Case Digest (G.R. No. 142572)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Carmel Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142572, February 20, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Department of Education (DepEd) sued respondent Carmel Development, Inc. (Carmel) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 125, by a Complaint for recovery of possession with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. C‑18264), alleging that Carmel’s titled parcel (TCT No. (64007)15807) was occupied by Pangarap Elementary and High Schools established by DepEd. Carmel filed the complaint on March 17, 1998.
The RTC issued subpoenas; Carmel moved on April 27, 1998 to declare DepEd and the Caloocan City School Board in default, and the RTC granted the motion and allowed Carmel to present evidence ex parte. The defendants had filed a Motion for Extension of Time and a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, which the RTC initially treated as moot or not to be acted upon because of the default declaration (orders dated April 27, 29 and 30, 1998).
DepEd moved for reconsideration and to lift the default (May 14, 1998), asserting timely motions and that it had not been properly served with Carmel’s motion to declare default; Carmel opposed. On June 15, 1998, the RTC set aside its earlier orders, lifted the default, and denied DepEd’s motion to dismiss for alleged violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04‑94 (substantial compliance found). DepEd filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on August 17, 1998.
DepEd filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking annulment of the RTC’s June 15 and August 17, 1998 orders. The CA (Ninth Division) dismissed DepEd’s petition on August 16, 1999 and denied reconsideration on March 17, 2000. The CA’s dismissal rested in part on petitioner’s failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders (submitting duplicate originals) and on procedural grounds regarding issues first raised before the CA.
DepEd elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, contesting (1) the CA’s dismissal for lack of certified true copies, (2) the CA’s ref...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing DepEd’s petition because it was accompanied by duplicate originals instead of certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in refusing to find that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied DepEd’s motion to dismiss for litis pendentia without affording a hearing?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that Carmel complied with the certification-against-forum-shopping requirement under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04‑94 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)