SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 202069, March 07, 2018
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ALVIN C. DIMARUCOT AND NAILYN TAÑEDO-DIMARUCOT, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
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.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
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
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.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:
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)
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.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
WHEREFORE, the [Notice of Appeal] being taken out of time is hereby DISMISSED.24 (Citation omitted)
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 xThe 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
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 Sections 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)
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 was based on the earlier August 2010 RTC Order.48 The Court agrees.
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.The requirements outlined in the cited provisions can be summarized as follows:
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)
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.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.
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 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)
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.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.
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 21-92.
2 Id. at 95-107. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Angelita A. Gacutan concurring.
3 Id. at 119-123.
4 Id. at 151, 154. Penned by Judge Ismael P. Casabar.
5 Id. at 151.
6 Id. at 136-139.
7 Id. at 154.
8 Id. at 152-153.
9 Id. at 185-186.
10 Id. at 186.
11 Id. at 136.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 124-131.
15 Id. at 127-128.
16 Id. at 129.
17 Id. at 161.
18 Id. at 199.
19 Id. at 200-208.
20 Id. at 201; emphasis and underscoring in the original.
21 Id. at 57-58.
22 Id. at 151.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 154.
25 Id. at 155-182.
26 Id. at 156.
27 Id. at 166, 170-171.
28 Id. at 167.
29 Id. at 161.
30 As clarified in the Assailed Resolution dated May 24, 2012, id. at 120.
31Rollo, p. 100.
32 Id. at 100-106.
33 Id. at 211-218.
34 Id. at 212.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 122.
37 Id. at 24.
38 Id. at 2-4.
39 Id. at 3.
40 As confirmed by the Republic's Manifestation dated July 17, 2012, id. at 13.
41Rollo, p. 224.
42 Id. at 249-270, 292-293.
43 Id. at 301-311.
44 Id. at 36.
45 Id. at 77-78.
46Ermita v. Aledecoa-Delorino, 666 Phil. 122, 132 (2011).
47Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 218901, February 15, 2017, p. 7.
48Rollo, p. 53.
49 Id. at 184.
50 Id. at 168; emphasis in the original.
51 CA rollo, pp. 122-123.
52Rollo, p. 251.
53 See generally Cabrera v. Ng, 729 Phil. 544, 550 and 551 (2014).
54Heirs of Spouses Arcilla v. Teodoro, 583 Phil. 540, 553 (2008).
55Implementation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, as amended by the En Banc 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.
56 Id.