G.R. No. 202069. March 7, 2018.*

 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ALVIN
C. DIMARUCOT and NAILYN TAÑEDO-DIMARUCOT,
respondents.

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Motion for

Reconsideration; While it is a settled rule that a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is filed before the respondent court; there are well-
defined exceptions established by jurisprudence.—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.” However, this general rule is subject to well-
defined exceptions, thus: Moreover, while it is a settled rule that a
special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie unless
a motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent court;
there are well-defined exceptions established by jurisprudence,
such as [i] where the order is a patent nullity, as where the
court a quo has no jurisdiction; [ii] where the questions raised
in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and
passed upon in the lower court; [iii] where there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; [iv]

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 
615

VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 615

Republic vs. Dimarucot
  

where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration

would be useless; [v] where petitioner was deprived of due process
and there is extreme urgency for relief; [vi] where, in a criminal
case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable; [vii] where the
proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
[viii] where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and [ix] where the issue
raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.
Same; Civil Procedure; Motions; Three-day Notice Rule; The
three (3)-day notice rule was established not for the benefit of
movant but for the adverse party, in order to avoid surprises and
grant the latter sufficient time to study the motion and enable it to
meet the arguments interposed therein.—The 3-day notice rule was
established not for the benefit of movant but for the adverse
party, in order to avoid surprises and grant the latter sufficient
time to study the motion and enable it to meet the arguments
interposed therein. The duty to ensure receipt by the adverse
party at least three days before the proposed hearing date
necessarily falls on the movant. Nevertheless, considering the
nature of the case and the issues involved therein, the
Court finds that relaxation of the Rules was called for. It is
well settled that procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of
substantial justice. Accordingly, the “strict and rigid application,
[of procedural rules] which would result in technicalities that tend
to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always
be eschewed.”
Administrative Law; Court Personnel; Clerks of Court; The
duty of clerks of court to disqualify themselves in accordance with
the parameters set by Section 1, Rule 137 pertains to such clerks,
not the courts and presiding judges they serve.—An objection on
the basis of Section 1, Rule 137 must be made in writing and filed
before the judicial officer concerned. Thus, the Republic should
have raised its objection concerning Atty. Amy’s disqualification
before the RTC. Consequently, the CA was not bound to pass
upon such objection, and thus, did not err in refusing to do
so. In any case, the duty of clerks of court to disqualify
themselves in accordance with the parameters set by Section 1,
Rule 137 pertains to such clerks, not the courts and presiding
judges they serve. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 58-
2008 (SC AC No. 58-08) lends

 
 
616
 VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 616 
Republic vs. Dimarucot

guidance: 1. Clerks of court, assistant clerks of court, deputy

clerks of court and branch clerks of court in all levels shall
conduct a screening of cases now pending before their
respective courts or divisions to verify and report in
writing to their respective presiding judges, Chairpersons of
Divisions, or in En Banc cases, to the Presiding Justice and Chief
Justice, as the case may be, if there are grounds for their
disqualification in regard to the performance of their
functions and duties, under the first paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division
and Former Sixteenth Division.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
       Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
    Homer Elford M. Garong for respondent Alvin
Dimarucot.
   Christopher A. Basilio for respondent Nailyn Tañedo-
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.

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 21-92.

2  Id., at pp. 95-107. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with
Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.
3  Id., at pp. 119-123.

 
 

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

_______________

4   Id., at pp. 151-154. Penned by Judge Ismael P. Casabar.

5   Id., at p. 151.
6   Id., at pp. 136-139.
7   Id., at p. 154.
8   Id., at pp. 152-153.
9   Id., at pp. 185-186.
10  Id., at p. 186.
11  Id., at p. 136.
12  Id.
13  Id.

 
 
 618

618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Dimarucot

 
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:

From the evidence adduced by [Alvin], this court is

convinced that [Nailyn] is psychologically incapacitated to
perform her basic marital obligations. Her being a loose-
spender, overly materialistic and her complete disregard of
the basic foundation of their marriage [—] to live together,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual
help and support are manifestations of her psychological
incapacity to comply with the basic marital duties and
responsibilities. Her incapacity is grave, permanent and
incurable. It existed from her childhood and became so
manifest after the celebration of their marriage.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered declaring the
marriage between [Alvin] and [Nailyn] void on the ground
of psychological incapacity on the part of [Nailyn] to fulfill
the basic marital obligations.18

_______________

15  Id., at pp. 127-128.

16  Id., at p. 129.
17  Id., at p. 161.
18  Id., at p. 199.

 
  
619

VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 619

Republic vs. Dimarucot

 
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:

Acting on the [MR] filed by the [OSG] through State

Solicitor Josephine D. Arias and it appearing that the
motion was set for hearing on July 6, 2010 yet the motion
itself was filed only on July 27, 2010.
This Court is at loss as to when the instant motion
should be heard.
Under these circumstances, the instant motion is
considered one which is not set for hearing and therefore, a
mere scrap of paper, and as such it presents no question
which merits the attention and consideration of the court. It
is not even a motion for it does not comply with the rules
and hence, the clerk has no right to receive it.
Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 15,
Sections 4, 5 and 6 is a fatal flaw.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the motion is denied.23
(Citations omitted)

    Thus, on September 1, 2010, the Republic filed a

Notice of Appeal of even date, which was denied in the
September 2010 RTC Order. Said order reads, in part:

_______________

19  Id., at pp. 200-208.

20Id., at p. 201; emphasis and underscoring in the original.
21  Id., at pp. 57-58.
22  Id., at p. 151.
23  Id.

 
  

620

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Dimarucot

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)

Subsequently, on October 22, 2010, the Republic filed a

Petition for Certiorari25 (CA Petition) before the CA, ascribing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC for issuing the
August and September 2010 RTC orders.26
The Republic claimed that its MR substantially complied
with the requirements of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15
governing motions.27 Hence, the RTC should not have
treated said MR as a mere scrap of paper solely because of
the misstatement of the proposed hearing date in the
Notice of Hearing appended thereto, considering that the
RTC is “not without any discretion” to set the MR for
hearing on a different date.28
The Republic also raised, albeit in passing, that with the
exception of the copy of the RTC Petition, the OSG was not
furnished with other orders, legal processes and pleadings
after it had deputized the Provincial Prosecutor to assist in
the RTC case.29
On July 29, 2011, the CA rendered the Assailed Decision
denying the CA Petition.

_______________

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

VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 621

Republic vs. Dimarucot

 
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:

In a litany of cases, the [Court] already held that a

motion for reconsideration, as a general rule, must have
first been filed before the tribunal, board or officer against
whom the writ of certiorari is sought. This is intended to
afford the latter an opportunity to correct any factual or
fancied error attributed to it. And while there are
exceptions to said rule, x x x
x x x x
none of the x  x  x exceptions attends this case since a motion for
reconsideration is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, the OSG should have filed first a motion for
reconsideration of the [August 2010 RTC Order] rather than
merely presume that the trial court would motu proprio take
cognizance of its (the OSG’s) alleged “typographical error.” It
should not have prematurely filed the present petition before [the
CA]. Its failure to explain or justify as to why it did not first move
for reconsideration of the herein assailed [August 2010 RTC
Order] deprives [the CA] of any ‘concrete, compelling and valid
reason’ to except (sic) the Republic from the aforementioned
general rule of procedure.
Even the OSG’s allegation that its motion for
reconsideration complied with all the requirements of Sec-

_______________

30  As clarified in the Assailed Resolution dated May 24, 2012, id., at

p. 120.
31  Id., at p. 100.

 
 
622
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Dimarucot

tions 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the [Rules], fails to convince [the

CA].
x x x x
The x  x  x requirements — that the notice shall be
directed to the parties concerned and shall state the time
and date for the hearing of the motion — are mandatory,
so much so that if not religiously complied with, the
motion becomes pro forma. Indeed, as held by the RTC,
a motion that does not comply with the requirements of
Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the [Rules] is a worthless
piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to
receive and which the court has no authority to act upon.
x x x x
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.32 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

  The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration33 (CA

MR), arguing that the CA failed to consider that Atty. Amy
Linda C. Dimarucot (Atty. Amy), the Clerk of Court of the
RTC, is respondent Alvin’s sibling, and that her
participation in her brother’s case constitutes a violation of
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules.34 The Republic further
argued that the RTC should not have denied its Notice of
Appeal, since appeal is precisely the proper remedy to
assail the August 2010 RTC Order pursuant to Section 9,
Rule 37 of the Rules and Section 20(2) of the Rules on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages.35
The CA denied the CA MR in the Assailed Resolution. Therein,
the CA clarified that the RTC Order adverted to in the Assailed
Decision is the September 2010 RTC Order (denying the
Republic’s Notice of Appeal) and not the August

_______________

32  Id., at pp. 100-106.

33  Id., at pp. 211-218.
34  Id., at p. 212.
35  Id.

 
 
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

VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 625

 Republic vs. Dimarucot

 
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:

Moreover, while it is a settled rule that a special civil

action for certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie unless a
motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent
court; there are well-defined exceptions established by
jurisprudence, such as [i] where the order is a patent
nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
[ii] where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings
have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court,
or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the
lower court; [iii] where there is an urgent necessity for the
resolution of the question and any further delay would
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
[iv] where, under the circumstances, a motion for
reconsideration would be useless; [v] where petitioner was
deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief; [vi] where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial
court is improbable; [vii] where the proceedings in the lower
court are a nullity for lack of due process; [viii] where the
proceedings were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and [ix] where the issue raised is one
purely of law or where public interest is involved.47
(Citations omitted; emphasis and italics in the original)

The Republic invokes the fourth exception above, and

argues that the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the
September 2010 RTC Order would have been useless as it

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:

SEC. 4. Hearing of motion.—Except for motions which

the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the
adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing
by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the
notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a
manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at
least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless
the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
SEC. 5. Notice of hearing.—The notice of hearing shall
be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the
time and date of the hearing which must not be later than
ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary.—No written
motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the
court without proof of service thereof. (Emphasis
supplied; italics in the original)

   The requirements outlined in the cited provisions can

be summarized as follows:
  i.  Every written motion which cannot be acted upon
without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party
must be set for hearing;
 ii.  The adverse party must be given: (a) a copy of such
written motion, and (b) notice of the corresponding
hearing date;
iii.  The copy of the written motion and the notice of
hearing described in (ii) must be furnished to the
adverse party at least three (3) days before the
hearing date, unless otherwise ordered by the RTC (3-
day notice rule); and
 
 
628

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Dimarucot
  
iv.   No written motion that is required to be heard shall
be acted upon by the receiving court without proof of
service done in the manner prescribed in (iii).
 
Perusal of the foregoing shows that the Republic failed
to comply with the first and third requirements.
Notably, while the Republic furnished Alvin and
Nailyn’s respective counsels with copies of the MR and
Notice of Hearing, the Republic did so only by registered
mail.51 As a result, Alvin received notice of the Republic’s
MR only on August 11, 2010.52 Hence, even if the RTC
construed the Republic’s typographical error to read August
6, 2010 instead of July 6, 2010, the Republic would have
still failed to comply with the 3-day notice rule.
To be sure, the 3-day notice rule was established not for
the benefit of movant but for the adverse party, in order to
avoid surprises and grant the latter sufficient time to study
the motion and enable it to meet the arguments interposed
therein.53 The duty to ensure receipt by the adverse party
at least three days before the proposed hearing date
necessarily falls on the movant.
Nevertheless, considering the nature of the case
and the issues involved therein, the Court finds that
relaxation of the Rules was called for. It is well-settled
that procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of
substantial justice. Accordingly, the “strict and rigid
application, [of procedural rules] which would result in
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must always be eschewed.”54

_______________

51  CA Rollo, pp. 122-123.

52  Rollo, p. 251.
53  See generally Cabrera v. Ng, 729 Phil. 544, 550 and 551; 719 SCRA
199, 205 (2014).
54    Heirs of the Deceased Spouses  Vicente S. Arcilla and Josefa
Asuncion Arcilla v. Teodoro, 583 Phil. 540, 553; 561 SCRA 545, 557 (2008).

 
 
629

VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 629

Republic vs. Dimarucot
  
Here, the State’s policy of upholding the sanctity of
marriage takes precedence over strict adherence to Rule
15, for the finality of the RTC Decision necessarily entails
the permanent severance of Alvin and Nailyn’s marital
ties. Hence, the RTC should have exercised its discretion,
as it did have such discretion, and set the MR for hearing
on a later date with due notice to the parties to allow them
to fully thresh out the Republic’s assigned errors. The CA
thus erred when it affirmed the RTC in this respect.
 
The Republic’s objection
against Atty. Amy’s par-
ticipation in the annul-
ment case should have
been raised at the first
instance before the RTC.
 
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 137 provide:

SECTION 1. Disqualification of judges.—No judge or

judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife
or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor
or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within
the sixth degree of consangunity (sic) or affinity, or to
counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the
rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he
has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or
decision is the subject of review, without the written
consent of all parties-in-interest, signed by them and
entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above.
SEC. 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made
and effect.—If it be claimed that an official is disqualified
from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his
competency may, in writing, file with 

 
 
630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Dimarucot
  

the official his objection, stating the grounds

therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed
with the trial, or withdraw, therefrom in accordance
with his determination of the question of his
disqualification. His decision shall be forthwith made in
writing and filed with the other papers in the case, but no
appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by means of, his
decision in favor of his own competency, until after final
judgment in the case. (Emphasis supplied; italics in the
original)

      Section 2, Rule 137 is clear and leaves no room for

interpretation. An objection on the basis of Section 1, Rule
137 must be made in writing and filed before the judicial
officer concerned. Thus, the Republic should have raised its
objection concerning Atty. Amy’s disqualification before the
RTC. Consequently, the CA was not bound to pass
upon such objection, and thus, did not err in
refusing to do so.
In any case, the duty of clerks of court to disqualify
themselves in accordance with the parameters set by
Section 1, Rule 137 pertains to such clerks, not the courts
and presiding judges they serve. Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 58-200855 (SC AC No. 58-08)
lends guidance:

1. Clerks of court, assistant clerks of court, deputy

clerks of court and branch clerks of court in all levels shall
conduct a screening of cases now pending before
their respective courts or divisions to verify and
report in writing to their respective presiding judges,
Chairpersons of Divisions, or in En Banc cases, to the
Presiding Justice and Chief Justice, as the case may be, if
there are grounds for their disqualifica-

_______________

55    Implementation of Section 1,    Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, as

amended by the En Banc’s Resolution dated June 3,  2008, in A.M. No. 08-
4-1-SC, re: disqualification of all clerks of court,  assistant clerks of court,
deputy clerks of  court and branch clerks of court, in all levels  in the
performance of their respective functions and duties, June 3, 2008.

 
 
631
 VOL. 857, MARCH 7, 2018 631
Republic vs. Dimarucot

tion in regard to the performance of their functions

and duties, under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule
137 of the Rules of Court.56 (Emphasis supplied)

    In the absence of any showing of collusion between

Judge Casabar and Atty. Amy, the latter’s failure to report
the circumstances requiring her disqualification cannot
serve as basis to ascribe grave abuse of discretion to the
former.
Nevertheless, Atty. Amy’s alleged failure to observe SC
AC No. 58-08, if true, cannot be countenanced. Thus,
pursuant to its power of administrative supervision over all
court personnel, the Court deems it appropriate to refer the
Republic’s allegations to the Office of the Court
Administrator for appropriate action.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for
Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Assailed Decision
of the Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division dated July 29,
2011 and Assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals
Former Sixteenth Division dated May 24, 2012 in C.A.-G.R.
S.P. No. 116572 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 in Guimba,
Nueva Ecija is DIRECTED to give due course to the
Republic’s Notice of Appeal dated September 1, 2010 and to
elevate the case records to the Court of Appeals for review.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of
the Court Administrator for its information and
appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio**  (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe and

Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

_______________

56  Id.
**  Designated Acting Chief Justice  per Special Order No. 2539 dated
February 28, 2018.

 
 
632
 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Dimarucot

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.

Notes.—Section 2 of Rule 52 states that “[n]o second

motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution
by the same party shall be entertained”; While the Rule
provides for exceptions, the second motion for
reconsideration can still only be entertained “before the
ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation
of law or by the Court’s declaration.” (Buenavista
Properties, Inc. vs. Mariño, 805 SCRA 548 [2016])
Generally, all written motions are required to include a
notice of hearing and must be addressed to all parties and
served to them at least three (3) days before the date of the
hearing. (Republic vs. Cortez, 817 SCRA 19 [2017])

 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.