Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic vs. Dimarucot
Republic vs. Dimarucot
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
615
616
VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 616
Republic vs. Dimarucot
CAGUIOA, J.:
The Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition)
filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) against
the Decision2 dated July 29, 2011 (Assailed Decision) and
Resolution3 dated May 24, 2012 (Assailed Resolution) in
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 116572 rendered by the Court of Appeals
(CA) Sixteenth Division and Former Sixteenth Division,
respectively.
_______________
617
VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 617
Republic vs. Dimarucot
The Assailed Decision and Resolution stem from the
following orders4 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 33 (RTC) against petitioner
Republic of the Philippines (Republic) in Civil Case No.
1527-G, to wit:
1. The Order5 dated August 13, 2010 (August 2010 RTC
Order) denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision6 dated July 2, 2010 rendered by the RTC
(RTC Decision) which, in turn, declared the marriage
between respondents Alvin C. Dimarucot (Alvin) and
Nailyn Tanedo-Dimarucot (Nailyn) (collectively,
Respondents) null and void; and
2. The Order7 dated September 13, 2010 (September
2010 RTC Order) denying due course to the Republic’s
Notice of Appeal8 dated September 1, 2010.
The Facts
Respondents met sometime in 2002 and became friends.9
This friendship immediately progressed and turned into an
intimate romantic relationship,10 leading to Nailyn’s
pregnancy in March 2003. Two months later, the
Respondents wed in civil rights on May 18, 2003.11
Nailyn gave birth to the Respondents’ first child, Ayla
Nicole, on November 11, 2003.12 Years later, on December
13, 2007, Nailyn gave birth to Respondents’ second child,
Anyelle.13
_______________
618
It appears, however, that Respondents’ whirlwind
romance resulted in a problematic marriage, as Alvin filed
a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage
(RTC Petition) before the RTC on September 22, 2009.14
In the RTC Petition, Alvin alleged that Nailyn suffers
from psychological incapacity which renders her incapable
of complying with the essential obligations of marriage.15
Hence, Alvin prayed that his marriage with Nailyn be
declared null and void pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code.16
The Provincial Prosecutor was deputized by the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) to assist in the case.17
On July 2, 2010, the RTC, through Presiding Judge
Ismael P. Casabar (Judge Casabar), rendered a Decision
declaring Respondents’ marriage null and void. The
pertinent portions of the RTC Decision read:
_______________
619
On July 27, 2010, the Republic, through the OSG, filed
a Motion for Reconsideration19 (MR) of even date, alleging
that “[Alvin] failed to prove the juridical antecedence,
gravity and incurability of his wife’s alleged
psychological incapacity.”20 However, the Notice of Hearing
annexed to the MR erroneously set the same for hearing on
July 6, 2010 (instead of August 6, 2010 as the OSG later
explained21).22
The RTC denied the Republic’s MR through the August
2010 RTC Order, which reads in part:
_______________
620
Record shows that the [MR] did not comply with the
requirements set forth under Rule 15, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of
the [Rules], in that it was not set for hearing. Said [MR] did
not interrupt the running of the period of appeal. Hence, the
[RTC Decision] rendered in this case attained finality.
WHEREFORE, the [Notice of Appeal] being taken out of
time is hereby DISMISSED.24 (Citation omitted)
_______________
24 Id., at p. 154.
25 Id., at pp. 155-182.
26 Id., at p. 156.
27 Id., at pp. 166, 170-171.
28 Id., at p. 167.
29 Id., at p. 161.
621
The CA held that the CA Petition warrants outright
dismissal because it was filed without the benefit of a
motion for reconsideration30 — an indispensable
requirement for the filing of a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.31 The CA further held that in any case, the
Republic’s allegation that its MR substantially complied
with all the requirements under Rule 15 lacks merit.
Pertinent portions of the Assailed Decision read:
_______________
622
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Dimarucot
_______________
623
VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 623
Republic vs. Dimarucot
2010 RTC Order (denying the Republic’s MR of the RTC’s
Decision), as erroneously stated therein.36 The Assailed
Resolution did not pass upon the Republic’s allegation
anent Atty. Amy’s alleged violation of Rule 137.
The Republic received a copy of the Assailed Resolution
on May 31, 2012.37
On June 15, 2012, the Republic filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition,38 praying for an
additional period of thirty (30) days, or until July 15, 2012,
within which to file its petition for review.39
The Republic filed the present Petition on July 16, 2012,
as July 15, 2012 fell on a Sunday.40
On August 15, 2012, the Court issued a Resolution
directing Alvin and Nailyn to file their respective
comments to the Petition.41 Alvin and Nailyn filed their
comments42 dated January 7, 2013 and December 2, 2013,
respectively.
The Republic filed its Consolidated Reply43 to the
respondents’ comments on May 7, 2014.
The Issues
The Petition calls on the Court to resolve the following
issues:
1. Whether the CA erred when it caused the outright
dismissal of the CA Petition because it was filed
_______________
36 Id., at p. 122.
37 Id., at p. 24.
38 Id., at pp. 2-4.
39 Id., at p. 3.
40 As confirmed by the Republic’s Manifestation dated July 17,
2012, id., at p. 13.
41 Id., at p. 224.
42 Id., at pp. 249-270, 292-293.
43 Id., at pp. 301-311.
624
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Dimarucot
without the benefit of a prior motion for
reconsideration of the September 2010 RTC Order;
2. Whether the CA erred when it affirmed the August
and September 2010 RTC orders which denied the
Republic’s MR and subsequent Notice of Appeal on
procedural grounds; and
3. Whether the CA erred when it did not pass upon
Atty. Amy’s alleged violation of Rule 137.
The Court’s Ruling
In this Petition, the Republic claims that the RTC
employed a “double standard” in the application of the
Rules, for while it strictly applied Rule 15 (governing
motions) against the Republic, it did not apply Rule 137
(governing disqualification of judicial officers) against its
Clerk of Court Atty. Amy, who participated in the RTC
proceedings despite being the sister of party-respondent
Alvin.44
Proceeding therefrom, the Republic argues that in
affirming the RTC orders, the CA erroneously deprived it of
the opportunity to fully ventilate its objections against the
RTC’s Decision which declared Alvin and Nailyn’s marriage
null and void.45
The Court grants the Petition.
A prior motion for recon-
sideration is not necessary
for a petition for certiorari
to prosper in cases where
such motion would be use-
less.
_______________
44 Id., at p. 36.
45 Id., at pp. 77-78.
625
It is true that this Court has ruled that “certiorari, as a
special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal,
to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.”46
However, this general rule is subject to well-defined
exceptions, thus:
46 Ermita v. Aldecoa-Delorino, 666 Phil. 122, 132; 651 SCRA 128,
138 (2011).
47 Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
218901, February 15, 2017, 818 SCRA 68, 78-79.
626
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Dimarucot
was based on the earlier August 2010 RTC Order.48 The
Court agrees.
To recall, the denial of the Republic’s Notice of Appeal
through the September 2010 RTC Order was premised on
the RTC’s earlier finding that the MR was a pro forma
motion due to noncompliance with Rule 15. As well, it is
necessary to emphasize that the September 2010 RTC
Order explicitly states that the RTC Decision had “attained
finality” because the Republic’s MR did not toll the
Republic’s period to appeal.49
Clearly, the Republic’s direct resort to the CA via
certiorari was warranted under the circumstances, as it
was led to believe that seeking reconsideration of the
September 2010 RTC Order would have been a useless
exercise. The CA thus erred when it caused the
outright dismissal of the CA Petition solely on the
basis of the Republic’s failure to file a prior motion
for reconsideration.
Strict compliance with
Rule 15 should have been
waived in the interest of
substantial justice.
The Republic concedes that it misstated the proposed
hearing date in the Notice of Hearing attached to its MR. It
argues, however, that this misstatement does not serve as
sufficient basis to treat its MR as a mere scrap of paper,
considering that said Notice of Hearing fulfilled the
purpose of Rule 15, that is, “to afford the adverse
parties a chance to be heard before [the MR] is
resolved by the [RTC].”50
The Republic’s argument proceeds from the assumption
that the only defect in its Notice of Hearing was the typo-
_______________
48 Rollo, p. 53.
49 Id., at p. 184.
50 Id., at p. 168; emphasis in the original.
627
VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 627
Republic vs. Dimarucot
graphical error in its proposed hearing date. This is error.
Reference to Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 is in order:
_______________
629
630
_______________
631
VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 631
Republic vs. Dimarucot
_______________
56 Id.
** Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated
February 28, 2018.
632
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Dimarucot
——o0o——