Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
City of Manila

______ DIVISION

ENGR. JAIME S. DAITO,

Petitioner,

G.R. No. ________________

- VERSUS -
[CA-G.R. No. SP. No. 147929]

YOLANDA BATO,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

ON CERTIORARI
COMES NOW Petitioner to this Honorable Court and most
respectfully states as follows:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the Resolution
of the Honorable Court of Appeals (former Special Twelfth Division)
for being contrary to law promulgated on November 7, 2017 in Case
No. CA-G.R. SP No. 147929 entitled “Engr. Jaime S. Daito, Petitioner
vs. Yolanda Bato, Respondent” denying the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Petitioner to the Resolution of the court a quo promulgated
on December 22, 2016. The dispositive portion of the said
Resolution states as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for

Reconsideration filed by petitioner Engineer (Engr.) Jaime S.
Daito is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Resolution dated
December 22, 2016 of this Court STANDS.”

Certified true copies of the December 22, 2016 and November

7, 2017 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals attached hereto as
Annex “A” and Annex “B”, respectively.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

1 of 18
 THE PARTIES
Petitioner Engr. Jaime S. Daito (hereafter referred to as
“Petitioner Daito”) is married, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with
postal and residential address at No. 106 Sta. Rosa I, Marilao,
Bulacan where he may be served with summons and processes by
the Honorable Court.

Respondent Yolanda Bato (hereafter referred to as

“Respondent Bato”) is likewise married, of legal age, Filipino citizen,
and with postal and residential address at No. 190 Venice Street, BF
International 1740 Las Piñas City where she may be served with
summons and processes by this Honorable Court.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a verified
petition for review on certiorari may be filed with the Honorable Court
within a fifteen (15) – day period reckoned from date of receipt of the
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or
of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration
filed in due time after notice of the judgment.

Notice of the Honorable Court of Appeals Resolution

promulgated on November 7, 2017 denying Petitioner Daito’s Motion
for Reconsideration was received by the latter on November 22, 2017.
Therefore, Petitioner Daito has until December 7, 2017 within which
to file this Petition.

Petitioner Daito, therefore, is filing the instant Petition within the

15-day reglementary period provided for under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
AND OF THE CASE
1] On August 4, 2006, Respondent Bato filed a complaint
against Petitioner Daito for Unprofessional and/or Unethical Conduct
with the Professional Regulatory Board of Civil Engineering
(hereafter referred to as “Regulatory Board”) for alleged breached
of construction contract entered into by and between Petitioner Daito
and Respondent Bato on or at about August 17, 2003 (copy of
complaint-affidavit attached as Annex “C”). No docket number was
assigned by the Regulatory Board.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

2 of 18
 2] Thereafter, Petitioner Daito was served with a summon by
the Regulatory Board and attached therewith is a copy of the
complaint-affidavit (Annex “C”) filed by Respondent Bato.

3] In compliance with the summon, Petitioner Engr. Daito

submitted his counter-affidavit with the Regulatory Board on
September 18, 2006 (copy of counter-affidavit attached as Annex
“D”).

4] On October 17, 2007, the Regulatory Board promulgated a

Resolution dismissing the complaint filed by Respondent Bato
against Petitioner Daito. The Resolution (certified true copy attached
as Annex “E”) reads in part as follows:

“For failure of the complainants to comply with the

directive of February 15, 2007, the Board resolves to
dismiss the complaint against Engr. Jaime S. Daito for lack
of interest to prosecute.”

For brevity, the complaint of Respondent Bato filed on August

17, 2003 is hereafter referred to a “un-docketed administrative
case.”

5] It bears stressing that Respondent Bato failed to file a

motion for reconsideration from said dismissal. Neither did she
appeal therefrom. Therefore, the dismissal of the un-docketed
administrative case become final and executory.

6] Surprisingly, on April 29, 2008 or six (6) months after the

Regulatory Board issued the above-mentioned Resolution (Annex
“E”), Respondent Bato re-ventilated before the same Professional
Regulatory Board her earlier dismissed un-docketed administrative
case against Petitioner Daito for Unprofessional and/or Unethical
Conduct.

The resurrected complaint was docketed as Administrative

Case No. 647.

7] Consequently, Petitioner Daito was served with a summon

by the Regulatory Board (copy of summon attached as Annex “F”) on
July 31, 2008 requiring him to submit his counter-affidavit.

8] In compliance with the summon, Petitioner Daito submitted

his counter-affidavit (copy attached as Annex “G”) with the

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

3 of 18
Regulatory Board on September 8, 2008 whereby paragraph no. 1
reads as follows:

“1. That this case is a complete reproduction of what they

filed in PRC last August 4, 2006 which the Board
dismissed on October 17, 2007 for lack of interest to
prosecute x x x x.”

9] In addition to the counter-affidavit (Annex “G”), Petitioner

Daito filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 12, 2008 (copy attached
as Annex “H”) ratiocinating that the October 17, 2007 Resolution of
the Regulatory Board ((Annex “E”) dismissing the un-docketed
administrative case “for lack of interest to prosecute ” was an
adjudication on the merits. Therefore, Respondent Bato’s right, if
any, had been barred by the prior dismissal of the Un-docketed
First Complaint. Elsewise stated, Petitioner Daito raised the
affirmative defense of res judicata.

10] On February 18, 2010, the Regulatory Board promulgated

an Order denying Petitioner Daito’s Motion to Dismiss (Annex “H”).
The Order (certified true copy attached as Annex “I”) reads as
follows:

“The Board disagrees with the respondent.

As per record of the Professional Regulation

Commission, although his first case was filed with the
Board, the same was not docketed. Considering the first
complaint was undocketed, there exist no administrative
case against him in the first instance. This fact is evident in
the records and even in “annex 4” of the respondent’s
motion. The respondent, now, cannot claim lack of
jurisdiction due to res judicata.

WHEREFORE, respondent’s motion is hereby

denied. Further, the pre-trial conference will proceed as
scheduled on February 18, 2010 at 1:30 o’clock in the
afternoon.”

11] On March 17, 2010, Petitioner Daito filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the February 18, 2010 Order of Dismissal
promulgated by the Regulatory Board. Copy of the Motion for
Reconsideration attached as Annex “J”.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

4 of 18
 12] On June 9, 2010, the Regulatory Board promulgated an
Order denying Petitioner Engr. Daito’s Motion for Reconsideration.
The Order (copy attached as Annex “K”) reads in part as follows:

“After a review of respondent’s Motion for

Reconsideration and complainant’s Comment thereto, the
Board finds complainant’s Comment to be meritorious and
sees no cogent reason to reverse its Order dated February
18, 2010.

WHEREFORE, the Board hereby denies

respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and the pre-trial
conference is set on August 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM.”

13] On July 19, 2010, Petitioner Engr. Daito perfected an

appeal with the Professional Regulation Commission (hereafter
referred to as “PRC”) which was docketed as Administrative Case
No. A-378. He ascribed the following errors in the Order of
Dismissal (Annex “K”) promulgated by the Regulatory Board:

13.1] The Regulatory Board gravely abused its discretion

and acted in excess of its authority in declaring that there
was no administrative case in an un-docketed case; and

18.2] The Regulatory Board gravely abuse its discretion

in denying the application of the principle of res judicata.

Copy of Appellant’s Brief attached as Annex “L.”

14] On September 17, 2015, the PRC promulgated a Decision

(certified true copy attached as Annex “M”) dismissing the appeal
interposed by Petitioner Daito for lack of merit. The PRC
ratiocinated as follows:

14.1] The earlier case filed against respondent-appellant

is un-docketed because it is yet in a nature of a
preliminary investigation. The docketing of case
proceedings were merely investigative in nature aimed at
determining the existence of probable cause for the
purpose of determining whether or not to proceed with an
administrative action;

14.2] The Commission does not exercise its quasi-

judicial power before the case is docketed; and

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

5 of 18
 14.3] The October 17, 2007 Resolution of the
Professional Regulatory Board of Civil Engineering
((Annex “E”), which dismissed the Un-docketed
Complaint “for lack of interest to prosecute” was not a
judgment on the merits. Hence, the principle of res
judicata does not apply.

15] On November 13, 2015, Petitioner Daito filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the September 17, 2015 Order of Dismissal
(Annex “M”). Copy of Motion for Reconsideration attached as
Annex “N”.

16] On September 2, 2016, the PRC promulgated an Order

(certified true copy attached as Annex “O”) dismissing the Motion for
Reconsideration (Annex “N”) ratiocinating that respondent-appellant
(Petitioner Daito) raised no new factual or legal issues that may
warrant the reconsideration of the September 17, 2015 Order of
Dismissal (Annex “M”) promulgated by the PRC.

17] On October 15, 2016, Petitioner Daito sought redress with

the Honorable Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule
43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (copy of the Petition
attached as Annex “P”). He ascribed the following errors in the
September 17, 2015 Order of Dismissal (Annex “M”) promulgated
by the PRC:

17.1] The PRC committed an error in declaring that it

has not acquired jurisdiction over the un-docketed
administrative case filed in its office;

17.2] The PRC committed an error in declaring that the

proceedings done in an un-docketed administrative case
is just a preliminary investigation; and

17.3] The PRC committed an error in declaring that

there is no res judicata under the instant case.

18] On December 22, 2016, the Honorable Court of Appeals

promulgated a Resolution (Annex “A”) dismissing the instant
Petition ratiocinating as follows:

18.1] The petition for review is riddled with a legion of

procedural and substantial defects; and

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

6 of 18
 18.2] Not all the elements of the principle of res judicata
are present in the instant case.
19] On January 24, 2017, Petitioner Daito filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. Copy of the Motion attached as Annex “Q”.

20] On November 7, 2017, the Honorable Court of Appeals

promulgated a Resolution (Annex “B”) dismissing Petitioner Daito’s
Motion for Reconsideration being devoid of any merit. Hence, this
Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Honorable Court.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HELD THAT THE PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION COMMISSION-PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY
BOARD OF CIVIL ENGINEERING NEVER ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES IN AND SUBJECT MATTER
OF THE UN-DOCKETED ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST
PETITIONER DAITO, IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HELD THAT THE DISMISSAL OF
THE UN-DOCKETED ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST
PETITIONER DAITO BY THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
COMMISSION-PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF INTEREST TO
PROSECUTE ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT BATO DOES
NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF AN ADJUDICATION UPON THE
MERITS AND THEREFORE THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA
DOES NOT APPLY, IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HELD THAT PETITIONER DAITO
FORFEITED HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO APPEAL BY HIS NON-
COMPLIANCED WITH THE GUIDEPOSTS FOR PETITION FOR
REVIEW PROVIDED FOR UNDER RULE 43 OF THE 1997 RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IS IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

7 of 18
 ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

I.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PETITIONER DAITO HUMBLY
SUBMITS THAT THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
COMMISSION-PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES
IN AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE UN-DOCKETED
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FILED BY RESPONDENT BATO

21] The protestation of the Professional Regulation

Commission (“PRC” for brevity) that it never acquired jurisdiction
over the parties in and subject matter of the complaint filed by
Respondent Bato on August 4, 2006 against Petitioner Daito for
Unprofessional and/or Unethical Conduct with the Professional
Regulatory Board of Civil Engineering (hereafter referred to as
“Regulatory Board”) inasmuch as the same was never assigned a
docket number has no basis in law.

22] First, Article I, Section 13 of Resolution No. 06-342 (A)

Series of 2006 (New Rules of Procedure in Administrative
Investigations in the Professional Regulation Commission and the
Professional Regulatory Boards) enumerates the different cases
whereby the Regulatory Board has jurisdiction to investigate. One of
which is the case of unprofessional and/or unethical conduct (no. 2 in
the enumeration of cases) filed by Petitioner Bato on 4 August 2006
against Petitioner Daito.

A copy of Resolution No. 06-342 (hereafter referred to as

“2006 Rules of Procedure” is attached as Annex “R”).

23] Second, nowhere in the 2006 Rules of Procedure could be

found the distinction between actions taken by the Regulatory Board
in an administrative case [docketed] and administrative case [un-
docketed] that impinge upon its exercise of jurisdiction. Additionally,
it does not have any provision which states that any action taken by
the Regulatory Board in an administrative case [un-docketed] is NOT
an exercise of jurisdiction as a quasi-judicial body. All that the 2006
Rules of Procedure provides with respect to docket number is the
duty of the Regulatory Board to assign an administrative case
number to the complaint, as follows:

“ARTICLE VII
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
8 of 18
 INTERNAL BUSINESS
Sec. 2. Docket and Legal Research Fees in the Central
Office. – Upon filing of the complaint, the complainant
shall pay the docket and legal research fees. After
payment, an administrative case number shall be assigned
to the complaint x x x.”

24] Third, despite the failure of the Regulatory Board to assign

a docket number to the complaint filed by Respondent Bato on
August 4, 2006; it nonetheless issued summon to Petitioner Daito
ordering him to submit his counter-affidavit which he complied with
within the allowed period. Clearly, this is assumption of jurisdiction
by the Regulatory Board and this is buttressed by Article I, Section 6
of the 2006 Rules of Procedure, as follows:

“ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 6. Jurisdiction. – Service of summons with a copy of

the formal charge or complaint shall vest the Commission
or the Board with jurisdiction over the person of the
respondent and the power to hear and decide the case even
if he subsequently leaves the Philippines or fails to appear
during the hearings of the case.”

25] Fourth, the following contention of the Professional

Regulation Commission (“PRC” for brevity) in their September 17,
2015 Decision (page 2, paragraph 1 of Decision [Annex “M”], which
was sustained by the Honorable Court of Appeals, deserves a
second hard look because it failed to provide logical and legal support
to the postulation of the PRC that the actions taken by the Regulatory
Board in the un-docketed administrative case is not an exercise of
jurisdiction being in the nature of preliminary investigation. The
pertinent portion of the Decision reads as follows:

“We now resolve the issue.”

“The earlier case filed against respondent-appellant

is undocketed because it is yet in a nature of a preliminary
investigation. The docketing of case proceedings were
merely investigative in nature aimed at determining the
existence of probable cause for the purpose of determining
whether or not to proceed with an administrative action.”

25.1] As could be gleaned therefrom, the idea conveyed by

the sentence (1st) “The earlier case filed against respondent-

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

9 of 18
 appellant is undocketed because it is yet in a nature of a
preliminary investigation” is inconsistent with the idea
conveyed by the sentence (2nd) “The docketing of case
proceedings were merely investigative in nature aimed at
determining the existence of probable cause for the purpose of
determining whether or not to proceed with an administrative
action.”

25.2] The scenario conveyed by the 1 st sentence is that the

first complaint filed by Respondent Bato on August 4, 2006
was un-docketed because it is in the nature of preliminary
investigation. Whereas, the second sentence conveyed a
scenario that the docketing of a complaint is in the same
nature of preliminary investigation aimed at determining the
existence of probable cause. Clearly, the two sentences
lack logic owing to absence of symmetry.

25.3] It bears to emphasize that pursuant to Article I,

Section 4 of the 2006 Rules of Procedure, the nature of
action shall be fact-finding and summary in nature.
Nowhere in the 2006 Rules of Procedure is the requirement
that probable cause has to be established first as condition
precedent for administrative investigation to ripen into the
exercise of quasi-judicial power. Article I, Section 4 reads
as follows:

“ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 4. Nature of Action. – The administrative

investigations shall be fact-finding and summary in
nature, without prejudice, however, to the due
process of law, and intended primarily to determine
if the respondent is morally and technically qualified
to be admitted to his profession, to practice or
continue to practice his profession, or continue to be
a member of the Board.”

25.4] Telling is the fact that at the precise moment the

Regulatory Board served summon to Petitioner Daito
attached thereto is the August 4, 2006 complaint of
Respondent Bato, which is the initial step in its fact finding
or investigation task, it is already exercising quasi-judicial
power in accordance with Article I, Section 6 as discussed
in paragraph no. 24 and Article I, Section 2 of the 2006
Rules of Procedure. The Regulatory Board, at this

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

10 of 18
 instance, is not merely conducting a preliminary
investigation with claimed absence of jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the complaint and the person of Petitioner
Daito as the PRC erroneously led the Honorable Court of
Appeals into believing.

Article I, Section 2 of the 2006 Rules of Procedure

provides as follows:

“ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2. Scope. – These Rules are issued in the

exercise of the quasi-judicial powers and functions of
the Commission and the Boards pursuant to Republic
Act No. 8981, and the laws regulating the various
professions in relation to cases filed against x x x
professionals registered with the Commission x x x
x.”

25.5] After an administrative investigation as mandated by

Article I, Section 4 of the 2006 Rules of Procedure, it is
readily apparent therefrom that the decision of the
Regulatory Board is NEVER as to whether or not the
administrative case will proceed; and should it be decided
to proceed, it is only at that moment it will acquire
jurisdiction over the administrative case as the PRC
erroneously led the Honorable Court of Appeals into
believing.

25.6] As clear as broad daylight and consequent to

exercise of quasi-judicial powers, the decision that the
Regulatory Board will have to render after the administrative
investigation is either to exonerate or to penalize a
professional registered with the PRC, like Petitioner Daito.
This action is readily apparent from the primary intendment
behind administrative investigation provided for under
Article I, Section 4 of the 2006 Rules of Procedure which is
to determine if the respondent is morally and technically
qualified:

a] to be admitted to his profession;

b] to practice or continue to practice his profession; or
c] to continue to be a member of the Board.
II.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

11 of 18
 WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PETITIONER DAITO HUMBLY
SUBMITS THAT THE DISMISSAL BY THE PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION COMMISSION - BOARD OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
OF THE UN-DOCKETED ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF INTEREST TO PROSECUTE
HAVE THE EFFECT OF ADJUDICATION UPON THE MERITS.
THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA APPLY

26] On October 17, 2007, the Regulatory Board promulgated a

Resolution dismissing the complaint filed by Respondent Bato
against Petitioner Daito. The Resolution (Annex “E”) reads in part
as follows:

“For failure of the complainants to comply with the

directive of February 15, 2007, the Board resolves to
dismiss the complaint against Engr. Jaime S. Daito for lack
of interest to prosecute.”

For brevity, the complaint of Respondent Bato filed on August

17, 2003 is hereafter referred to a “un-docketed administrative
case.”

27] It bears stressing that Respondent Bato failed to file a

motion for reconsideration from said dismissal. Neither did she
appeal therefrom. Therefore, the dismissal of the un-docketed
administrative case become final and executory.

28] It is worth noting that when the PRC promulgated its

Decision (Annex “M”) dismissing the appeal interposed by Petitioner
Daito for lack of merit on September 17, 2015, the 2006 Rules of
Procedure is no longer in effect. It was expressly repealed by
Resolution No. 2013-775 of the PRC or The 2013 Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Administrative Investigations in the
Commission and the Boards (copy attached as Annex “S” and
hereafter referred to as “2013 Revised Rules of Administrative
Investigations”), quote:

“ARTICLE XI
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 2. REPEALING CLAUSE – PRC Res. No. 06-

342(A), series of 2006 is hereby repealed. All other
issuances inconsistent herewith are likewise repealed or
modified accordingly.”
29] Additionally, Section 5 of the 2013 Revised Rules of
Administrative Investigations clearly provides the suppletory
application of the 1997 Rules of Court, as follows:
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
12 of 18
 “ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 5. Suppletory Application of the Revised Rules of
Court. – Unless otherwise provided in the Rules, the
Revised Rules of Court shall be suppletorily applicable in
the administrative investigations. However, technical
errors in the admission of evidence which do not prejudice
the substantive rights of the parties shall not vitiate the
proceedings.”

30] Besides, as articulated by the Honorable Supreme Court in

Francisco vs. Rojas (G.R. No. 167120, 23 April 2014), procedural
laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed
retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the
retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be considered
violative of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to
nor arise therefrom.

31] In this regard, Petitioner Daito humbly submits to this

Honorable Court that the aforesaid dismissal shall have the effect of
an adjudication upon the merits provided for under Section 3, Rule
17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is in order, as follows:

Sec. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff.–If, for no

justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of
the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint,
or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of
time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the
court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the
defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This
dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the
merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
(underscoring supplied)

32] In Ricardo N. Azuelo vs. Zameco II Electric Cooperative

(G.R. No. 192573, 22 October 2014), the Honorable Supreme Court
presented an enlightened application of Section 3, Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court in a decision of the National Labor Relations which is
also a quasi-judicial body similar to the PRC. In this case, the
Honorable Supreme Court held that the general rule is that
dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be regarded as an
adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

13 of 18
action, and the only exception is when the order of dismissal
expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without
prejudice.

33] Relevantly, in Enriquez vs. Boyles (G.R. No. 51025, 22

September 1993), the Honorable Supreme Court declared that the
trial court hearing Civil Case No. 2591 was, therefore, correct in
applying Section 3, Rule 17 of the Revised Rules of Court, which
clearly empowers the court to issue a dismissal for failure of the
plaintiff (petitioner in this instance) to comply with any order of the
court. Such dismissal is, under this Rule, with prejudice and
tantamount to an adjudication on the merits. Thus, failure of petitioner
to move for reconsideration or to appeal from such order dismissing
Civil Case No. 2591 renders the same final.

34] All told, Petitioner Daito humbly submits that the dismissal
on October 17, 2007 by the Regulatory Board of the un-docketed
administrative case on the ground of lack of interest to prosecute is
to be regarded as an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, it
bars the filing of another complaint on April 29, 2008 by Respondent
Bato for unprofessional and/or unethical conduct against Petitioner
Daito based on the same allegations contained in the un-docketed
administrative case which the PRC should have dismiss applying the
principle of res judicata.

35] Azuelo vs. Zameco (G.R. No. 192573, 22 October 2014)

also taught us that the filing of a second complaint for illegal dismissal
against ZAMECO based on the same allegations cannot be permitted
lest the rule on res judicata be transgressed. The principle bars a
subsequent suit involving the same parties, subject matter, and cause
of action. The rationale for the rule is that 'public policy requires that
controversies must be settled with finality at a given point in time.

III.
PETITIONER DAITO HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT HIS
STATUTORY RIGHT TO APPEAL COULD HAVE NOT BEEN
FORFEITED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCED WITH THE
GUIDEPOSTS FOR PETITION FOR REVIEW PROVIDED FOR
UNDER RULE 43 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
IN THE INTEREST OF HIGHER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE
36] It is common knowledge that litigation is a drain in one’s
pocket. Confronted with this reality, Petitioner Daito took the risk of
representing himself. And now he realized the price of taking such a
risk.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

14 of 18
 37] Petitioner Daito realized as well that if those schooled in
the technicalities of the law commit blunder, how much more
someone like him who is unschooled.

38] Be that as it may, Petitioner Daito begs the understanding

of the Honorable Court to take another look into the merits of his
case in the interest of higher substantial justice. Petitioner Daito
firmly believed that the Honorable Court will cause the rule of
technicality, even momentarily, to take a backseat following the
pronouncements of this Honorable Court in the following cases:

38.1] Lapses in the literal observance of a rule of

procedure will be overlooked when they arose from an
honest mistake, when they have not prejudiced the
adverse party (Jorge L. Tiangco vs. Land Bank Of The
Philippines [G.R. No. 153998, 6 October 2010]).

38.2] Dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is

not encouraged. The rules of procedure ought not to be
applied in a very rigid and technical sense, for they have
been adopted to help secure, not override, substantial
justice. Judicial action must be guided by the principle that
a party-litigant should be given the fullest opportunity to
establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather
than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on
technicalities. When a rigid application of the rules tends
to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, this
Court is empowered to suspend their operation (Heirs of
Victoriana Villagracia vs. Equitable Banking Corporation,
et. al. [G.R. No. 136972, 28 March 2008]).

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that:

1] This Petition for review on Certiorari be given due course;

and

2] The Resolution promulgated by the Honorable Court of

Appeals on November 7, 2017 in Case No. CA-G.R. SP No. 147929
be set aside.

Finally, Petitioner respectfully prays for such other relief as may

be deemed just and equitable under the premises.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

15 of 18
 Bocaue, Bulacan for the City of Manila, December ____, 2017.

ENGR. JAIME S. DAITO

Petitioner

Republic of the Philippines)

Municipality of Bocaue ) s.s.
Province of Bulacan )

VERIFICATION and
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Engr. Jaime S. Daito, Petitioner in the above-entitled case,

under oath, deposes and says that:

1] I prepared the foregoing Petition for Review on Certiorari;

2] I have read and understood the contents thereof;

3] The allegations therein are true and correct of my personal

knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in
my possession;
4] I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action
or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5] To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or

proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency; and

6] If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
7] I executed this verification/certification to attest to the
truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of
Administrative Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

16 of 18
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
this ____th day December 2017 in the Municipality of Bocaue,
Province of Bulacan.

ENGR. JAIME S. DAITO

Petitioner/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this ______ th

day of December 2017, in Bocaue, Bulacan, Affiant exhibiting to me
his Voter’s Identification No. 1411-0241A-A2866JSD10003-4 issued
by the COMELEC - Marilao, Bulacan, bearing his photograph and
signature.

AMADO S. SANDEL, JR.

Until December 31, 2018
PTR No. 1097077, Bocaue
Bulacan, January 3, 2017
Roll of Attorneys No. 27207

Doc. No. :
Page No. :
Book No. :
Series of 2017.

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Service of this PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI to

the counsel for Respondent, Atty. Tito Abuda Oneza, the Court of
Appeals and the Professional Regulations Commission was not done
personally but through registered mail due to lack of manpower to
effect personal service.

ENGR. JAIME S. DAITO

Petitioner

Copy furnished:

ATTY. TITO ABUDA ONEZA

(Counsel for Respondent)

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

17 of 18
Room 506 Don Santiago Building
No. 1344 Taft Avenue, Ermita
1000 Manila

PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION

P. Paredes Street corner Morayta Street, Sampaloc
1002 Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Ma. Orosa St., Ermita
Manila

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

18 of 18