Gliceria Sarmiento v. Emerita Zaratan G.R. NO. 167471 FEBRUARY 5, 2007 Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J

GLICERIA SARMIENTO
v.
EMERITA ZARATAN
G.R. NO. 167471 FEBRUARY 5, 2007

PONENTE: CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
UNITED INTERIOR MANGGAHAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS DE

LUNA
FACTS:
Sometime in early 2000, petitioner, United Interior Manggahan Homeowners

Association, as represented by its President, Daniel Calilung (Calilung), filed
Complaint for Specific Performance with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with Damages against spouses
Villalon.
After the case has rested, filed a Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss on
Demurrer to Evidence which the RTC granted in an Order dated March 14, 2014
and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied. He then after filed a notice
of appeal On September 19, 2014, the RTC ordered petitioner's Notice of Appeal
expunged from the records "for lack of authority from its Board of Directors to
initiate the appeal, however, it was found that petitioner has paid the appeal fee
within the reglementary period.
Petitioner then sought reconsideration, attaching therewith a copy of Board

Resolution confirming Calilung's authority to represent petitioner in the case. Sps.
Villon opposed, reiterating that petitioner did not attach a board resolution
authorizing Calilung to file the Notice of Appeal on its behalf; and had failed to
show proof of payment of the required appeal fees. They also added that
petitioner's motion for reconsideration failed to comply with the three (3)-day
notice rule.
RTC denied petitioner’s petitioner, hence, filed the certiorari petition against the

heirs of Sps. Villon.
Respondents assailed that petitioner's resort to a certiorari action being final, the

September 19, 2014 and December 12, 2014 Orders are not the proper subject
of a petition for certiorari; and, in any case, direct filing of the petition to the Court
violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not direct filing of the petition to the Court violates the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
(2) Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in expunging
petitioner's Notice of Appeal from the records of the case.
HELD:
(1) Yes, the petition is for certiorari is proper.
Under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, an aggrieved party may file a
petition for certiorari when "any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law." Section 1, Rule 41 of the same Rules provides that no appeal
may be taken from, among others, an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
the aggrieved party may, however, file an appropriate special civil action under
Rule 65.
In this case, the expunging petitioner's Notice of Appeal from the records of the
case is effectively an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal that precludes
resort to an appeal. Hence, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 41, its only recourse is
via the present certiorari action.
Moreover, certiorari is the proper remedy when the assailed orders were issued
in excess of or without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess thereof. Grave abuse of discretion may arise when a lower court
or tribunal violates or contravenes the Constitution, existing law, or jurisprudence.
As will be discussed in detail below, the RTC's order, expunging from the records
petitioner's Notice of Appeal was a grave legal error and contradicts established
procedural rules.
In this relation, it should be observed that while strict adherence to the judicial
hierarchy of courts has been the long-standing policy of the courts, it is not
without exception as the Court possesses full discretionary power to take
cognizance and assume jurisdiction over petitions filed directly with it. A direct
resort to the Court is allowed when the questions involved are dictated by public
welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader
interest of justice, as in this case.
(2) Yes, he RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.when it expunged from the
records petitioner's Notice of Appeal for "lack of authority from its Board of
Directors to initiate the appeal."
Under the Rules, an appeal from cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be made to the Court of Appeals by "filing a notice of
appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party." The appeal shall be taken,
with the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees paid,
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. 44
It is clear from the foregoing provisions that a board resolution authorizing the
representative to initiate the appeal is not required because a notice of appeal is
not a pleading, initiatory or otherwise, that, when required by the law or the
rules, must contain a verification and certification against forum shopping to be
signed by the party or his/her representative. Besides, if only to put to rest any
doubts anent respondents' objection against Calilung's authority to represent
petitioner in the case, the latter in fact submitted, with its motion for
reconsideration, a copy of Board Resolution No. 01, Series of 2013 to this effect.
Thus, when the RTC in this case expunged petitioner's Notice of Appeal for lack
of authority from petitioner's Board of Directors to initiate the appeal, it not only
effectively expanded the procedural requirements for initiating an appeal; more
than anything, it effectively deprived petitioner of further recourse to the higher
courts by asking for the submission of documents which neither the law nor the
Rules and jurisprudence require.
It should be pointed out that petitioner's failure to present proof of payment of the
appeal fees is not fatal since petitioner has paid fees within reglementary period.
It should also be reiterated that procedural rules are meant to facilitate, not
defeat, the attainment of justice.

Gliceria Sarmiento v. Emerita Zaratan G.R. NO. 167471 FEBRUARY 5, 2007 Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gliceria Sarmiento v. Emerita Zaratan G.R. NO. 167471 FEBRUARY 5, 2007 Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gliceria Sarmiento v. Emerita Zaratan G.R. NO. 167471 FEBRUARY 5, 2007 Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GLICERIA SARMIENTO

G.R. NO. 167471 FEBRUARY 5, 2007

UNITED INTERIOR MANGGAHAN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS DE

Sometime in early 2000, petitioner, United Interior Manggahan Homeowners

Petitioner then sought reconsideration, attaching therewith a copy of Board

RTC denied petitioner’s petitioner, hence, filed the certiorari petition against the

Respondents assailed that petitioner's resort to a certiorari action being final, the

(1) Yes, the petition is for certiorari is proper.

You might also like