G.R. No. 125539 - People vs. Patalin Jr.

On September 2, 2002, petitioner Gliceria Sarmiento filed Civil Case No. 29109 for ejectment against respondent Emerita Zaratan in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36.
On March 31, 2003, the MeTC rendered judgment in petitioner’s favor, ordering respondent to pay monthly rentals of ₱3,500.00 from August 1, 2002 until vacatur, attorney’s fees of ₱20,000.00 plus ₱1,500.00 per appearance, and costs.

Respondent filed a notice of appeal; the case was raffled to the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 223 as Civil Case No. Q-03-49437. The RTC ordered respondent to file her appeal memorandum within 15 days under Rule 40, Section 7(b).
On June 3, 2003, respondent’s counsel filed a five-day Motion for Extension of Time to file the memorandum but omitted a notice of hearing; the motion was not acted upon. Respondent filed her memorandum on June 9, 2003—six days late.

On June 19, 2003, the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file the memorandum within 15 days, citing strict compliance with reglementary periods (Legaspi-Santos, FJR Garments, Gutierrez).
Petitioner moved for immediate execution; respondent moved for reconsideration. On July 31, 2003, the RTC denied both motions, ruling the extension motion was “worthless” for lack of notice of hearing (Rule 15, Secs. 4-5).
On August 27, 2003, the RTC granted petitioner’s motion for immediate execution under Rule 70, Section 21, and denied respondent’s motion for clarification.

On August 17, 2004, the Court of Appeals granted respondent’s Petition for Certiorari, nullified and set aside the June 19 and July 31, 2003 RTC orders, reinstated the appeal, admitted the memorandum, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration (September 13, 2004) and inhibition (September 20, 2004) were denied by the CA on March 10, 2005.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Whether respondent’s Petition for Certiorari in the CA was improper or should have been dismissed for defective verification.

Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time for lack of notice of hearing.

Whether Rule 70, Section 19 (not Section 21) governs immediate execution of a MeTC ejectment judgment pending appeal.

Whether the CA justices should have inhibited themselves due to alleged bias and partiality.