$$ission of the cri$e of rape with one ?ualif/ing aggravating circu$stance: and ;&< 2o pa/ the costs. SO ORDERED.5
6

In its -udg$ent, the court %elow gave credence to co$plainant3s version of what accused did to her. 2he evidence for the prosecution as adduced during the trial on the $erits clearl/ shows that private co$plainant 1ar/ )nn 2undag is a 1& /ear old girl who does not 8now how to read and write and has an IM of #6R which is a ver/ low general $ental a%ilit/ and was living with her father, the herein accused, at +ala>/ Co$pound, 1andaue Cit/. >>> 2hat on Septe$%er !, 1""# at a%out 1(4(( o3cloc8 in the evening, she was in the house together with her father. .ut %efore she went to sleep, her father was alread/ l/ing down on the $at while herself ;sic< -ust lied down at his head side which was not necessaril/ %eside hi$. Dowever, when she was alread/ sleeping, she noticed that her father who was alread/ undressed was %eside her and was e$%racing her.2hen, he undressed her which she resisted %ut her father used a 8nife and told her that he would 8ill her if she shouts and after that, he inserted his penis into her vagina and told her not to shout or tell an/one.In effect, his penis penetrated her genital, which $ade her vagina %leed and was ver/ painful. 2hat when the penis of her father was alread/ inserted in her vagina, her father was all the ti$e as8ing %/ sa/ing ;sic< 4 TDoes it feel goodN3 )nd at the sa$e ti$e, he was laughing and further, told her that a wo$an who does not $arr/ can never enter heaven and he got angr/ with her when she contradicted his state$ent. 2hat while the penis of her father was inside her vagina and ;he< was hu$ping over her, she felt intense pain that she cried and told hi$ to pull it out %ut did not accede and in fact, said4 T7h/ will I pull it out when it feels so good;N<3

2hat after re$oving his penis fro$ her vagina and after telling her that she could not go to heaven if she did not get $arried, her father -ust sta/ed there and continued s$o8ing while she cried. 2hat in the evening of Nove$%er #, 1""#, she was at ho$e washing the dishes while her father was -ust s$o8ing and s?uatting. 2hat after she finished washing the dishes, she lied ;sic< down to sleep when her father e$%raced her and since she does not li8e what he did to her, she placed a stool %etween the$ %ut he -ust %rushed it aside and laid down with her and was a%le to ta8e her wo$anhood again %/ using a ver/ sharp 8nife which he was holding and was pointing it at the right side of her nec8 which $ade her afraid. 2hat in the earl/ $orning of the following da/, she left her father3s place and went to her neigh%or %/ the na$e of .e%ie Ca%ahug and told her what had happened to her, who, in turn, advised her to report the $atter to the police, which she did and acco$panied %/ the police$en, she went to the Southern Islands Dospital where she was e>a$ined and after her $edical e>a$ination, she was %rought %ac8 %/ the police and was investigated %/ the$.K5!6 )ppellant3s clai$ that the co$plainant3s charges were $anufactured did not i$press the trial court, which found hi$ twice guilt/ of rape. Now %efore us, appellant assails his dou%le conviction, si$pl/ contending that4566 2DE 2RI)G COER2 D)S CO11I22ED )N ERROR IN NO2 ).SOGCIN+ 2DE )CCESED*),,EGG)N2 OA 2DE CRI1ES CD)R+ED IN 2DE INAOR1)2IONS DES,I2E 2DE ,RESENCE OA RE)SON).GE DOE.2 2O EHCEG,)2E DI1 OA 2DE S)1E. )ppellant flatl/ denies that the incidents co$plained of ever too8 place. De contends that on Septe$%er !, 1""#, he was wor8ing as a watch repair$an near +al3s .a8er/ in 1andaue Cit/ 1ar8et and went ho$e tired and sleep/ at around 114(( o3cloc8 that evening. On Nove$%er #, 1""#, he clai$s he was at wor8. In his %rief, he argues that it was i$possi%le for hi$ to have raped his daughter %ecause when the incidents allegedl/ transpired, Jhe went to wor8 and naturall/, %eing e>hausted and tired, it is i$possi%le for hi$ to do such wrongdoings.K5#6 2he Office of the Solicitor +eneral disagrees with appellant and urges the Court to affir$ the trial court3s decision, with the reco$$endation that the award of da$ages and inde$nit/ e1 deli&to %e $odified to confor$ to prevailing -urisprudence. Considering the gravit/ of the offense charged as a heinous cri$e and the irreversi%ilit/ of the penalt/ of death i$posed in each of these cases %efore us, the Court leaves no stone unturned in its review of the records, including the evidence presented %/ %oth the prosecution and the defense. Conviction $ust rest on nothing less than a $oral certaint/ of guilt.596 .ut here we find no roo$ to distur% the trial court3s -udg$ent concerning appellant3s guilt, %ecause his defense is utterl/ untena%le. )ppellant3s defense of ali%i and denial is negative and self*serving. It hardl/ counts as a worth/ and weight/ ground for e>culpation in a trial involving his freedo$ and his life.)gainst the testi$on/ of private co$plainant who testified on affir$ative $atters,5"6 such defense is not onl/ trite %ut pathetic. Denial is an inherentl/ wea8 defense, which %eco$es even wea8er in the face of the positive identification %/ the victi$ of the appellant as the violator of her honor.51(6 Indeed, we find that private co$plainant was une?uivocal in charging appellant with ravishing her. 2he victi$3s account of the rapes co$plained of was straightforward, detailed, and consistent.5116 Der testi$on/ never wavered even after it had %een e>plained to her that her father could %e $eted out the death penalt/ if found guilt/ %/ the court.51'6 In a prosecution for rape, the co$plainant3s credi%ilit/ is the single $ost i$portant issue.51&6 2he deter$ination of the credi%ilit/ of witnesses is pri$aril/ the function of the trial court. 2he rationale for this is that the trial court has the advantage of having o%served at first hand the de$eanor of the witnesses on the stand and, therefore, is in a %etter position to for$ an accurate i$pression and conclusion. 51 6 )%sent an/ showing that certain facts of value have clearl/ %een overloo8ed, which if considered could affect the result of the case, or that the trial court3s finding are clearl/ ar%itrar/, the conclusions reached %/ the court of origin $ust %e respected and the -udg$ent rendered affir$ed.51!6

1oreover, we note here that private co$plainant3s testi$on/ is corro%orated %/ $edical findings that lacerations were present in her h/$en. 2he e>a$ination conducted %/ Dr. .essie )ce%es upon the private co$plainant /ielded the following results4 +enitalia4 grossl/ fe$ale ,u%ic Dairs4 scant/ Ga%ia 1a-ora4 coaptated Ga%ia 1inora4 *do* Aourchette4 E*shaped Cesti%ule4 pin8ish D/$en4 X old healed laceration at & and " o3cloc8 position;s<. Orifice4 ad$its ' fingers with ease Cagina4 7alls4 pin8ish Ruganities4 pro$inent Eterus4 s$all Cervi>4 closed Discharges4 1ucoid, $ini$al S$ears4 Conclusions4 sper$ identification ;*< +ra$ staining of vaginal disc.5166 Dr. )ce%es testified that her findings of healed h/$enal lacerations in the co$plainant3s private parts $eant a histor/ of se>ual congress on her part.51#6 )ccording to her, the lacerations $a/ have %een caused %/ the entr/ of an erect $ale organ into co$plainant3s genitals. 2he e>a$ining ph/sician li8ewise pointed out that previous coitus $a/ %e inferred fro$ co$plainant3s E*shaped fourchette since the fourchette of a fe$ale who has not /et e>perienced se>ual intercourse is C*shaped. 5196 7hile Dr. )ce%es conceded under cross* e>a$ination, that the e>istence of the datu$ JE*shape;d< fourchette does not conclusivel/ and a%solutel/ $ean that there was se>ual intercourse or contact %ecause it can %e caused %/ $astur%ation of fingers or other things,K51"6 nonetheless, the presence of the h/$enal lacerations tends to support private co$plainant3s clai$ that she was raped %/ appellant. )ppellant ne>t contends that his daughter pressed the rape charges against hi$ %ecause she had ?uarreled with hi$ after he had castigated her for $is%ehavior. De stresses that the prosecution did not re%ut his testi$on/ regarding his ?uarrel or $isunderstanding with private co$plainant. De urges us to consider the charges filed against hi$ as the result of his fre?uent castigation of her delin?uent %ehavior.5'(6 Such allegation of a fa$il/ feud, however, does not e>plain the charges awa/. Ailing a case for incestuous rape is of such a nature that a daughter3s accusation $ust %e ta8en seriousl/. It goes against hu$an

e>perience that a girl would fa%ricate a stor/ which would drag herself as well as her fa$il/ to a lifeti$e of dishonor, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. 5'16 1ore so, where her charges could $ean the death of her own father, as in this case. )ppellant li8ewise points out that it was ver/ unli8el/ for hi$ to have co$$itted the cri$es i$puted to hi$ considering that he and his wife had ten children to attend to and care for. 2his argu$ent, however, is i$pertinent and i$$aterial. )ppellant was estranged fro$ his wife, and private co$plainant was the onl/ child who lived with hi$.5''6 )s pointed out %/ the Solicitor +eneral, appellant was thus Jfree to do as he wished to satisf/ his %estial lust on his daughter.K5'&6 Nor does appellant3s assertion that private co$plainant has so$e ps/chological pro%le$s and a low IM of #6 in an/ wa/ favor his defense. 2hese $atters did not affect the credi%ilit/ of her testi$on/ that appellant raped her twice. 7e note that the victi$ understood the conse?uences of prosecuting the rape charges against her own father, as shown %/ the following testi$on/ of the victi$ on cross*e>a$ination4 M 4 7ere /ou infor$ed that if, and when /our father will %e found guilt/, /our father will %e sentenced to deathN ) 4 Les. M 4 Entil now /ou wanted that /our father will %e sentenced %/ deathN ) ;7itness nodding.< >>> M 4 I will infor$ /ou, 1iss 7itness, that /ou have filed two cases against /our father and in case /our father would %e found guilt/, two death sentences will %e i$posed against hi$N )4 Les. M4 7ith that infor$ation, do /ou still want this case would proceedN )4 I want this to proceed.5'
6

Indeed, appellant is guilt/. .ut is the penalt/ of death i$posed on hi$ correctN Section &&! of the Revised ,enal Code, as a$ended %/ Section 11 of R.). No. #6!", 5'!6 penali@es rape of a $inor daughter %/ her father as ?ualified rape5'66 and a heinous cri$e. In proving such felon/, the prosecution $ust allege and prove the ele$ents of rape4 ;1< se>ual congress: ;'< with wo$an: ;&< %/ force or without her consent5'#6 and in order to warrant the i$position of capital punish$ent, the additional ele$ents that4 ; < the victi$ is under 19 /ears of age at the ti$e of the rape and ;!< the offender is a parent of the victi$.5'96 In this case, it was sufficientl/ alleged and proven that the offender was the victi$3s father. 5'"6 .ut the victi$3s age was not properl/ and sufficientl/ proved %e/ond reasona%le dou%t. She testified that she was thirteen /ears old at the ti$e of the rapes. Dowever, she ad$itted that she did not 8now e>actl/ when she was %orn %ecause her $other did not tell her. She further said that her %irth certificate was li8ewise with her $other. In her own words, the victi$ testified * 5&(6 COER2 2O 7I2NESS M4 7hen were /ou %ornN )4 I do not 8now. M4 Lou do not 8now /our %irthda/N )4 1/ $a$a did not tell $e e>actl/ when I as8ed her. COER24 ,roceed. AISC)G ,ERES4 Aor our failure to secure the .irth Certificate Lour Donor, $a/ we -ust re?uest for -udicial notice that the victi$ here is %elow 19 /ears old. )22L. SER)G2)4 )d$itted. W

0udicial notice is the cogni@ance of certain facts which -udges $a/ properl/ ta8e and act on without proof %ecause the/ alread/ 8now the$.5&16 Ender the Rules of Court, -udicial notice $a/ either %e $andator/ or discretionar/. Section 1 of Rule 1'" of the Rules of Court provides when court shall ta8e $andator/ -udicial notice of facts * SEC2ION 1. 0udicial notice, when $andator/. * ) court shall ta8e -udicial notice without the introduction of evidence, of the e>istence and territorial e>tent of states, their political histor/, for$s of govern$ent and s/$%ols of nationalit/, the law of nations, the ad$iralt/ and $ariti$e courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and histor/ of the ,hilippines, the official acts of the legislative, e>ecutive and -udicial depart$ents of the ,hilippines, the laws of nature, the $easure of ti$e, and the geographical divisions. Section ' of Rule 1'" enu$erates the instances when courts $a/ ta8e discretionar/ -udicial notice of facts * SEC. '. Judi&ial noti&e, *hen dis&retionary. * ) court $a/ ta8e -udicial notice of $atters which are of pu%lic 8nowledge, or are capa%le of un?uestiona%le de$onstration or ought to %e 8nown to -udges %ecause of their -udicial functions. 2hus, it can %e considered of pu%lic 8nowledge and -udiciall/ noticed that the scene of the rape is not alwa/s nor necessaril/ isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of ti$e or place. 2he offense of rape can and has %een co$$itted in places where people congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are occupants, a five ;!< $eter roo$ with five ;!< people inside, or even in the sa$e roo$ which the victi$ is sharing with the accused3s sister.5&'6 2he Court has li8ewise ta8en -udicial notice of the Ailipina3s in%red $odest/ and sh/ness and her antipath/ in pu%licl/ airing acts which %le$ish her honor and virtue.5&&6 On the other hand, $atters which are capa%le of un?uestiona%le de$onstration pertain to fields of professional and scientific 8nowledge. Aor e>a$ple, in People v. $li&ante,5& 6the trial court too8 -udicial notice of the clinical records of the attending ph/sicians concerning the %irth of twin %a%/ %o/s as Jpre$atureK since one of the alleged rapes had occurred 6 to # $onths earlier. )s to $atters which ought to %e 8nown to -udges %ecause of their -udicial functions, an e>a$ple would %e facts which are ascertaina%le fro$ the record of court proceedings, e.g. as to when court notices were received %/ a part/. 7ith respect to other $atters not falling within the $andator/ or discretionar/ -udicial notice, the court can ta8e -udicial notice of a fact pursuant to the procedure in Section & of Rule 1'" of the Rules of Court which re?uires that * SEC. &. Judi&ial noti&e, *hen hearing ne&essary. - During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on re?uest of a part/, $a/ announce its intention to ta8e -udicial notice of an/ $atter and allow the parties to %e heard thereon. )fter the trial, and %efore -udg$ent or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on re?uest of a part/, $a/ ta8e -udicial notice of an/ $atter and allow the parties to %e heard thereon if such $atter is decisive of a $aterial issue in the case. In this case, -udicial notice of the age of the victi$ is i$proper, despite the defense counsel3s ad$ission, thereof acceding to the prosecution3s $otion. )s re?uired %/ Section & of Rule 1'", as to an/ other $atters such as age, a hearing is re?uired %efore courts can ta8e -udicial notice of such fact. +enerall/, the age of the victi$ $a/ %e proven %/ the %irth or %aptis$al certificate of the victi$, or in the a%sence thereof, upon showing that said docu$ents were lost or destro/ed, %/ other docu$entar/ or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose. 2hus, in People v. Reban&os, 1#' SCR) '6 ;1"9"<, the victi$ was %elow 1' and we found that the rape co$$itted was statutor/ rape. 2he $other testified that her daughter was %orn on Octo%er '6, 1"# , and so was onl/ " /ears old at the ti$e of the rape on Ae%ruar/ 1', 1"9 . )lthough no %irth certificate was presented %ecause the victi$3s %irth had allegedl/ not %een registered, her %aptis$al certificate was dul/

presented. Dence, we ruled that the $other3s testi$on/ coupled with the presentation of the %aptis$al certificate was sufficient to esta%lish that the victi$ was %elow 1' at the ti$e of the rape. Dowever, in People v. Bargas, '!# SCR) 6(& ;1""6<, we ruled that appellant can onl/ %e convicted of si$ple rape, and not statutor/ rape, %ecause of failure of the prosecution to prove the $inorit/ of the victi$, who was allegedl/ 1( /ears old at the ti$e of the rape. 2he prosecution failed to present either the %irth or %aptis$al certificate of the victi$. )lso there was no showing that the said docu$ents were lost or destro/ed to -ustif/ their non*presentation. 7e held that testi$on/ of the victi$ and her aunt were hearsa/, and that it was not correct for the trial court to -udge the age of the victi$ %/ her appearance. In several recent cases, we have e$phasi@ed the need for independent proof of the age of the victi$, aside fro$ testi$onial evidence fro$ the victi$ or her relatives. In People v. Javier,5&!6 we stressed that the prosecution $ust present independent proof of the age of the victi$, even though it is not contested %/ the defense. 2he $inorit/ of the victi$ $ust %e proved with e?ual certaint/ and clearness as the cri$e itself. In People v. Cula,5&66 we reiterated that it is the %urden of the prosecution to prove with certaint/ the fact that the victi$ was %elow 19 when the rape was co$$itted in order to -ustif/ the i$position of the death penalt/. Since the record of the case was %ereft of an/ independent evidence thereon, such as the victi$3s dul/ certified Certificate of Give .irth, accuratel/ showing private co$plainant3s age, appellant could not %e convicted of rape in its ?ualified for$. In People v. Beloso,5&#6 the victi$ was alleged to have %een onl/ " /ears of age at the ti$e of the rape. It held that the trial court was correct when it ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the victi$3s age other than through the testi$on/ of her father and herself. Considering the statutor/ re?uire$ent in Section &&! of the Revised ,enal Code as a$ended %/ R.). No. #6!" and R.). No. 9&!&, we reiterate here what the Court has held in Javier without an/ dissent, that the failure to sufficientl/ esta%lish victi$3s age %/ independent proof is a %ar to conviction for rape in its ?ualified for$. Aor, in the words of 1elo, J., Jindependent proof of the actual age of a rape victi$ %eco$es vital and essential so as to re$ove an Tiota of dou%t3 that the case falls under the ?ualif/ing circu$stancesK for the i$position of the death penalt/ set %/ the law. In this case, the first rape was co$$itted on Septe$%er !, 1""# and is therefore governed %/ the death penalt/ law, R.). #6!". 2he penalt/ for the cri$e of si$ple rape or rape in its un?ualified for$ under )rt. &&! of the Revised ,enal Code, as a$ended %/ Sec. 11 of R.). #6!", is re&lusion perpetua. 2he second rape was co$$itted on Nove$%er #, 1""#, after the effectivit/ of R.). 9&!&, also 8nown as the )nti*Rape Gaw of 1""#, which too8 effect on Octo%er '', 1""#. 2he penalt/ for rape in its un?ualified for$ re$ains the sa$e. )s to civil inde$nit/, the trial court correctl/ awarded ,!(,(((.(( for each count of rape as civil inde$nit/. Dowever, the award of another ,!(,(((.(( as J$oral and e>e$plar/ da$ages under )rticle ''1" in relation to )rticles ''1# and ''&( of the Civil CodeK for each count is i$precise. In rape cases, the prevailing -urisprudence per$its the award of $oral da$ages without need for pleading or proof as to the %asis thereof. 5&96 2hus, pursuant to current -urisprudence, we award the a$ount of ,!(,(((.(( as $oral da$ages for each count of rape. 2he award of e>e$plar/ da$ages separatel/ is also in order, %ut on a different %asis and for a different a$ount. )ppellant %eing the father of the victi$, a fact dul/ proved during trial, we find that the alternative circu$stance of relationship should %e appreciated here as an aggravating circu$stance. Ender )rticle ''&( of the New Civil Code, e>e$plar/ da$ages $a/ %e i$posed when the cri$e was co$$itted with one or $ore aggravating circu$stances. Dence, we find an award of e>e$plar/ da$ages in the a$ount of ,'!,(((.(( proper. Note that generall/, in rape cases i$posing the death penalt/, the rule is that relationship is no longer appreciated as a generic aggravating circu$stance in view of the a$end$ents introduced %/ R.). Nos. #6!" and 9&!&. 2he father*daughter relationship has %een treated %/ Congress in the nature of a special circu$stance which $a8es the i$position of the death penalt/ $andator/. 5&"6 Dowever, in this case, the special ?ualif/ing circu$stance of relationship was proved %ut not the $inorit/ of the victi$, ta8ing the case out of the a$%it of $andator/ death sentence. Dence, relationship can %e appreciated as a generic aggravating circu$stance in this instance so that e>e$plar/ da$ages are called for. In rapes co$$itted %/ fathers on their own daughters, e>e$plar/ da$ages $a/ %e i$posed to deter other fathers with perverse tendenc/ or a%errant se>ual %ehavior fro$ se>uall/ a%using their own daughters.5 (6 @&ERE4ORE, the -udg$ent of the Regional 2rial Court of 1andaue Cit/, .ranch '9, in Cri$inal Case Nos. DE*6196 and DE*6'(&, is here%/ 1ODIAIED as follows4 appellant 2o$as 2undag is found guilt/ of two

;'< counts of si$ple rape: and for each count, sentenced to re&lusion perpetua and ordered to pa/ the victi$ the a$ount of ,!(,(((.(( as inde$nit/, ,!(,(((.(( as $oral da$ages, and ,'!,(((.(( as e>e$plar/ da$ages. No pronounce$ent as to costs. SO OR%ERE%.

Case 69 AIRS2 DICISION

AG. R. No. 13F25F. ,a!-ary 1F, 2002C

E%%IE &ERRERA, ERNESTO T. TI,ING, a!# CONRA%O 'OLLOS, petitioners, vs. TEO%ORA 'OLLOS a!# RICO GO, respondents. %ECISION PAR%O, J.6

T/e Case 2he case is a petition for review on &ertiorari of the decision of the Court of )ppeals516 affir$ing that of the Regional 2rial Court, .ranch , Du$aguete Cit/, which reversed the ruling of the $unicipal trial court that it has -urisdiction over the case of forci%le entr/.

T/e 4a1"s 2he facts, as found %/ the Court of )ppeals, are as follows4 J$b initio, on )ugust !, 1""&, 2eodora .ollos co$$enced %efore the 1unicipal Circuit 2rial Court of .a/awan* .asa/ Civil Case No. ""&, for forci%le entr/, solel/ against Eddie Derrera alleging that the latter, so$eti$e in the second wee8 of 1""&, through stealth and strateg/ and ta8ing advantage of the a%sence of 2eodora, entered and occupied her Sugarland 8nown as Got No. '(, +SS*61!, located at Ca$andagan, 1anin/on, .a/awan, Negros Oriental. 2eodora clai$s to have inherited said parcel, %eing the onl/ heir, fro$ her deceased father, )lfonso .ollos, who died on Dece$%er 1(, 1""'. JDefendant, Eddie Derrera, denied the allegations against hi$ $aintaining that he entered and occupied not Got No. '(, as clai$ed %/ 2eodora, %ut Got No. '1, +SS*61!, which is owned %/ Conrado .ollos, a %rother of 2eodora3s father, )lfonso. Aurther, Derrera said that his occupation of the propert/ was not through stealth or strateg/ %ut %/ virtue of a contract of lease e>ecuted %etween Conrado .ollos, as lessor, and Ernesto 2i-ing, as lessee. Derrera is 2i-ing3s overseer on the land. J)s a conse?uence, the co$plaint was twice a$ended, first, on 1arch '&, 1"" to include Ernesto 2. 2i-ing as a part/*defendant and $uch later on Octo%er , 1""!, this ti$e to i$plead Conrado .ollos as an additional defendant. J)fter due proceedings, the first level court rendered its -udg$ent dispositivel/ ruling4 T)CCORDIN+GL, in the light of the foregoing considerations for plaintiffs3 failure to $a8e*out a forci%le entr/ case %ecause of lac8 of -urisdiction the a%ove*entitled case is here%/ DIS1ISSED. ,laintiffs3 re$ed/ should %e reivendicator/ ;sic< action %efore the proper foru$. TSO ORDERED. T+iven this &(th da/ of 0une, 1""#, at .a/awan, Negros Oriental, ,hilippines.

T;S+D.< REDL 2. ENRIMEES TCircuit 0udge3 T;p. 11, 1C2C Decision: p. 6", Rollo< JOn )ppeal to the Regional 2rial Court of Du$aguete Cit/, doc8eted as Civil Case No. 1'(1 , the challenged verdict was reversed in a Decision dated Octo%er '1, 1""#, the decretal portion reads4 T7DEREAORE, as pra/ed for %/ plaintiffs*appellants, -udg$ent is here%/ rendered restoring Got No. '(, +SS* 61! to the plaintiffs and e-ecting the defendants fro$ the said parcel of land. Defendants*appellees are conde$ned to solidaril/ pa/ plaintiffs*appellants the following4 T)ctual Da$ages = ,!(,(((.((: T1oral Da$ages = ,'!,(((.(( T)ttorne/3s Aees * , !,(((.(( TReasona%le rentalI$onth fro$ the date of this -udg$ent of ,',(((.(( and to pa/ the costs. TSO ORDERED. T+ICEN this '1st da/ of Octo%er, 1""#, in the Cit/ of Du$aguete, ,hilippines. T;S+D.< )GCIN G. 2)N T0udge3 T;p. 1&, R2C Decision: p. '#, Rollo<35'6 On 1arch 1', 1""9, petitioners filed with the Court of )ppeals a petition for review assailing the ruling of the regional trial court.5&6 On Dece$%er 19, 1""9, the Court of )ppeals pro$ulgated a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads4 JIN CIE7 OA 2DE AORE+OIN+, the appealed decision is here%/ a..*r7e#, e81e " "/a" "/e a<ar# o. a1"-a0 a!# 7ora0 #a7a+es therein contained are deleted. No pronounce$ent as to costs. JSO ORDERED.K5
6

On Ae%ruar/ 1, 1""", petitioners filed with the Court of )ppeals a $otion for reconsideration of the a%ove* cited decision.5!6 On 1arch 9, 1""", the Court of )ppeals denied the $otion.566 Dence, this appeal.5#6

T/e Iss-es 2he issues raised are4 ;a< Is the $unicipal trial court vested with -urisdiction over a second a$ended co$plaint i$pleading a new defendant filed %e/ond one /ear fro$ dispossession alleging a case of forci%le entr/ in the original actionN 1a/ the regional trial court award $oral and e>e$plar/ da$ages against defendants in an appeal fro$ a dis$issal of the case for forci%le entr/ %/ the lower courtN 596

;%<

T/e Co-r"Is R-0*!+ 7e den/ the petition. Resolving the first issue, we e$phasi@e the %asic rule that -urisdiction of the court over the su%-ect $atter of the action is deter$ined %/ the allegations of the co$plaint at the ti$e of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or so$e of the clai$s asserted therein. 5"6 J7hat deter$ines the -urisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing fro$ the allegations in the co$plaint. 2he aver$ents therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to %e consulted.K51(6 In the case at %ar, plaintiffs3 co$plaint, %oth original and a$ended, contains sufficient allegations constituting an action for forci%le entr/, as clearl/ alleged in paragraphs and ! of the co$plaint, to wit4 J . 2hat plaintiffs and even their predecessor*in*interest )lfonso .ollos were in peaceful, adverse, continuous possession of the propert/ and in &on&epto de dueno until the co$$ission of the act or acts of dispossession or deprivation %/ the defendant hereinafter $entioned. J!. 2hat so$eti$e in the second wee8 of 0une, 1""&, defendant pursuant to an avaricious intent of enriching hi$self at the e>pense of the plaintiffs, through stealth and strateg/, and ta8ing advantage of the a%sence of the latter, entered and occupied the propert/ in ?uestion and without an/ legal -ustification therefore, fertili@ed the sugar cane rations growing thereon and planted the vacant portions with sugar cane.5116 2hus, we find that the co$plaint alleged prior ph/sical possession de a&to which the defendants distur%ed %/ force, inti$idation, threat, strateg/ or stealth, against the will or without the consent of the plaintiffs, sufficient to constitute a cause of action for forci%le entr/. In fact, defendants ad$itted the truth of the foregoing facts in their answer and first a$ended answer. 2he thrust of their defense was that the/ had occupied Got No. '1, not Got No. '(, which is the land in ?uestion. On the second issue, the concept of da$ages in an action for forci%le entr/ and detainer cases is well defined in several cases.51'6 2hese da$ages $ean JrentsK or Jthe reasona%le co$pensation for the use and occupation of the pre$ises,K or Jfair rental value of the propert/.K 51&6 2e$perate, actual, $oral and e>e$plar/ are neither rents nor reasona%le co$pensation for the use and occupation of the pre$ises, nor fair rental value, and are not recovera%le in such cases.51 6 In the case at %ar, the $unicipal trial court dis$issed the case for lac8 of -urisdiction, and the regional trial court reversed the dis$issal %ut rendered -udg$ent e-ecting the defendants fro$ the parcel of land involved, and conde$ning the$ to pa/ da$ages and attorne/3s fees. 2his is not correct. In case of reversal, the case shall %e re$anded to the $unicipal trial court for further proceedings. 51!6 2he regional trial court in reversing an appealed case dis$issing the action cannot decree the eviction of the defendants and award da$ages. ) court cannot ta8e -udicial notice of a factual $atter in controvers/. 2he court $a/ ta8e -udicial notice of $atters of pu%lic 8nowledge, or which are capa%le of un?uestiona%le de$onstration, or ought to %e 8nown to -udges %ecause of their -udicial functions.5166 .efore ta8ing such -udicial notice, the court $ust Jallow the parties to %e heard thereon.K51#6 Dence, there can %e no -udicial notice on the rental value of the pre$ises in ?uestion without supporting evidence.

T/e ,-#+7e!" IN 5IE@ @&EREO4, the Court DENIES the petition. Dowever, the Court SE2S )SIDE the decisions of the Court of )ppeals5196 and the Regional 2rial Court. 51"6 2he Court re$ands the case to the $unicipal trial court for further proceedings. No costs. SO OR%ERE%.

Case 6" A.M. No. RT,)92)FB6 Se "e7$er 19, 1994 STATE PROSEC(TORS, co$plainants, vs. ,(%GE MAN(EL T. M(RO, Re+*o!a0 Tr*a0 Co-r", 'ra!1/ 54, Ma!*0a, respondent.

PER C(RIAM6 In assa/ing the re?uisite nor$s for ?ualifications and e$inence of a $agistrate, legal authorities place a pre$iu$ on how he has co$plied with his continuing dut/ to 8now the law. ) ?ualit/ thus considered essential to the -udicial character is that of Ba $an of learning who spends tirelessl/ the wear/ hours after $idnight ac?uainting hi$self with the great %od/ of traditions and the learning of the law: is profoundl/ learned in all the learning of the law: and 8nows how to use that learning.B 1 O%viousl/, it is the pri$ar/ dut/ of a -udge, which he owes to the pu%lic and to the legal profession, to 8now the ver/ law he is supposed to appl/ to a given controvers/. De is called upon to e>hi%it $ore than -ust a cursor/ ac?uaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. ,art/ litigants will have great faith in the ad$inistration of -ustice if -udges cannot -ustl/ %e accused of apparent deficienc/ in their grasp of the legal principles. Aor, service in the -udiciar/ $eans a continuous stud/ and research on the law fro$ %eginning to end. 2 In a letter*co$plaint 3 dated )ugust 1", 1""', respondent 0udge 1anuel 2. 1uro of the Regional 2rial Court ;R2C< of 1anila, .ranch ! , was charged %/ State ,rosecutors Nilo C. 1ariano, +eorge C. Dee and ,aterno C. 2ac*an with ignorance of the law, grave $isconduct and violations of Rules '.(1, &.(1 and &.(' of the Code of 0udicial Conduct, co$$itted as follows4 1. 2hat on )ugust 1&, 1""', respondent -udge issued an Order dis$issing eleven ;11< cases ;doc8eted as Cri$. Cases Nos. "'*1(1"!" to "'* 1(1"6", inclusive< filed %/ the undersigned co$plainant prosecutors ;$e$%ers of the DO0 ,anel of ,rosecutors< against the accused 1rs. I$elda Ro$ualde@ 1arcos, for Ciolation of Central .an8 Aoreign E>change Restrictions, as consolidated in C. Circular No. "6(, in relation to the penal provisions of Sec. & of R.). '6!, as a$ended, . . .: '. 2hat respondent 0udge issued his Order solel/ on the %asis of newspaper reports ;)ugust 11, 1""' issues of the ,hilippine Dail/ In?uirer and the Dail/ +lo%e< concerning the announce$ent on )ugust 1(, 1""' %/ the ,resident of the ,hilippines of the lifting %/ the govern$ent of all foreign e>change restrictions and the arrival at such decision %/ the 1onetar/ .oard as per state$ent of Central .an8 +overnor 0ose Cuisia: &. 2hat clai$ing that the reported announce$ent of the E>ecutive Depart$ent on the lifting of foreign e>change restrictions %/ two newspapers which are reputa%le and of national circulation had the effect of repealing Central .an8 Circular No. "6(, as allegedl/ supported %/ Supre$e Court decisions . . ., the Court contended that it was deprived of -urisdiction, and, therefore, $otu, prop;r<io had to dis$iss all the eleven cases afore$entioned Bfor not to do so opens this Court to charges of tr/ing cases over which it has no $ore -urisdiction:B . 2hat in dis$issing aforecited cases on )ugust 1&, 1""' on the %asis of a Central .an8 Circular or 1onetar/ .oard Resolution which as of date hereof, has not even %een officiall/ issued, and %asing his OrderIdecision on a $ere newspaper account of the advance announce$ent $ade %/ the ,resident of the said fact of lifting or li%erali@ing foreign e>change controls, respondent -udge acted pre$aturel/ and in indecent haste, as he had no wa/ of deter$ining the full intent of the new C. Circular or 1onetar/ .oard resolution, and whether the sa$e provided for e>ception, as in the case of persons who had pending cri$inal cases %efore the courts for violations of Central .an8 Circulars andIor regulations previousl/ issued on the $atter:

!. 2hat respondent 0udgeQs arrogant and cavalier posture in ta8ing -udicial notice purportedl/ as a $atter of pu%lic 8nowledge a $ere newspaper account that the ,resident had announced the lifting of foreign e>change restrictions as %asis for his assailed order of dis$issal is highl/ irregular, erroneous and $isplaced. Aor the respondent -udge to ta8e -udicial notice thereof even %efore it is officiall/ released %/ the Central .an8 and its full te>t pu%lished as re?uired %/ law to %e effective shows his precipitate action in utter disregard of the funda$ental precept of due process which the ,eople is also entitled to and e>poses his gross ignorance of the law, there%/ tarnishing pu%lic confidence in the integrit/ of the -udiciar/. Dow can the Donora%le 0udge ta8e -udicial notice of so$ething which has not /et co$e into force and the contents, shape and tenor of which have not /et %een pu%lished and ascertained to %e the %asis of -udicial actionN 2he Donora%le 0udge had $isera%l/ failed to Bendeavor diligentl/ to ascertain the factsB in the case at %ar contrar/ to Rule &.(' of the Code of 0udicial Conduct constituting +rave 1isconduct: 6. 2hat respondent 0udge did not even ha;ve< the prudence of re?uiring first the co$$ent of the prosecution on the effect of aforesaid Central .an8 CircularI1onetar/ .oard resolution on the pending cases %efore dis$issing the sa$e, there%/ den/ing the +overn$ent of its right to due process: #. 2hat the lightning speed with which respondent 0udge acted to dis$iss the cases $a/ %e gleaned fro$ the fact that such precipitate action was underta8en despite alread/ scheduled continuation of trial dates set in the order of the court ;the prosecution having started presenting its evidence . . .< dated )ugust 11, 1""' to wit4 )ugust &1, Septe$%er &, 1(, '1, U '& and Octo%er 1, 1""', all at "4&( oQcloc8 in the $orning, in %ra@en disregard of all notions of fair pla/, there%/ depriving the +overn$ent of its right to %e heard, and clearl/ e>posing his %ias and partialit/: and 9. 2hat, in fact, the $otive of respondent 0udge in dis$issing the case without even waiting for a $otion to ?uash filed %/ the counsel for accused has even placed his dis$issal Order suspect. ,ursuant to a resolution of this Court dated Septe$%er 9, 1""', respondent -udge filed his co$$ent, 4contending, inter alia, that there was no need to await pu%lication of the Central .an8 ;C.< circular repealing the e>isting law on foreign e>change controls for the si$ple reason that the pu%lic announce$ent $ade %/ the ,resident in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign e>change controls was total, a%solute, without ?ualification, and was i$$ediatel/ effective: that having acted onl/ on the %asis of such announce$ent, he cannot %e %la$ed for rel/ing on the erroneous state$ent of the ,resident that the new foreign e>change rules rendered $oot and acade$ic the cases filed against 1rs. 1arcos, and which was corrected onl/ on )ugust 1#, 1""' %ut pu%lished in the newspapers on )ugust 19, 1""', and onl/ after respondent -udge had issued his order of dis$issal dated )ugust 1&, 1""': that the ,resident was ill*advised %/ his advisers and, instead of rescuing the Chief E>ecutive fro$ e$%arrass$ent %/ assu$ing responsi%ilit/ for errors in the latterQs announce$ent, the/ chose to toss the %la$e for the conse?uence of their failures to respondent -udge who $erel/ acted on the %asis of the announce$ents of the ,resident which had %eco$e of pu%lic 8nowledge: that the Bsaving clauseB under C. Circular No. 1&!& specificall/ refers onl/ to pending actions or investigations involving violations of C. Circular No. 1&19, whereas the eleven cases dis$issed involved charges for violations of C. Circular No. "6(, hence the accused cannot %e tried and convicted under a law different fro$ that under which she was charged: that assu$ing that respondent -udge erred in issuing the order of dis$issal, the proper re$ed/ should have %een an appeal therefro$ %ut definitel/ not an ad$inistrative co$plaint for his dis$issal: that a $ista8e co$$itted %/ a -udge should not necessaril/ %e i$puted as ignorance of the law: and that a Bcourt can reverse or $odif/ a doctrine %ut it does not show ignorance of the -ustices or -udges whose decisions were reversed or $odifiedB %ecause Beven doctrines initiated %/ the Supre$e Court are later reversed, so how $uch $ore for the lower courtsNB De further argued that no hearing was necessar/ since the prosecution had nothing to e>plain %ecause, as he theori@ed, B7hat e>planation could have %een givenN 2hat the ,resident was tal8ing Qthrough his hatQ ;to use a collo?uialis$< and should not %e %elievedN 2hat I should wait for the pu%lication ;as now alleged %/ co$plainants<, of a still then non*e>istent C. circularN . . . )s it turned out, C. Circular No. &1!& ;sic< does not

affect $/ dis$issal order %ecause the said circularQs so*called saving clause does not refer to C. Circular "6( under which the charges in the dis$issed cases were %ased:B that it was discretionar/ on hi$ to ta8e -udicial notice of the facts which are of pu%lic 8nowledge, pursuant to Section ' of Rule 1'": that the contention of co$plainants that he acted pre$aturel/ and in indecent haste for %asing his order of dis$issal on a $ere newspaper account is contrar/ to the wordings of the newspaper report wherein the ,resident announced the lifting of controls as an acco$plished fact, not as an intention to %e effected in the future, %ecause of the use of the present perfect tense or past tense Bhas lifted,B not that he Bintends to lift,B foreign e>change controls. Ainall/, respondent -udge asseverates that co$plainants who are officers of the Depart$ent of 0ustice, violated Section 6, Rule 1 ( of the Rules of Court which provides that Bproceedings against -udges of first instance shall %e private and confidentialB when the/ caused to %e pu%lished in the newspapers the filing of the present ad$inistrative case against hi$: and he e$phasi@es the fact that he had to i$$ediatel/ resolve a si$ple and pure legal $atter in consonance with the ad$onition of the Supre$e Court for speed/ disposition of cases. In their repl/ 5 and supple$ental repl/, 6 co$plainants aver that although the saving clause under Section 16 of C. Circular No. 1&!& $ade specific reference to C. Circular No. 1&19, it will %e noted that Section 111 of Circular No. 1&19, which contains a saving clause su%stantiall/ si$ilar to that of the new circular, in turn refers to and includes Circular No. "6(. Dence, whether under Circular No. 1&19 or Circular No. 1&!&, pending cases involving violations of Circular No. "6( are e>cepted fro$ the coverage thereof. Aurther, it is alleged that the precipitate dis$issal of the eleven cases, without according the prosecution the opportunit/ to file a $otion to ?uash or a co$$ent, or even to show cause wh/ the cases against accused I$elda R. 1arcos should not %e dis$issed, is clearl/ reflective of respondentQs partialit/ and %ad faith. In effect, respondent -udge acted as if he were the advocate of the accused. On Dece$%er ", 1""&, this Court issued a resolution referring the co$plaint to the Office of the Court )d$inistrator for evaluation, report and reco$$endation, pursuant to Section #, Rule 1 ( of the Rules of Court, as revised, there %eing no factual issues involved. 2he corresponding report and reco$$endation, B dated Ae%ruar/ 1 , 1"" , was su%$itted %/ Deput/ Court )d$inistrator 0uanito ). .ernad, with the approval of Court )d$inistrator Ernani Cru@*,aOo. 2he ?uestioned order F of respondent -udge reads as follows4 2hese eleven ;11< cases are for Ciolation of Central .an8 Aoreign E>change Restrictions as consolidated in C. Circular No. "6( in relation to the penal provision of Sec. & of R.). '6!, as a$ended. 2he accused 1rs. I$elda R. 1arcos pleaded not guilt/ to all these cases: apparentl/ the other accused in so$e of these cases, Ro%erto S. .enedicto, was not arrested and therefore the Court did not ac?uire -urisdiction over his person: trial was co$$enced as against 1rs. 1arcos. Dis E>cellenc/, the ,resident of the ,hilippines, announced on )ugust 1(, 1""' that the govern$ent has lifted all foreign e>change restrictions and it is also reported that Central .an8 +overnor 0ose Cuisia said that the 1onetar/ .oard arrived at such decision ;issue of the ,hilippine Dail/ In?uirer, )ugust 11, 1""' and issue of the Dail/ +lo%e of the sa$e date<. 2he Court has to give full confidence and credit to the reported announce$ent of the E>ecutive Depart$ent, speciall/ fro$ the highest official of that depart$ent: the Courts are charged with -udicial notice of $atters which are of pu%lic 8nowledge, without introduction of proof, the announce$ent pu%lished in at least the two newspapers cited a%ove which are reputa%le and of national circulation. ,er several cases decided %/ the Supre$e Court ;,eople vs. )lcaras, !6 ,hil. !'(, ,eople vs. Arancisco, !6 ,hil. !#', ,eople vs. ,astor, ## ,hil. 1(((, ,eople vs. Crisanto 2a$a/o, 61 ,hil. ''!<, a$ong others, it was held that the repeal of a penal law without re*enact$ent e>tinguishes the right to prosecute or punish the offense co$$itted under the old law and if the law repealing the prior penal law fails to penali@e the acts which constituted the offense defined and penali@ed in the repealed law, the repealed law carries with it the deprivation of the courts of -urisdiction to

tr/, convict and sentence persons charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. Ender the aforecited decisions this doctrine applies to special laws and not onl/ to the cri$es punisha%le in the Revised ,enal Code, such as the I$port Control Gaw. 2he Central .an8 Circular No. "6( under which the accused 1rs. 1arcos is charged is considered as a penal law %ecause violation thereof is penali@ed with specific reference to the provision of Section & of Repu%lic )ct '6!, which penali@es violations of Central .an8 Circular No. "6(, produces the effect cited in the Supre$e Court decisions and since according to the decisions that repeal deprives the Court of -urisdiction, this Court (otu proprio dis$isses all the eleven ;11< cases as a forestated in the caption, for not to do so opens this Court to charges of tr/ing cases over which it has no $ore -urisdiction. 2his order was su%se?uentl/ assailed in a petition for &ertiorari filed with the Court of )ppeals, entitled B,eople of the ,hilippines vs. Don. 1anuel 2. 1uro, 0udge, R2C of 1anila, .r. ! and I$elda R. 1arcos,B doc8eted as C)*+.R. S, No. '"& ". 7hen re?uired to file her co$$ent, private respondent 1arcos failed to file an/. Gi8ewise, after the appellate court gave due course to the petition, private respondent was ordered, %ut again failed despite notice, to file an answer to the petition and to show cause wh/ no writ of preli$inar/ in-unction should issue. Eventuall/, on )pril '", 1""&, the Court of )ppeals rendered a decision 9 setting aside the order of )ugust 1&, 1""', and reinstating Cri$inal Cases Nos. "'*1(1"!" to "'*1(1"6". In finding that respondent -udge acted in e>cess of -urisdiction and with grave a%use of discretion in issuing the order of dis$issal, the appellate court held that4 2he order was issued (otu proprio, i.e., without an/ $otion to dis$iss filed %/ counsel for the accused, without giving an opportunit/ for the prosecution to %e heard, and solel/ on the %asis of newspaper reports announcing that the ,resident has lifted all foreign e>change restrictions. 2he newspaper report is not the pu%lication re?uired %/ law in order that the enact$ent can %eco$e effective and %inding. Gaws ta8e effect after fifteen da/s following the co$pletion of their pu%lication in the Official +a@ette or in a newspaper of general circulation unless it is otherwise provided ;Section 1, E>ecutive Order No. '((<. 2he full te>t of C. Circular 1&!&, series of 1""', entitled BAurther Gi%erali@ing Aoreign E>change RegulationB was pu%lished in the )ugust '#, 1""' issue of the 1anila Chronicle, the ,hilippine Star and the 1anila .ulletin. ,er certification of the C. Corporate )ffairs Office, C. Circular No. 1&!& too8 effect on Septe$%er ' .... Considering that respondent -udge ad$ittedl/ had not seen the official te>t of C. Circular No. 1&!&, he was in no position to rule -udiciousl/ on whether C. Circular No. "6(, under which the accused 1rs. 1arcos is charged, was alread/ repealed %/ C. Circular No. 1&!&. . . . >>> >>> >>> ) cursor/ reading of the . . . provision would have readil/ shown that the repeal of the regulations on non*trade foreign e>change transactions is not a%solute, as there is a provision that with respect to violations of for$er regulations that are the su%-ect of pending actions or investigations, the/ shall %e governed %/ the regulations e>isting at the ti$e the cause of action ;arose<. 2hus his conclusion that he has lost -urisdiction over the cri$inal cases is precipitate and hast/. Dad he awaited the filing of a $otion to dis$iss %/ the accused, and given opportunit/ for the prosecution to co$$entIoppose the sa$e, his resolution would have %een the result of deli%eration, not speculation. I. 2he doctrine of -udicial notice rests on the wisdo$ and discretion of the courts. 2he power to ta8e -udicial notice is to %e e>ercised %/ courts with caution: care $ust %e ta8en that the re?uisite notoriet/ e>ists: and ever/ reasona%le dou%t on the su%-ect should %e pro$ptl/ resolved in the negative. 10

+enerall/ spea8ing, $atters of -udicial notice have three $aterial re?uisites4 ;1< the $atter $ust %e one of co$$on and general 8nowledge: ;'< it $ust %e well and authoritativel/ settled and not dou%tful or uncertain: and ;&< it $ust %e 8nown to %e within the li$its of the -urisdiction of the court. 11 2he provincial guide in deter$ining what facts $a/ %e assu$ed to %e -udiciall/ 8nown is that of notoriet/. 12 Dence, it can %e said that -udicial notice is li$ited to facts evidenced %/ pu%lic records and facts of general notoriet/. 13 2o sa/ that a court will ta8e -udicial notice of a fact is $erel/ another wa/ of sa/ing that the usual for$ of evidence will %e dispensed with if 8nowledge of the fact can %e otherwise ac?uired. 14 2his is %ecause the court assu$es that the $atter is so notorious that it will not %e disputed. 15 .ut -udicial notice is not -udicial 8nowledge. 2he $ere personal 8nowledge of the -udge is not the -udicial 8nowledge of the court, and he is not authori@ed to $a8e his individual 8nowledge of a fact, not generall/ or professionall/ 8nown, the %asis of his action. 0udicial cogni@ance is ta8en onl/ of those $atters which are Bco$$onl/B 8nown. 16 2hings of Bco$$on 8nowledge,B of which courts ta8e -udicial notice, $a/ %e $atters co$ing to the 8nowledge of $en generall/ in the course of the ordinar/ e>periences of life, or the/ $a/ %e $atters which are generall/ accepted %/ $an8ind as true and are capa%le of read/ and un?uestioned de$onstration. 1B 2hus, facts which are universall/ 8nown, and which $a/ %e found in enc/clopedias, dictionaries or other pu%lications, are -udiciall/ noticed, provided the/ are of such universal notoriet/ and so generall/ understood that the/ $a/ %e regarded as for$ing part of the co$$on 8nowledge of ever/ person. 1F Respondent -udge, in the guise of e>ercising discretion and on the %asis of a $ere newspaper account which is so$eti$es even referred to as hearsa/ evidence twice re$oved, too8 -udicial notice of the supposed lifting of foreign e>change controls, a $atter which was not and cannot %e considered of co$$on 8nowledge or of general notoriet/. 7orse, he too8 cogni@ance of an ad$inistrative regulation which was not /et in force when the order of dis$issal was issued. 0urisprudence dictates that -udicial notice cannot %e ta8en of a statute %efore it %eco$es effective. 19 2he reason is si$ple. ) law which is not /et in force and hence, still ine>istent, cannot %e of co$$on 8nowledge capa%le of read/ and un?uestiona%le de$onstration, which is one of the re?uire$ents %efore a court can ta8e -udicial notice of a fact. Evidentl/, it was i$possi%le for respondent -udge, and it was definitel/ not proper for hi$, to have ta8en cogni@ance of C. Circular No. 1&!&, when the sa$e was not /et in force at the ti$e the i$provident order of dis$issal was issued. II. Central .an8 Circular No. 1&!&, which too8 effect on Septe$%er 1, 1""', further li%erali@ed the foreign e>change regulations on receipts and dis%urse$ents of residents arising fro$ non*trade and trade transactions. Section 16 thereof provides for a saving clause, thus4 Sec. 16. )inal Provisions o C! Cir&ular %o. 5354. * )ll the provisions in Chapter H of C. Circular No. 1&19 insofar as the/ are not inconsistent with, or contrar/ to the provisions of this Circular, shall re$ain in full force and effect4 Provided, ho*ever, that an/ regulation on non* trade foreign e>change transactions which has %een repealed, a$ended or $odified %/ this Circular, violations of which are the su%-ect of pending actions or investigations, shall not %e considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or investigations are concerned, it %eing understood that as to such pending actions or investigations, the regulations e>isting at the ti$e the cause of action accrued shall govern. Respondent -udge contends that the saving clause refers onl/ to the provisions of Circular No. 1&19, whereas the eleven cri$inal cases he dis$issed involve a violation of C. Circular No. "6(. Dence, he insists, Circular No. "6( is dee$ed repealed %/ the new circular and since the for$er is not covered %/ the saving clause in the latter, there is no $ore %asis for the charges involved in the cri$inal cases which therefore warrant a dis$issal of the sa$e. 2he contention is patentl/ un$eritorious. Airstl/, the second part of the saving clause in Circular No. 1&!& e>plicitl/ provides that Bany regulation on non* trade foreign transactions which has %een repealed, a$ended or $odified %/ this Circular, violations o *hi&h are the sub?e&t o pending a&tions or investigations, shall not %e considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or investigations are concerned, it %eing understood that as to such pending actions or investigations,

theregulations e1isting at the ti(e the &ause o a&tion a&&rued shall govern.B 2he ter$s of the circular are clear and una$%iguous and leave no roo$ for interpretation. In the case at %ar, the accused in the eleven cases had alread/ %een arraigned, had pleaded not guilt/ to the charges of violations of Circular No. "6(, and said cases had alread/ %een set for trial when Circular No. 1&!& too8 effect. Conse?uentl/, the trial court was and is supposed to proceed with the hearing of the cases in spite of the e>istence of Circular No. 1&!&. Secondl/, had respondent -udge onl/ %othered to read a little $ore carefull/ the te>ts of the circulars involved, he would have readil/ perceived and 8nown that Circular No. 1&19 also contains a su%stantiall/ si$ilar saving clause as that found in Circular No. 1&!&, since Section 111 of the for$er provides4 Sec. 111. Repealing &lause. * )ll e>isting provisions of Circulars &6!, "6( and 1('9, including a$end$ents thereto, with the e>ception of the second paragraph of Section 69 of Circular 1('9, as well as all other e>isting Central .an8 rules and regulations or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with or contrar/ to the provisions of this Circular, are here%/ repealed or $odified accordingl/4 ,rovided, however, that regulations, violations of which are the su%-ect of pending actions or investigations, shall %e considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or investigations are concerned, it %eing understood that as to such pending actions or investigations, the regulations e>isting at the ti$e the cause of action accrued shall govern. It une?uivocall/ appears fro$ the section a%ove ?uoted that although Circular No. 1&19 repealed Circular No. "6(, the for$er specificall/ e>cepted fro$ its purview all cases covered %/ the old regulations which were then pending at the ti$e of the passage of the new regulations. 2hus, an/ reference $ade to Circular No. 1&19 necessaril/ involves and affects Circular No. "6(. III. It has %een said that ne>t in i$portance to the dut/ of rendering a righteous -udg$ent is that of doing it in such a $anner as will %eget no suspicion of the fairness and integrit/ of the -udge. 20 2his $eans that a -udge should not onl/ render a -ust, correct and i$partial decision %ut should do so in such a $anner as to %e free fro$ an/ suspicion as to its fairness and i$partialit/ and as to his integrit/. 7hile a -udge should possess proficienc/ in law in order that he can co$petentl/ construe and enforce the law, it is $ore i$portant that he should act and %ehave in such a $anner that the parties %efore hi$ should have confidence in his i$partialit/. 2hus, it is not enough that he decides cases without %ias and favoritis$. Nor is it sufficient that he in fact rids hi$self of prepossessions. Dis actuations should $oreover inspire that %elief. Gi8e CaesarQs wife, a -udge $ust not onl/ %e pure %ut %e/ond suspicion. 21 1oreover, it has alwa/s heretofore %een the rule that in disposing of controverted cases, -udges should show their full understanding of the case, avoid the suspicion of ar%itrar/ conclusion, pro$ote confidence in their intellectual integrit/ and contri%ute useful precedents to the growth of the law. 22 ) -udge should %e $indful that his dut/ is the application of general law to particular instances, that ours is a govern$ent of laws and not of $en, and that he violates his dut/ as a $inister of -ustice under such a s/ste$ if he see8s to do what he $a/ personall/ consider su%stantial -ustice in a particular case and disregards the general law as he 8nows it to %e %inding on hi$. Such action $a/ have detri$ental conse?uences %e/ond the i$$ediate controvers/. De should ad$inister his office with due regard to the integrit/ of the s/ste$ of the law itself, re$e$%ering that he is not a depositor/ of ar%itrar/ power, %ut a -udge under the sanction of the law. 23 2hese are i$$uta%le principles that go into the ver/ essence of the tas8 of dispensing -ustice and we see no reason wh/ the/ should not %e dul/ considered in the present case. 2he assertion of respondent -udge that there was no need to await pu%lication of Circular No. 1&!& for the reason that the pu%lic announce$ent $ade %/ the ,resident in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign e>change controls is total, a%solute, without ?ualification, and i$$ediatel/ effective, is %e/ond co$prehension. )s a -udge of the Regional 2rial Court of 1anila, respondent is supposed to %e well*versed in the ele$entar/ legal $andates on the pu%lication of laws %efore the/ ta8e effect. It is inconceiva%le that respondent should insist on an altogether different and illogical interpretation of an esta%lished and well* entrenched rule if onl/ to suit his own personal opinion and, as it were, to defend his indefensi%le action. It was not for hi$ to indulge or even to give the appearance of catering to the at*ti$es hu$an failing of /ielding to first i$pressions. 24 De having done so, in the face of the foregoing pre$ises, this Court is hard put to %elieve that he indeed acted in good faith.

IC. 2his is not a si$ple case of a $isapplication or erroneous interpretation of the law. 2he ver/ act of respondent -udge in altogether dis$issing sua sponte the eleven cri$inal cases without even a $otion to ?uash having %een filed %/ the accused, and without at least giving the prosecution the %asic opportunit/ to %e heard on the $atter %/ wa/ of a written co$$ent or on oral argu$ent, is not onl/ a %latant denial of ele$entar/ due process to the +overn$ent %ut is palpa%l/ indicative of %ad faith and partialit/. 2he avowed desire of respondent -udge to speedil/ dispose of the cases as earl/ as possi%le is no license for a%use of -udicial power and discretion, 25 nor does such professed o%-ective, even if true, -ustif/ a deprivation of the prosecutionQs right to %e heard and a violation of its right to due process of law. 26 2he lightning speed, to %orrow the words of co$plainants, with which respondent -udge resolved to dis$iss the cases without the %enefit of a hearing and without reasona%le notice to the prosecution inevita%l/ opened hi$ to suspicion of having acted out of partialit/ for the accused. Regardless of how carefull/ he $a/ have evaluated changes in the factual situation and legal standing of the cases, as a result of the newspaper report, the fact re$ains that he gave the prosecution no chance whatsoever to show or prove that it had strong evidence of the guilt of the accused. 2o repeat, he there%/ effectivel/ deprived the prosecution of its right to due process. 2B 1ore i$portantl/, notwithstanding the fact that respondent was not sure of the effects and i$plications of the ,residentQs announce$ent, as %/ his own ad$ission he was in dou%t whether or not he should dis$iss the cases, 2F he nonetheless deli%eratel/ refrained fro$ re?uiring the prosecution to co$$ent thereon. In a puerile defense of his action, respondent -udge can %ut rhetoricall/ as84 B7hat e>planation could have %een givenN 2hat the ,resident was tal8ing Qthrough his hatQ and should not %e %elievedN 2hat I should wait for the pu%lication of a still then non* e>istent C. CircularNB 2he pretended cogenc/ of this ratiocination cannot stand even the $inutest legal scrutin/. In order that %ias $a/ not %e i$puted to a -udge, he should have the patience and circu$spection to give the opposing part/ a chance to present his evidence even if he thin8s that the oppositorQs proofs $ight not %e ade?uate to overthrow the case for the other part/. ) displa/ of petulance and i$patience in the conduct of the trial is a nor$ of conduct which is inconsistent with the Bcold neutralit/ of an i$partial -udge.B 29 )t the ver/ least, respondent -udge acted in-udiciousl/ and with un-ustified haste in the outright dis$issal of the eleven cases, and there%/ rendered his actuation highl/ du%ious. C. It %ears stressing that the ?uestioned order of respondent -udge could have seriousl/ and su%stantiall/ affected the rights of the prosecution had the accused invo8ed the defense of dou%le -eopard/, considering that the dis$issal was ordered after arraign$ent and without the consent of said accused. 2his could have spawned legal co$plications and inevita%le dela/ in the cri$inal proceedings, were it not for the holding of the Court of )ppeals that respondent -udge acted with grave a%use of discretion a$ounting to lac8 of -urisdiction. 2his saved the da/ for the ,eople since in the a%sence of -urisdiction, dou%le -eopard/ will not set in. 2o stress this point, and as a&aveat to trial courts against falling into the sa$e -udicial error, we reiterate what we have heretofore declared4 It is settled doctrine that dou%le -eopard/ cannot %e invo8ed against this CourtQs setting aside of the trial courtQs -udg$ent of dis$issal or ac?uittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign people in cri$inal cases is denied due process. . . . . 7here the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunit/ to prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is there%/ violated. 2he cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of %asic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their -urisdiction. 2hus, the violation of the StateQs right to due process raises a serious -urisdictional issue . . . which cannot %e glossed over or disregarded at will. 7here the denial of the funda$ental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lac8 of -urisdiction . . . . 30 It is also significant that accused 1arcos, despite due notice, never su%$itted either her co$$ent on or an answer to the petition for &ertiorari as re?uired %/ the Court of )ppeals, nor was dou%le -eopard/ invo8ed in her

defense. 2his serves to further underscore the fact that the order of dis$issal was clearl/ un-ustified and erroneous. Aurther$ore, considering that the accused is a pro$inent pu%lic figure with a record of influence and power, it is not eas/ to alla/ pu%lic s8epticis$ and suspicions on how said dis$issal order ca$e to %e, to the conse?uent although undeserved discredit of the entire -udiciar/. CI. 2o hold a -udge lia%le for rendering a $anifestl/ un-ust order through ine>cusa%le negligence or ignorance, it $ust %e clearl/ shown that although he has acted without $alice, he failed to o%serve in the perfor$ance of his dut/ that diligence, prudence and care which the law is entitled to e>act in the rendering of an/ pu%lic service. Negligence and ignorance are ine>cusa%le if the/ i$pl/ a $anifest in-ustice which cannot %e e>plained %/ a reasona%le interpretation, and even though there is a $isunderstanding or error of the law applied, it nevertheless results logicall/ and reasona%l/, and in a ver/ clear and indisputa%le $anner, in the notorious violation of the legal precept. 31 In the present case, a cursor/ perusal of the co$$ent filed %/ respondent -udge reveals that no su%stantial argu$ent has %een advanced in plausi%le -ustification of his act. De utterl/ failed to show an/ legal, factual, or even e?uita%le -ustification for the dis$issal of the eleven cri$inal cases. 2he e>planation given is no e>planation at all. 2he strained and fallacious su%$issions therein do not spea8 well of respondent and cannot %ut further depreciate his pro%it/ as a -udge. On this point, it is %est that pertinent unedited e>cerpts fro$ his co$$ent 32 %e ?uoted %/ wa/ of graphic illustration and e$phasis4 On the alleged ignorance of the law i$puted to $e, it is said that I issued the Order dis$issing the eleven ;11< cases against 1rs. I$elda R. 1arcos on the %asis of newspaper reports referred to in paragraph ' of the letter co$plaint without awaiting the official pu%lication of the Central .an8 Circular. Ordinaril/ a Central .an8 CircularIResolution $ust %e pu%lished in the Official +a@ette or in a newspaper of general circulation, %ut the lifting of Ball foreign e>change controlsB was announced %/ the ,resident of the ,hilippines 7I2DOE2 ME)GIAIC)2IONS: as pu%lished in the Dail/ +lo%e, )ugust 11, 1""'B the govern$ent has lifted )GG foreign e>change controls,B and in the words of the ,hilippine Dail/ In?uirer report of the sa$e date B2he govern$ent /esterda/ GIA2ED the G)S2 re$aining restrictions on foreign e>change transactions, . . .B ;e$phasis in %oth ?uotations supplied< not onl/ the ,resident $ade the announce$ent %ut also the Central .an8 +overnor 0ose Cuisia -oined in the announce$ent %/ sa/ing that Bthe 1onetar/ .oard arrived at the decision after noting how the Bpartial li%erali@ationB initiated earl/ this /ear wor8ed.B 2herefore, %ecause of the ).SOGE2E lifting of )GG restrictions on foreign e>change transactions, there was no need to await the pu%lication of the repealing circular of the Central .an8. 2he purpose of re?uiring pu%lication of laws and ad$inistrative rules affecting the pu%lic is to infor$ the latter as to how the/ will conduct their affairs and how the/ will confor$ to the laws or the rules. In this particular case, with the total lifting of the controls, there is no need to await pu%lication. It would have %een different if the circular that in effect repealed Central .an8 Circular No. "6(, under which the accused was charged in the cases dis$issed %/ $e, had provided for penalties andIor $odified the provisions of said Circular No. "6(. 2he Co$plainants state that the lifting of controls was not /et in force when I dis$issed the cases %ut it should %e noted that in the report of the two ;'< newspapers afore?uoted, the ,residentQs announce$ent of the lifting of controls was stated in the present perfect tense ;+lo%e< or past tense ;In?uirer<. In other words, it has alread/ %een lifted: the announce$ent did not sa/ that the govern$ent IN2ENDS to lift all foreign e>change restrictions %ut instead sa/s that the govern$ent Bhas GIA2ED all foreign e>change controls,B and in the other newspaper cited a%ove, that B2he govern$ent /esterda/ lifted the last re$aining restrictions on foreign e>change transactionsB. 2he lifting of the last re$aining e>change regulations effectivel/ cancelled or repealed Circular No. "6(. 2he ,resident, who is the Chief E>ecutive, pu%licl/ announced the lifting of all foreign e>change regulations. 2he ,resident has within his control directl/ or indirectl/ the Central .an8 of the

,hilippines, the Secretar/ of Ainance %eing the Chair$an of the 1onetar/ .oard which decides the policies of the Central .an8. No official %othered to correct or ?ualif/ the ,residentQs announce$ent of )ugust 1(, pu%lished the following da/, nor $ade an announce$ent that the lifting of the controls do not appl/ to cases alread/ pending, not until )ugust 1# ;the fourth da/ after $/ Order, and the third da/ after report of said order was pu%lished< and after the ,resident said on )ugust 1#, reported in the INMEIRERQs issue of )ugust 19, 1""', that the Bnew foreign e>change rules have nullified govern$ent cases against I$elda R. 1arcos, telling reporters that the charges against the widow of for$er ,resident 1arcos Bhave %eco$e $oot and acade$icB %ecause of new ruling;s< which allow free flow of currenc/ in and out of the countr/B ;Note, parentheticall/, the reference to Bnew rulesB not to Brules still to %e draftedB<. 2he INMEIRER report continues4 B) few hours later, presidential spo8eswo$an )nna%elle )%a/a said, R)1OS ;sic< had Bcorrected hi$selfQ.B BDe had %een %elatedl/ advised %/ the Central .an8 +overnor 0ose Cuisia and 0ustice Secretar/ Aran8lin Drilon that the 1onetar/ .oard Regulation e>cluded fro$ its coverage all cri$inal cases pending in court and such a position shall stand legal scrutin/Q, 1rs. )%a/a, said.B I will ela%orate on two points4 1. If the ,resident was wrong in $a8ing the )ugust 1( announce$ent ;pu%lished in )ugust 11, 1""', newspapers< and in the )ugust 1# announce$ent, S+PR$, and thus I should have relied on the ,residential announce$ents, and there is %asis to conclude that the ,resident was at the ver/ least IGG*SERCED %/ his financial and legal advisers, %ecause no one %othered to advise the ,resident to correct his announce$ents, not until )ugust 1#, 1""', a few hours after the ,resident had $ade another announce$ent as to the charges against I$elda 1arcos having %een rendered $oot and acade$ic. 2he ,resident has a lot of wor8 to do, and is not, to $/ 8nowledge, a financier, econo$ist, %an8er or law/er. It therefore %ehooved his su%alterns to give hi$ ti$el/ ;not B%elatedB< advice, and %rief hi$ on $atters of i$$ediate and far*reaching concerns ;such as the lifting of foreign e>change controls, designed, a$ong others to encourage the entr/ of foreign invest$ents<. Instead of rescuing the Chief E>ecutive fro$ e$%arrass$ent %/ assu$ing responsi%ilit/ for errors in the latterQs announce$ent, these advisers have chosen to toss the %la$e for the conse?uence of their failing to $e, who onl/ acted on the %asis of announce$ents of their Chief, which had %eco$e of pu%lic 8nowledge. >>> >>> >>> 2he Court strongl/ feels that it has ever/ right to assu$e and e>pect that respondent -udge is possessed with $ore than ordinar/ credentials and ?ualifications to $erit his appoint$ent as a presiding -udge in the Regional 2rial Court of the National Capital 0udicial Region, stationed in the Cit/ of 1anila itself. It is, accordingl/, disheartening and regretta%le to note the nature of the argu$ents and the 8ind of logic that respondent -udge would want to i$pose on this Court notwithstanding the $anifest lac8 of cogenc/ thereof. 2his calls to $ind si$ilar scenarios and how this Court reacted thereto. In one case, an R2C 0udge was ad$inistrativel/ charged for ac?uitting the accused of a violation of C. Circular No. "6( despite the fact that the accused was apprehended with ESY&!!,& ".(( while %oarding a plane for Dong8ong, erroneousl/ ruling that the State $ust first prove cri$inal intent to violate the law and %enefit fro$ the illegal act, and further ordering the return of ESY&,(((.(( out of the total a$ount sei@ed, on the $ista8en interpretation that the C. circular e>e$pts such a$ount fro$ sei@ure. Respondent -udge therein was ordered dis$issed fro$ the govern$ent service for gross inco$petence and ignorance of the law. 33 Su%se?uentl/, the Court dis$issed another R2C -udge, with forfeiture of retire$ent %enefits, for gross ignorance of the law and for 8nowingl/ rendering an un-ust order or -udg$ent when he granted %ail to an accused charged with raping an 11*/ear old girl, despite the contrar/ reco$$endation of the investigating -udge, and thereafter granted the $otion to dis$iss the case allegedl/ e>ecuted %/ the co$plainant. 34

Si$ilarl/, an R2C -udge who was descri%ed %/ this Court as one Bwho is ignorant of fairl/ ele$entar/ and ?uite fa$iliar legal principles and ad$inistrative regulations, has a $ar8ed penchant for appl/ing unorthodo>, even strange theories and concepts in the ad-udication of controversies, e>hi%its indifference to and even disdain for due process and the rule of law, applies the law whi$sicall/, capriciousl/ and oppressivel/, and displa/s %ias and i$partialit/,B was dis$issed fro$ the service with forfeiture of all retire$ent %enefits and with pre-udice to reinstate$ent in an/ %ranch of the govern$ent or an/ of its agencies or instru$entalities. 35 Still in another ad$inistrative case, an R20 -udge was also dis$issed %/ this Court for gross ignorance of the law after she ordered, in a pro%ate proceeding, the cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the na$e of the co$plainant, without affording due process to the latter and other interested parties. 36 Onl/ recentl/, an R2C -udge who had %een reinstated in the service was dis$issed after he ac?uitted all the accused in four cri$inal cases for illegal possession of firear$s, on the ground that there was no proof of $alice or deli%erate intent on the part of the accused to violate the law. 2he Court found hi$ guilt/ of gross ignorance of the law, his error of -udg$ent %eing al$ost deli%erate and tanta$ount to 8nowingl/ rendering an incorrect and un-ust -udg$ent. 3B )CCORDIN+GL, on the foregoing pre$ises and considerations, the Court finds respondent 0udge 1anuel 2. 1uro guilt/ of gross ignorance of the law. De is here%/ DIS1ISSED fro$ the service, such dis$issal to carr/ with it cancellation of eligi%ilit/, forfeiture of leave credits and retire$ent %enefits, and dis?ualification fro$ ree$plo/$ent in the govern$ent service. 3F Respondent is here%/ ordered to CE)SE and DESIS2 i$$ediatel/ fro$ rendering an/ -udg$ent or order, or continuing an/ -udicial action or proceeding whatsoever, effective upon receipt of this decision. SO ORDERED.

Case #( AIRS2 DICISION

AG.R. No. 140160. ,a!-ary 13, 2004C

G)ND .)NF O4 T&E P&ILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. 4ELICIANO 4. @YCOCO, respondent.

AG.R. No. 146B33. ,a!-ary 13, 2004C

4ELICIANO 4. @YCOCO, petitioner, vs. T&E &ONORA'LE RO%RIGO S. CASPILLO, Pa*r*!+ ,-#+e o. "/e Re+*o!a0 Tr*a0 Co-r", T/*r# ,-#*1*a0 Re+*o!, 'ra!1/ 23, Ca$a!a"-a! C*"y a!# "/e %EPARTMENT O4 )+R)RI)N REAOR1, respondents. %ECISION YNARES)SANTIAGO, J.6 .efore the Court are consolidated petitions, the first see8ing the review of the Ae%ruar/ ", 1""" Decision516 and the Septe$%er '', 1""" Resolution5'6 of the Court of )ppeals in C)*+.R. No. S, No. &""1&, which $odified the Decision5&6 of Regional 2rial Court of Ca%anatuan Cit/, .ranch '&, acting as a Special )grarian Court in )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A<: and the second for $anda$us to co$pel the said trial court to issue a writ of e>ecution and to direct 0udge Rodrigo S. Caspillo to inhi%it hi$self fro$ )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A<. 2he undisputed antecedents show that Aeliciano A. 7/coco is the registered owner of a " .16"( hectare unirrigated and untenanted rice land, covered %/ 2ransfer Certificate of 2itle No. N2*'(6 '' and situated in the Sitios of )%lang, Saguingan and ,ina$unghilan, .arrio of San 0uan, Gica%, Nueva Eci-a.5 6 In line with the Co$prehensive )grarian Refor$ ,rogra$ ;C)R,< of the govern$ent, 7/coco voluntaril/ offered to sell the land to the Depart$ent of )grarian Refor$ ;D)R< for ,1 ." $illion. 5!6 In Nove$%er 1""1, after the D)R3s evaluation of the application and the deter$ination of the -ust co$pensation %/ the Gand .an8 of the ,hilippines ;G.,<, a notice of intention to ac?uire 9 .!6"( hectares of the propert/ for ,1,& ',66#. 6566 was sent to 7/coco. 2he a$ount offered was later raised to ,',!" ,( !.&" and, upon review, was $odified to ,','9(,1!".9'.5#6 2he area which the D)R offered to ac?uire e>cluded idle lands, river and road located therein. 7/coco re-ected the offer, pro$pting the D)R to indorse the case to the Depart$ent of )grarian Refor$ )d-udication .oard ;D)R).< for the purpose of fi>ing the -ust co$pensation in a su$$ar/ ad$inistrative proceeding.596 2he case was doc8eted as D)R). COS Case No. '&' NE "&. 2hereafter, the D)R). re?uested G., to open a trust account in the na$e of 7/coco and deposited the co$pensation offered %/ D)R.5"6 In the $eanti$e, the propert/ was distri%uted to far$er*%eneficiaries. On 1arch '", 1""&, D)R). re?uired the parties to su%$it their respective $e$oranda or position papers in support of their clai$.51(6 7/coco, however, decided to forego with the filing of the re?uired pleadings, and instead filed on )pril 1&, 1""&, the instant case for deter$ination of -ust co$pensation with the Regional 2rial Court of Ca%anatuan Cit/, .ranch '&, doc8eted as )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A<. 5116 I$pleaded as part/* defendants therein were D)R and G.,. On )pril &(, 1""&, 7/coco filed a $anifestation in COS Case No. '&' NE "&, infor$ing the D)R). of the pendenc/ of )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A< with the Ca%anatuan court, acting as a special agrarian court. 51'6 On

1arch ", 1"" , the D)R). issued an order dis$issing the case to give wa/ to the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation %/ the Ca%anatuan court. ,ertinent portion thereof states4 )d$ittedl/, this Aoru$ is vested with the -urisdiction to conduct ad$inistrative proceeding to deter$ine co$pensation. 5D6owever, a thorough perusal of petitioner3s co$plaint showed that he did not onl/ raise the issue of valuation %ut such other $atters which are %e/ond the co$petence of the .oard. .esides, the petitioner has the option to avail the ad$inistrative re$edies or %ring the $atter on -ust co$pensation to the Special )grarian Court for final deter$ination. 7DEREAORE, pre$ises considered, this case is here%/ dis$issed. SO ORDERED.51&6 1eanwhile, D)R and G., filed their respective answers %efore the special agrarian court in )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A<, contending that the valuation of 7/coco3s propert/ was in accordance with law and that the latter failed to e>haust ad$inistrative re$edies %/ not participating in the su$$ar/ ad$inistrative proceedings %efore the D)R). which has pri$ar/ -urisdiction over deter$ination of land valuation.51 6 )fter conducting a pre*trial on Octo%er &, 1"" , the trial court issued a pre*trial order as follows4 2he parties $anifested that there is no possi%ilit/ of a$ica%le settle$ent, neither are the/ willing to ad$it or stipulate on facts, e>cept those contained in the pleadings. 2he onl/ issue left is for the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation or correct valuation of the land owned %/ the plaintiff su%-ect of this case. 2he parties then pra/ed to ter$inate the pre*trial conference. )S ,R)LED AOR, the pre*trial conference is considered ter$inated, and instead of trial, the parties are allowed to su%$it their respective $e$oranda. 7DEREAORE, the parties are given twent/ ;'(< da/s fro$ toda/ within which to file their si$ultaneous $e$oranda, and another ten ;1(< da/s fro$ receipt thereof to file their Repl/IRe-oinder, if an/, and thereafter, this case shall %e dee$ed su%$itted for decision. SO ORDERED.51!6 2he evidence presented %/ 7/coco in support of his clai$ were the following4 ;1< 2ransfer Certificate of 2itle No. N2*'(6 '': ;'< Notice of Gand Caluation dated 0une 19, 1""': and ;&< letter dated 0ul/ 1(, 1""' re-ecting the counter*offer of G., and D)R. 5166 On the other hand, D)R and G., presented the Gand Caluation 7or8sheets.51#6 On Nove$%er 1 , 1""!, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of 7/coco. It ruled that there is no need to present evidence in support of the land valuation inas$uch as it is of pu%lic 8nowledge that the prevailing $ar8et value of agricultural lands sold in Gica%, Nueva Eci-a is fro$ ,1&!,(((.(( to 1!(,(((.(( per hectare. 2he court thus too8 -udicial notice thereof and fi>ed the co$pensation for the entire " .16"( hectare land at ,1 ',!((.(( per hectare or a total of ,1&, '9,(9'.((. It also awarded 7/coco actual da$ages for unreali@ed profits plus legal interest. 2he dispositive portion thereof states4 7DEREAORE, pre$ises considered, -udg$ent is here%/ rendered4 1. Ordering the defendants to pa/ the a$ount of ,1&, 1",(9'.(( to plaintiff as -ust co$pensation for the propert/ ac?uired:

'. Ordering the defendants to pa/ plaintiff the a$ount of ,'",66&,'&!.(( representing the unreali@ed profits fro$ the ti$e of ac?uisition of the su%-ect propert/ and the su$ of ,9, #!,'1(.(( for ever/ calendar /ear, until the a$ount of co$pensation is full/ paid including legal interest which had accrued thereon. No pronounce$ent as to costs. SO ORDERED.5196 2he D)R and the G., filed separate petitions %efore the Court of )ppeals. 2he petition %rought %/ D)R on -urisdictional and procedural issues, doc8eted as C)*+.R. No. S, No. &"'& , was dis$issed on 1a/ '", 1""#.51"6 2he dis$issal %eca$e final and e>ecutor/ on 0une '6, 1""#. 5'(6 2his pro$pted 7/coco to file a petition for $anda$us %efore this Court, doc8eted as +.R. No. 1 6#&&, pra/ing that the decision of the Regional 2rial Court of Ca%anatuan Cit/, .ranch '&, in )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A< %e e>ecuted, and that 0udge Rodrigo S. Caspillo, the now presiding 0udge of said court, %e co$pelled to inhi%it hi$self fro$ hearing the case. 2he petition %rought %/ G., on %oth su%stantive and procedural grounds, doc8eted as C)*+.R. No. S, No. &""1&, was li8ewise dis$issed %/ the Court of )ppeals on Ae%ruar/ ", 1""". 5'16 On Septe$%er '', 1""", however, the Court of )ppeals $odified its decision %/ deducting fro$ the co$pensation due 7/coco the a$ount corresponding to the &.&6#' hectare portion of the " .16"( hectare land which was found to have %een previousl/ sold %/ 7/coco to the Repu%lic, thus = 7DEREAORE, and confor$a%l/ with the a%ove, Our decision of Ae%ruar/ ", 1""" is here%/ 1ODIAIED in the sense that the value corresponding to the aforesaid &.&6#' hectares and all the awards appertaining thereto in the decision a ?uo are ordered deducted fro$ the totalit/ of the awards granted to the private respondent. In all other respects, the decision sought to %e reconsidered is here%/ RE*)AAIR1ED and REI2ER)2ED. SO ORDERED.5''6 In its petition, G., contended that the Court of )ppeals erred in ruling4 I 2D)2 2DE 2RI)G COER2 )C2IN+ )S ) S,ECI)G )+R)RI)N COER2 1)L )SSE1E 0ERISDIC2ION OCER )+R)RI)N C)SE NO. "1 ;)A< )ND RENDER 0ED+1EN2 2DEREON 7I2DOE2 )N INI2I)G )D1INIS2R)2ICE DE2ER1IN)2ION OA 0ES2 CO1,ENS)2ION .L 2DE D)R). ,ERSE)N2 2O SEC2ION 16 OA R) 66!#, OCER 2DE 2I1EGL O.0EC2ION OA 2DE ,E2I2IONER, )ND IN CIOG)2ION OA 2DE REGE ON EHD)ES2ION OA )D1INIS2R)2ICE RE1EDIES )ND ON AORE1 SDO,,IN+: II 2D)2 2DE 0ES2 CO1,ENS)2ION DE2ER1INED .L 2DE 2RI)G COER2 7)S SE,,OR2ED .L SE.S2)N2I)G ECIDENCE, 7DEN I2 7)S .)SED ONGL ON 0EDICI)G NO2ICE OA 2DE ,REC)IGIN+ 1)RFE2 C)GEE OA G)ND .)SED ON 2DE )GGE+ED ,RICE OA 2R)NSAER OA 2ENER)G RI+D2S, 2)FEN 7I2DOE2 NO2ICE )ND DE)RIN+ IN CIOG)2ION OA REGE 1'" OA 2DE REGES OA COER2: III 2D)2 2DE 2RI)G COER2 C)N REMEIRE 2DE ,E2I2IONER 2O CO1,ENS)2E 2DE ,OR2IONS OA RES,ONDEN23S ,RO,ER2L 7DICD 7ERE NO2 DECG)RED .L 2DE D)R AOR )CMEISI2ION, NOR SEI2).GE AOR )+RICEG2ERE NOR C),).GE OA DIS2RI.E2ION 2O A)R1ER .ENEAICI)RIES ENDER 2DE C)R,: I5

2D)2 2DE 2RI)G COER2 C)N )7)RD )S ,)R2 OA 0ES2 CO1,ENS)2ION GE+)G IN2ERES2 ON 2DE ,RINCI,)G )ND )GGE+ED ENRE)GISED ,ROAI2S OA ,'",66&,'&!.(( ARO1 2DE 2I1E OA )CMEISI2ION OA 2DE SE.0EC2 ,RO,ER2L )ND ,9, #!,'1(.(( AOR ECERL C)GEND)R LE)R 2DERE)A2ER, CONSIDERIN+ 2D)2 2DE S)1E D)S NO GE+)G .)SIS )ND 2D)2 2DE RES,ONDEN2 RE2)INED 2DE 2I2GE 2O DIS ,RO,ER2L DES,I2E 2DE D)R3S NO2ICE OA )CMEISI2ION: 5 2D)2 2DE 2RI)G COER2 D)D C)GIDGL +R)N2ED EHECE2ION ,ENDIN+ ),,E)G ON 2DE )GGE+EDGL +OOD RE)SON OA 2DE ,E2I2IONER3S )DC)NCED )+E )ND 7E)F DE)G2D, CON2R)RL 2O 2DE ),,GIC).GE 0ERIS,REDENCE )ND CONSIDERIN+ 2D)2 2DE RES,ONDEN2 IS NO2 DES2I2E2E.5'&6 2he issues for resolution are as follows4 ;1< Did the Regional 2rial Court, acting as Special )grarian Court, validl/ ac?uire -urisdiction over the instant case for deter$ination of -ust co$pensationN ;'< )ssu$ing that it ac?uired -urisdiction, was the co$pensation arrived at supported %/ evidenceN ;&< Can 7/coco co$pel the D)R to purchase the entire land su%-ect of the voluntar/ offer to sellN ; < 7ere the awards of interest and da$ages for unreali@ed profits validN )nent the issue of -urisdiction, the laws in point are Sections !( and !# of Repu%lic )ct No. 66!# ;Co$prehensive )grarian Refor$ Gaw of 1"99< which, in pertinent part, provide4 Section !(. Cuasi-?udi&ial Po*ers o the 2$R. = 2he D)R is here%/ vested with pri$ar/ -urisdiction to deter$ine and ad-udicate agrarian refor$ $atters and shall have e>clusive original -urisdiction over all $atters involving the i$ple$entation of agrarian refor$, e>cept those falling under the e>clusive -urisdiction of the Depart$ent of )griculture ;D)< and the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and Natural Resources ;DENR<W. Section !#. Spe&ial Jurisdi&tion. = 2he Special )grarian Court shall have original and e>clusive -urisdiction over all petitions for the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all cri$inal offenses under this )ct. 2he Special )grarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special -urisdiction within thirt/ ;&(< da/s fro$ su%$ission of the case for decision. In Republi& v. Court o $ppeals,5' 6 it was held that Special )grarian Courts are given original and e>clusive -urisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit4 ;1< all petitions for the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation: and ;'< the prosecution of all cri$inal offenses under R.). No. 66!#. Section !( $ust %e construed in har$on/ with Section !# %/ considering cases involving the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation and cri$inal cases for violations of R.). No. 66!# as e>cepted fro$ the plenitude of power conferred to the D)R. Indeed, there is a reason for this distinction. 2he D)R, as an ad$inistrative agenc/, cannot %e granted -urisdiction over cases of e$inent do$ain and over cri$inal cases. 2he valuation of propert/ in e$inent do$ain is essentiall/ a -udicial function which is vested with the Special )grarian Courts and cannot %e lodged with ad$inistrative agencies. 5'!6 In fact, Rule HIII, Section 11 of the New Rules of ,rocedure of the D)R). ac8nowledges this power of the court, thus = Section 11. Land Baluation and Preli(inary 2eter(ination and Pay(ent o Just Co(pensation. 2he decision of the )d-udicator on land valuation and preli$inar/ deter$ination and pa/$ent of -ust co$pensation shall not %e appeala%le to the .oard %ut shall %e %rought directl/ to the Regional 2rial Courts designated as Special )grarian Courts within fifteen ;1!< da/s fro$ receipt of the notice thereof. )n/ part/ shall %e entitled to onl/ one $otion for reconsideration. ;E$phasis supplied< Ender Section 1 of E>ecutive Order No. (!, Series of 1""(, the Gand .an8 of the ,hilippines is charged with the initial responsi%ilit/ of deter$ining the value of lands placed under land refor$ and the -ust co$pensation to %e paid for their ta8ing.5'66 2hrough a notice of voluntar/ offer to sell ;COS< su%$itted %/ the landowner, acco$panied %/ the re?uired docu$ents, the D)R evaluates the application and deter$ines the land3s suita%ilit/ for agriculture. 2he G., li8ewise reviews the application and the supporting docu$ents and deter$ines the valuation of the land. 2hereafter, the D)R issues the Notice of Gand Caluation to the

landowner. In %oth voluntar/ and co$pulsor/ ac?uisition, where the landowner re-ects the offer, the D)R opens an account in the na$e of the landowner and conducts a su$$ar/ ad$inistrative proceeding. If the landowner disagrees with the valuation, the $atter $a/ %e %rought to the Regional 2rial Court acting as a special agrarian court. 2his in essence is the procedure for the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation.5'#6 In Land !an' o the Philippines v. Court o $ppeals ,5'96 the landowner filed an action for deter$ination of -ust co$pensation without waiting for the co$pletion of D)R).3s re*evaluation of the land. 2his, notwithstanding, the Court held that the trial court properl/ ac?uired -urisdiction %ecause of its e>clusive and original -urisdiction over deter$ination of -ust co$pensation, thus = WIt is clear fro$ Sec. !# that the R2C, sitting as a Special )grarian Court, has Joriginal and e>clusive -urisdiction over all petitions for the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation to landowners.K 2his Joriginal and e>clusiveK -urisdiction of the R2C would %e under$ined if the D)R would vest in ad$inistrative officials original -urisdiction in co$pensation cases and $a8e the R2C an appellate court for the review of ad$inistrative decisions. 2hus, although the new rules spea8 of directl/ appealing the decision of ad-udicators to the R2Cs sitting as Special )grarian Courts, it is clear fro$ Sec. !# that the original and e>clusive -urisdiction to deter$ine such cases is in the R2Cs. )n/ effort to transfer such -urisdiction to the ad-udicators and to convert the original -urisdiction of the R2Cs into an appellate -urisdiction would %e contrar/ to Sec. !# and therefore would %e void. T/-s, #*re1" resor" "o "/e SAC 5Special )grarian Court6 $y r*=a"e res o!#e!" *s =a0*#. ;E$phasis supplied<5'"6 In the case at %ar, therefore, the trial court properl/ ac?uired -urisdiction over 7/coco3s co$plaint for deter$ination of -ust co$pensation. It $ust %e stressed that although no su$$ar/ ad$inistrative proceeding was held %efore the D)R)., G., was a%le to perfor$ its legal $andate of initiall/ deter$ining the value of 7/coco3s land pursuant to E>ecutive Order No. (!, Series of 1""(. 7hat is $ore, D)R and G.,3s confor$it/ to the pre*trial order which li$ited the issue onl/ to the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation estopped the$ fro$ ?uestioning the -urisdiction of the special agrarian court. 2he pre*trial order li$ited the issues to those not disposed of %/ ad$ission or agree$ents: and the entr/ thereof controlled the su%se?uent course of action.5&(6 .esides, the issue of whether 7/coco violated the rule on e>haustion of ad$inistrative re$edies was rendered $oot and acade$ic in view of the D)R).3s dis$issal 5&16 of the ad$inistrative case to give wa/ to and in recognition of the court3s power to deter$ine -ust co$pensation.5&'6 In arriving at the valuation of 7/coco3s land, the trial court too8 -udicial notice of the alleged prevailing $ar8et value of agricultural lands in Gica%, Nueva Eci-a without apprising the parties of its intention to ta8e -udicial notice thereof. Section &, Rule 1'" of the Rules on Evidence provides4 Sec. &. Judi&ial %oti&e, <hen Hearing %e&essary. = During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on re?uest of a part/, $a/ announce its intention to ta8e -udicial notice of an/ $atter and allow the parties to %e heard thereon. )fter trial and %efore -udg$ent or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative, or on re?uest of a part/, $a/ ta8e -udicial notice of an/ $atter and allow the parties to %e heard thereon if such $atter is decisive of a $aterial issue in the case. Inas$uch as the valuation of the propert/ of 7/coco is the ver/ issue in the case at %ar, the trial court should have allowed the parties to present evidence thereon instead of practicall/ assu$ing a valuation without %asis. 7hile $ar8et value $a/ %e one of the %ases of deter$ining -ust co$pensation, the sa$e cannot %e ar%itraril/ arrived at without considering the factors to %e appreciated in arriving at the fair $ar8et value of the propert/ e.g., the cost of ac?uisition, the current value of li8e properties, its si@e, shape, location, as well as the ta> declarations thereon.5&&6 Since these factors were not considered, a re$and of the case for deter$ination of -ust co$pensation is necessar/. 2he power to ta8e -udicial notice is to %e e>ercised %/ courts with caution especiall/ where the case involves a vast tract of land. Care $ust %e ta8en that the re?uisite notoriet/ e>ists: and ever/ reasona%le dou%t on the su%-ect should %e pro$ptl/ resolved in the negative. 2o sa/ that a court will ta8e -udicial notice of a fact is $erel/ another wa/ of sa/ing that the usual for$ of evidence will %e dispensed with if 8nowledge of the fact can %e otherwise ac?uired. 2his is %ecause the court assu$es that the $atter is so notorious that it will not %e disputed. .ut -udicial notice is not -udicial 8nowledge. 2he

$ere personal 8nowledge of the -udge is not the -udicial 8nowledge of the court, and he is not authori@ed to $a8e his individual 8nowledge of a fact, not generall/ or professionall/ 8nown, the %asis of his action.5& 6 )nent the third issue, the D)R cannot %e co$pelled to purchase the entire propert/ voluntaril/ offered %/ 7/coco. 2he power to deter$ine whether a parcel of land $a/ co$e within the coverage of the Co$prehensive )grarian Refor$ ,rogra$ is essentiall/ lodged with the D)R. 2hat 7/coco will suffer da$ages %/ the D)R3s non*ac?uisition of the appro>i$atel/ 1( hectare portion of the entire land which was found to %e not suita%le for agriculture is no -ustification to co$pel D)R to ac?uire the whole area. 7e find 7/coco3s clai$ for pa/$ent of interest partl/ $eritorious. In Land !an' o the Philippines v. Court o $ppeals,5&!6 this Court struc8 down as void D)R )d$inistrative Circular No. ", Series of 1""(, which provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in %onds conte$plated in Section 16 ;e< of R) 66!#. JIt is ver/ e>plicit Wfro$ 5Section 16 ;e<6 that the deposit $ust %e $ade onl/ in Tcash3 or in TG., %onds.3 Nowhere does it appear nor can it %e inferred that the deposit can %e $ade in an/ other for$. If it were the intention to include a Ttrust account3 a$ong the valid $odes of deposit, that should have %een $ade e>press, or at least, ?ualif/ing words ought to have appeared fro$ which it can %e fairl/ deduced that a Ttrust account3 is allowed. In su$, there is no a$%iguit/ in Section 16;e< of R) 66!# to warrant an e>panded construction of the ter$ Tdeposit.3 >>> >>> >>>

JIn the present suit, the D)R clearl/ overstepped the li$its of its powers to enact rules and regulations when it issued )d$inistrative Circular No. ". 2here is no %asis in allowing the opening of a trust account in %ehalf of the landowner as co$pensation for his propert/ %ecause, as heretofore discussed, Section 16;e< of R) 66!# is ver/ specific that the deposit $ust %e $ade onl/ in Tcash3 or in TG., %onds.3 In the sa$e vein, petitioners cannot invo8e GR) Circular Nos. '", '"*) and ! %ecause these i$ple$enting regulations can not outweigh the clear provision of the law. Respondent court therefore did not co$$it an/ error in stri8ing down )d$inistrative Circular No. " for %eing null and void.K5&66 ,ursuant to the forgoing decision, D)R issued )d$inistrative Order No. ', Series of 1""6, converting trust accounts in the na$e of landowners into deposit accounts. 2he transitor/ provision thereof states = CI. 2R)NSI2ORL ,ROCISIONS

)ll trust accounts issued pursuant to )d$inistrative Order No. 1, S. 1""& covering landholdings not /et transferred in the na$e of the Repu%lic of the ,hilippines as of 0ul/ !, 1""6 shall i$$ediatel/ %e converted to deposit accounts in the na$e of the landowners concerned. )ll ,rovincial )grarian Refor$ Officers and Regional Directors are directed to i$$ediatel/ inventor/ the clai$ folders referred to in the preceding paragraph, wherever the/ $a/ %e found and re?uest the G., to esta%lish the re?uisite deposit under this )d$inistrative Order and to issue a new certification to that effect. 2he Original Certificate of 2rust Deposit previousl/ issued should %e attached to the re?uest of the D)R in order that the sa$e $a/ %e replaced with a new one. )ll previousl/ esta%lished 2rust Deposits which served as the %asis for the transfer of the landowner3s title to the Repu%lic of the ,hilippines shall li8ewise %e converted to deposits in cash and in %onds. 2he .ureau of Gand )c?uisition and Distri%ution shall coordinate with the G., for this purpose. In light of the foregoing, the trust account opened %/ G., in the na$e of 7/coco as the $ode of pa/$ent of -ust co$pensation should %e converted to a deposit account. Such conversion should %e retroactive in application in order to rectif/ the error co$$itted %/ the D)R in opening a trust account and to grant the landowners the %enefits conco$itant to pa/$ent in cash or G., %onds prior to the ruling of the Court in Land !an' o the Philippines v. Court o $ppeals . Otherwise, petitioner3s right to pa/$ent of -ust and valid

co$pensation for the e>propriation of his propert/ would %e violated. 5&#6 2he interest earnings accruing on the deposit account of landowners would suffice to co$pensate the$ pending pa/$ent of -ust co$pensation. In so$e e>propriation cases, the Court i$posed an interest of 1'R per annu$ on the -ust co$pensation due the landowner. It $ust %e stressed, however, that in these cases, the i$position of interest was in the nature of da$ages for dela/ in pa/$ent which in effect $a8es the o%ligation on the part of the govern$ent one of for%earance.5&96 It follows that the interest in the for$ of da$ages cannot %e applied where there was pro$pt and valid pa/$ent of -ust co$pensation. Conversel/, where there was dela/ in tendering a valid pa/$ent of -ust co$pensation, i$position of interest is in order. 2his is %ecause the replace$ent of the trust account with cash or G., %onds did not ipso a&to cure the lac8 of co$pensation: for essentiall/, the deter$ination of this co$pensation was $arred %/ lac8 of due process.5&"6 )ccordingl/, the -ust co$pensation due 7/coco should %ear 1'R interest per annu$ fro$ the ti$e G., opened a trust account in his na$e up to the ti$e said account was actuall/ converted into cash and G., %onds deposit accounts. 2he %asis of the 1'R interest would %e the -ust co$pensation that would %e deter$ined %/ the Special )grarian Court upon re$and of the instant case. In the sa$e vein, the a$ount deter$ined %/ the Special )grarian Court would also %e the %asis of the interest inco$e on the cash and %ond deposits due 7/coco fro$ the ti$e of the ta8ing of the propert/ up to the ti$e of actual pa/$ent of -ust co$pensation. 2he award of actual da$ages for unreali@ed profits should %e deleted. 2he a$ount of loss $ust not onl/ %e capa%le of proof, %ut $ust %e proven with a reasona%le degree of certaint/. 2he clai$ $ust %e pre$ised upon co$petent proof or upon the %est evidence o%taina%le, such as receipts or other docu$entar/ proof. 5 (6 None having %een presented in the instant case, the clai$ for unreali@ed profits cannot %e granted. Aro$ the foregoing discussion, it is clear that 7/coco3s petition for $anda$us in +.R. No. 1 6#&& should %e dis$issed. 2he decision of the Regional 2rial Court of Ca%anatuan Cit/, .ranch '&, acting as Special )grarian Court in )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A<, cannot %e enforced %ecause there is a need to re$and the case to the trial court for deter$ination of -ust co$pensation. Gi8ewise, the pra/er for the inhi%ition of 0udge Rodrigo S. Caspillo in )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A< is denied for lac8 of %asis. @&ERE4ORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition in +.R. No. 1 (16( is ,)R2I)GGL +R)N2ED. )grarian Case No. "1 ;)A< is RE1)NDED to the Regional 2rial Court of Ca%anatuan Cit/, .ranch '&, for the deter$ination of -ust co$pensation. 2he petition for $anda$us in +.R. No. 1 6#&& is DIS1ISSED. SO OR%ERE%.