FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 191837. September 19, 2012.]

MARIA CONSOLACION RIVERA-PASCUAL , petitioner, vs . SPOUSES

MARILYN LIM and GEORGE LIM and the REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF
VALENZUELA CITY , respondents.

RESOLUTION

REYES , J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolutions dated October 15,
2009 1 and March 11, 2010 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 109265.
The facts leading to the filing of this petition are undisputed.
Subject of the present controversy is a parcel of land with an approximate area of
4.4 hectares and located at Bignay, Valenzuela City. The property is covered by Transfer
Certi cate of Title (TCT) No. V-73892, registered in the names of George and Marilyn Lim
(Spouses Lim).
On September 8, 2004, Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual (Consolacion) led before
the O ce of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region IV-A a petition
to be recognized as a tenant of a property located at Bignay, Valenzuela City against Danilo
Deato (Deato). At that time, the property, which has an approximate area of 4.4 hectares,
was covered by TCT No. 24759 under Deato's name. During the pendency of the petition,
Deato sold the property to Spouses Lim. The sale was registered on December 21, 2004
leading to the issuance of TCT No. V-73892 in favor of Spouses Lim. Considering this
development, Consolacion led a motion on March 3, 2005 to implead Spouses Lim as
respondents. 3
The petition, which was docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0400-0012-04, was granted
by Regional Adjudicator Conchita C. Miñas (RA Miñas) in a Decision 4 dated December 2,
2005, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1) Declaring that petitioner is the tenant of the subject landholding by

succession from her deceased father;
2) Declaring respondents spouses George and Marilyn Lim to have
subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligation of spouses
Danilo and Divina Deato;

3) Ordering the respondents and all persons claiming rights under them to
maintain petitioner in peaceful possession and cultivation of the
agricultural land subject hereof;

4) Declaring petitioner to have the right to exercise the right of redemption of

the subject parcel of agricultural land pursuant to Section 12 of RA 3844
as [a]mended; and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 5) Dismissing the petition against Louie Cruz, Fire Force Agency and Danny
Boy Rivera for having no proximate tenurial relationship with the petitioner
hence beyond the jurisdictional ambit of this Office.
aEACcS

SO ORDERED. 5

On July 7, 2006, the foregoing decision became final. 6

Upon Consolacion's motion for execution led on January 7, 2008, RA Miñas issued
a writ of execution on January 8, 2008. 7
On January 21, 2008, Consolacion led a petition against Spouses Lim and the
Registrar of Deeds of Valenzuela City praying for the issuance of an order directing
Spouses Lim to accept the amount of P10,000,000.00 which she undertook to tender
during the initial hearing, declaring the property redeemed, and cancelling TCT No. V-
73892. 8 Consolacion consigned with the RARAD the amount of P10,000,000.00 on March
3, 2008. 9
Consolacion's petition, which was docketed as DARAB Case No. R-0400-001-08,
was given due course by RA Miñas in a Decision 1 0 dated June 2, 2008, the dispositive
portion of which states:
WHEREFORE , foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered:

1. As prayed for, declaring that the landholding subject of the petition

as lawfully redeemed;

2. Ordering respondent spouses to accept and withdraw the amount of

the redemption price consigned with this O ce which was
deposited for safekeeping indicated in Manager's Check No.
0000004518 issued by Allied Bank in the name of Spouses Marilyn
and George Lim and/or DAR Adjudication Board Region IV-A in the
amount of ten (10) million pesos;

3. Upon acceptance and the withdrawal of the redemption price as

ordered in paragraph 2 hereof, ordering respondent spouses to
execute a Deed of Redemption in favor of petitioner;

4. In case of refusal and/or failure of respondent spouses to execute

the Deed of Redemption as ordered above, the Regional Clerk of the
Board is hereby ordered to execute a Deed of Redemption in the
name of the petitioner; and

5. Directing the Register of Deeds for Valenzuela City to cause the

cancellation of TCT No. V-73892 registered in the name of
respondent spouses Marilyn and George Lim and a new one issued
in the name of petitioner upon presentment of the Deed of
Redemption.

SO ORDERED . 1 1

On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a

Decision 1 2 on February 18, 2009 reversing RA Miñas Decision dated June 2, 2008.
Specifically:
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision dated 02
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 June 2008 is hereby REVERS ED and SET ASIDE . A new judgment is hereby
rendered:
1. DECLARING the landholding to be not lawfully redeemed;

2. D E CL AR ING petitioner-appellee not a bona de tenant of the

subject landholding;

3. D ECL AR ING that petitioner-appellee cannot redeem the subject

parcel registered in the names of the respondents-appellants;

4. O R D E R I N G the respondents-appellants to be maintained in

peaceful possession of the subject landholding[; and]

5. DIRECTING the Clerk of the Board of the Regional Agrarian Reform

Adjudicator of Region IV-A to return the Manager's Check No.
0000004518 issued by Allied Bank in the name of Spouses Marilyn
and George Lim and/or DAR Adjudication Board Region IV-A in the
amount of Ten Million pesos to herein petitioner-appellee.
IcHTAa

SO ORDERED . 1 3

On April 13, 2009, Consolacion moved for reconsideration, 1 4 which the DARAB
denied in a Resolution 1 5 dated June 8, 2009 for being filed out of time.
SECTION 12 Rule X of the 2003 DARAB Rules provides that a Motion for
Reconsideration shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of the
order, resolution, or decision of the Board or Adjudicator. Records show that both
the petitioner-appellee and her counsel received a copy of the Decision dated 18
February 2009 on 27 February 2009 and that Legal O cer Nancy Geocada[,] the
alleged new counsel of the herein petitioner[-]appellee[,] led the Motion for
Reconsideration only on 13 April 2009, clearly the Motion for Reconsideration was
led beyond the fteen (15) days (sic) reglementary period thus the herein
Decision has already become final and executory. . . . 1 6

On June 25, 2009, Consolacion led a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court with the CA. 1 7
On July 1, 2009, the CA resolved to require Consolacion's counsel to submit within
ve (5) days from notice his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certi cate of
Compliance or Exemption and an amended Veri cation and Certi cation Against Non-
Forum-Shopping. 1 8 Apparently, Consolacion's counsel failed to indicate in the petition his
MCLE Certi cate of Compliance or Exemption Number as required under Bar Matter No.
1922. Also, the jurat of Consolacion's veri cation and certi cation against non-forum-
shopping failed to indicate any competent evidence of Consolacion's identity apart from
her community tax certificate.
Considering the failure of Consolacion and her counsel to comply, the CA issued a
Resolution 1 9 on October 15, 2009 dismissing the petition.
On July 7, 2009, the counsel for the petitioner received the above-
mentioned Resolution. However, the counsel for the petitioner failed to comply
with the said Resolution which was due on July 19, 2009.
For failure of the counsel for the petitioner to comply with the Resolution
dated July 1, 2009, despite receipt of the notice thereof, the petition is hereby
DISMISSED .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED . 2 0

Consolacion moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the CA in a

Resolution 2 1 dated March 11, 2010.
Consolacion is, before this Court, claiming that the CA's summary dismissal of her
petition on technical grounds is unwarranted. Consolacion invoked substantial justice
against the CA's strict application of the rule requiring her counsel to note his MCLE
Compliance or Exemption Certi cate Number and the rule rendering the jurat of her
veri cation and certi cation on non-forum-shopping defective in the absence of the details
of any one of her current identi cation document issued by an o cial agency bearing her
photograph and signature. That there was merit in her petition and that she complied,
albeit belatedly as her counsel's MCLE Compliance Certi cate Number was indicated and
a veri cation and certi cate on non-forum-shopping with a proper jurat was attached to
her motion for reconsideration, should have su ced for the CA to reverse the dismissal of
her petition and decide the same on its merits. Consolacion alleged that procedural rules
or technicalities are designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and their rigid
application should be avoided if this would frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice.
The Court nds no merit in the petition. The Court sees no reversible error
committed by the CA in dismissing Consolacion's petition before it on the ground of
petitioner's unexplained failure to comply with basic procedural requirements attendant to
the ling of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Notably, Consolacion
and her counsel remained obstinate despite the opportunity afforded to them by the CA to
rectify their lapses. While there was compliance, this took place, however, after the CA had
ordered the dismissal of Consolacion's petition and without reasonable cause proffered to
justify its belatedness. Consolacion and her counsel claimed inadvertence and negligence
but they did not explain the circumstances thereof. Absent valid and compelling reasons,
the requested leniency and liberality in the observance of procedural rules appears to be
an afterthought, hence, cannot be granted. The CA saw no compelling need meriting the
relaxation of the rules. Neither does this Court see any.
The Court is aware of the exceptional cases where technicalities were liberally
construed. However, in these cases, outright dismissal is rendered unjust by the presence
of a satisfactory and persuasive explanation. The parties therein who prayed for liberal
interpretation were able to hurdle that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an
exceptional treatment. It was never the Court's intent "to forge a bastion for erring litigants
to violate the rules with impunity." 2 2
This Court will not condone a cavalier attitude towards procedural rules. It is the
duty of every member of the bar to comply with these rules. They are not at liberty to seek
exceptions should they fail to observe these rules and rationalize their omission by harking
on liberal construction. While it is the negligence of Consolacion's counsel that led to this
unfortunate result, she is bound by such. cDTCIA

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED . The Resolutions

dated October 15, 2009 and March 11, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
109265 are AFFIRMED .
Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion * and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

*Acting member per Special Order No. 1305 dated September 10, 2012 vice Associate Justice
Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
1.Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court), with
Associate Justices Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Romeo F. Barza, concurring; rollo, pp.
41-42.

2.Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De

Leon and Ruben C. Ayson, concurring; id. at 44-45.

3.Id. at 59.
4.Id. at 55-67.
5.Id. at 66.

6.Id. at 68-69.
7.Id. at 70-71.

8.Id. at 73-75.
9.Id. at 106.

10.Id. at 97-108.
11.Id. at 107-108.
12.Id. at 140-155.

13.Id. at 153-154.
14.Id. at 157-163.

15.Id. at 164-167.
16.Id. at 165-166.

17.Id. at 26.
18.Id. at 26-27.
19.Id. at 41-42.

20.Id. at 41.
21.Id. at 44-45.

22.Pates v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 184915, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 481, 487,
citing Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona, 359 Phil. 210, 220 (1998).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com