POWERS THAT BE: Board Resolution vs. Special Power of Attorney (Case Digest: Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168313. October 6, 2010)

By Siesta-friendly

Why the Supreme Court can still be bothered with an issue as simple as that involved in this case is a failure in the system leading to unnecessary clogging of courts’ dockets and further delay in the disposition of cases with substantial issues.

Anyway, below is the condensed form of the case.

First Union Group Enterprises (First Union) borrowed from Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) PhP5,000,000.00 and USD123,218.32. As partial security for the loan, Spouses Linda and Eddy Tien executed a Real Estate Mortgage Agreement covering 2 condominium units.  Linda also executed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement where she agreed to be solidarily liable with First Union for its obligations to BPI.   Despite repeated demands, First Union failed to pay BPI the amounts due.

First Union’s and Linda’s continued failure to settle their outstanding obligations prompted BPI to file a complaint for collection of sum of money.  The complaint’s verification and certificate of non-forum shopping were signed by Ma. Cristina F. Asis (Asis) and Kristine L. Ong (Ong).  However, no Secretary’s Certificate or Board Resolution was attached to evidence Asis’ and Ong’s authority to file the complaint.  Instead of submitting a board resolution, BPI attached a “Special Power of Attorney” (SPA) executed by Zosimo A. Kabigting (Zosimo), Vice-President of BPI.  The SPA authorized Asis and Ong or any lawyer from the Benedicto Versoza Gealogo and Burkley Law Offices to initiate any legal action against First Union and Linda. 

First Union and Linda filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that BPI violated Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules); BPI failed to attach to the complaint the necessary board resolution authorizing Asis and Ong to institute the collection action against First Union and Linda. 

BPI filed an “Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss,” arguing that the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping sufficiently established Asis’ and Ong’s authority to file the complaint and proof of their authority could be presented during the trial.  Further, BPI alleged that a complaint “can only be dismissed under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure if there was no certification against forum shopping.”  The provision, according to BPI, “does not even require that the person certifying should show proof of his authority to do so.” 

The RTC granted First Union’s and Linda’s Motion to Dismiss.

The CA affirmed.

BPI filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC.  It contended that in Shipside v. Court of Appeals (February 20, 2001, G.R. No. 143377, 352 SCRA 334),  the SC excused Shipside’s belated submission of its Secretary’s Certificate and held that it substantially complied with the rule requiring the submission of a verification and certificate of non-forum shopping as it did, in fact, make a submission.

BPI’s cited Shipside case also involved the absence of proof – attached to the petition – that the filing officer was authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certification. In the Motion for Reconsideration that followed the dismissal of the case, the movant attached a certificate issued by its board secretary stating that 10 days prior to the filing of the petition, the filing officer had been authorized by petitioner’s board of directors to file said petition.  Thus, proper authority existed but was simply not attached to the petition.  On this submission, the petitioner sought and the SC positively granted relief.

In the present case, the SC did not see a situation comparable to the cited Shipside. BPI did not submit any proof of authority in the first instance because it did not believe that a board resolution evidencing such authority was necessary. Instead of immediately submitting an appropriate board resolution – after the First Union and Linda filed their motion to dismiss – BPI argued that it was not required to submit one and even argued that: 

The Complaint can only be dismissed under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure if there was no certification against forum shopping.  The Complaint has.  The provision cited does not even require that the person certifying show proof of his authority to do so x x x.

In fact, BPI merely attached to its opposition a special power of attorney issued by Mr. Kabigting, a bank vice-president, granting Asis and Ong the authority to file the complaint.  Thus, no direct authority to file a complaint was initially ever given by BPI – the corporate entity in whose name and behalf the complaint was filed.  Only in its Reply to the Comment to plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss did BPI “beg the kind indulgence of the Honorable Court as it inadvertently failed to submit with the Special Power of Attorney the Corporate Secretary’s Certificate which authorized Mr. Zosimo Kabigting to appoint his substitutes.”  Even this submission, however, was a roundabout way of authorizing the filing officers to file the complaint. 

BPI, interestingly, never elaborated nor explained it’s belatedly claimed inadvertence in failing to submit a corporate secretary’s certificate directly authorizing its representatives to file the complaint; it particularly failed to specify the circumstances that led to the claimed inadvertence. Under the given facts, rather than an inadvertence, there was an initial unwavering stance that the submission of a specific authority from the board was not necessary.  In blunter terms, the omission of the required board resolution in the complaint was neither an excusable deficiency nor an omission that occurred through inadvertence.  In the usual course in the handling of a case, the failure was a mistake of counsel that BPI never cared to admit but which nevertheless bound it as a client.  From this perspective, BPI’s case is different from Shipside so that the ruling in this cited case cannot apply. 

The SC held that the dismissal of the case is appropriate without prejudice to its refiling as the Rules allow.

It bears mention that under the Corporation Code, the “corporate powers of all corporations xxx shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors xxx (Section 23).” No corporate officer can just execute an SPA to delegate corporate authority. 

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

HIS IS HERS AND VICE-VERSA (Buying real property from spouses)

By Obiter07

Buyers better beware when dealing with real property that’s conjugally owned.   Not only should a buyer inquire into the title of vendor-spouses, he should also inquire into the authority to sell the property if only one of the spouses is transacting the same with the use of a special power of attorney (“SPA”).

In Spouses Aggabao vs. Parulan, et al. G.R. No. 165803, 1 September 2010, the buyers sought to purchase 2 lots which was owned by estranged spouses.   The wife presented a purported SPA from her husband.

The buyers allege that they acted in good faith in relying on the SPA.  They inquired with the Register of Deeds on the status of the properties and found that it had been encumbered on at least 2 occasions by the wife utilizing SPAs executed by her husband. 

The buyers proceeded to buy the properties.  They were able to secure 1 TCT and transferred the title in their name.  Subsequently, they learned that the other TCT was with a brother of the husband.   This brother sought to negotiate a sale of the property separately.  The property was offered for P800,000 but the buyers made a counter-offer of  P250,000 which was declined.  The buyers would later on insist that the sale had already been consummated with the wife.

 

The husband then brought suit against the buyers to annul the sale of both properties while the buyers sought specific performance.

The court ruled against the buyers.

The court relied on the provisions of the Family Code when it invalidated the sale entered into by the wife with a forged SPA.   The buyers were obliged to “exercise the necessary prudence to inquire into the wife’s authority to sell and that “the sale of conjugal property without the consent of the husband was not merely voidable but void; hence, it could not be ratified.”

The court further stated that a “purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays the full and fair price for it at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property.  He buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to the property.  He cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith. The status of a buyer in good faith is never presumed but must be proven by the person invoking it.” And that diligence extends not only to verifying the status of the title but also to the authority of the transacting spouse.

The buyers’ insistence that they performed due diligence in verifying the status of the TCTs is unavailing. Article 124 of the Family Code ”requires the consent of both spouses before the conjugal property may be disposed of by sale, mortgage, or other modes of disposition. In Bautista v. Silva, the Court erected a standard to determine the good faith of the buyers dealing with a seller who had title to and possession of the land but whose capacity to sell was restricted, in that the consent of the other spouse was required before the conveyance, declaring that in order to prove good faith in such a situation, the buyers must show that they inquired not only into the title of the seller but also into the seller’s capacity to sell. Thus, the buyers of conjugal property must observe two kinds of requisite diligence, namely: (a) the diligence in verifying the validity of the title covering the property; and (b) the diligence in inquiring into the authority of the transacting spouse to sell conjugal property in behalf of the other spouse.”

The buyers, knowing the requirements of the law, should have inquired into the SPA purportedly executed by the husband. They would have discovered that the spouses had “been estranged from each other and were under de facto separation, and that they probably held conflicting interests that would negate the existence of an agency between them. To lift this doubt, they must, of necessity, further inquire into the SPA of Ma. Elena.  The omission to inquire indicated their not being buyers in good faith xxx.”

The “unquestioning reliance” on the SPA “without first taking precautions to verify its authenticity was not a prudent buyer’s move.”  The court found that the notary of the document was not even authorized to act as such for the period in question.  

Moreover, making payment despite the absence of one TCT shows a “lack of precaution.” The court noted their “passivity” in not insisting on a copy of the title which “reflected their lack of due care.” 

Their good faith is also called into question by their failing to take immediate action against the seller when they found one of the titles to be in the possession of another. Instead, they even met with this third party in order to negotiate.  In this case, it was further established that the signature of the husband had been forged, since he was out of the country at the time and the notary was not authorized.

Apart from checking the title with the Register of Deeds, a buyer should now also check the authenticity of an SPA - or better yet get both spouses to sign the deed of sale - including the credentials of the notary public in order to prove good faith and the exercise of due diligence, specially when dealing with spouses.  It is only what the spouses have sold together that the courts will not put asunder.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Merry Christmas (in legalese)

Please accept without obligation, express or implied, these best wishes for an environmentally safe, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, and gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday as practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice (but with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or for their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all) and further for a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated onset of the generally accepted calendar year (including, but not limited to, the Christian calendar, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures). The preceding wishes are extended without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee(s).

Author Unknown

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

The Role of the Judicial and Bar Council in our Justice System

By Siesta-friendly

The group that was solely created for, and has the principal function of, recommending appointees to the judiciary is the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).  So together with the country’s President, the JBC is responsible for the quality of the Supreme Court.  Of the 15 current Supreme Court justices, only Justice Lourdes Sereno (appointed August 2010 by President Aquino) was not appointed by Gloria Arroyo.

Under Article VIII Section 8 of the Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council is composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

So, what guides the JBC in recommending any one to be part of the Supreme Court? 

Constitutional Requirements

First of all, the Constitution set the following minimum requirements for Supreme Court Justices:

1.      natural-born citizen of the Philippines,

2.      at least forty years of age,

3.      must have been for 15 years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines,

4.      a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar, and

5.      of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. (Art. VIII, Section 7)

Requirements 1-4 are simple enough to determine but determining “proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence” requires more detailed evidence and thus a longer process.

The Rules of the JBC (JBC-009, November 2000) provide the details that further guide the JBC.

Rules of the JBC in choosing Supreme Court Justices

Competence

In determining competence, the JBC considers educational preparation, experience, performance and other accomplishments including the completion of the prejudicature program of the Philippine Judicial Academy; provided, however, that in places where the number of applicants/recommendees is insufficient and the prolonged vacancy in the court concerned will prejudice the administration of justice, strict compliance with the requirement of completion of the prejudicature program shall be deemed directory.  (Rule 3, Section 1, as amended effective Dec. 1, 2003)

Educational preparation

The JBC evaluates the applicant's (a) scholastic record up to completion of the degree in law and other baccalaureate and post-graduate degrees obtained; (b) bar examination performance; (c) civil service eligibilities and grades in other government examinations; (d) academic awards, scholarships or grants received/obtained; and (e) membership in local or international honor societies or professional organizations.  (Rule 3, Section 2)

Experience

The experience of the applicant in the following shall be considered:

a)      Government service, which includes that in the Judiciary (Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and courts of the first and second levels); the Executive Department (Office of the President proper and the agencies attached thereto and the Cabinet); the Legislative Department (elective or appointive positions); Constitutional Commissions or Offices; Local Government Units (elective and appointive positions); and quasi-judicial bodies.

b)      Private Practice, which may either be general practice, especially in courts of justice, as proven by, among other documents, certifications from Members of the Judiciary and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the affidavits of reputable persons; or specialized practice, as proven by, among other documents, certifications from the IBP and appropriate government agencies or professional organizations, as well as teaching or administrative experience in the academe; and

c)      Others, such as service in international organizations or with foreign governments or other agencies.  (Rule 3, Section 3)

Performance

a)      The applicant who is in government service shall submit his performance ratings, which shall include a verified statement as to such performance for the past three years.

b)      For incumbent Members of the Judiciary who seek a promotional or lateral appointment, performance may be based on landmark decisions penned; court records as to status of docket; reports of the Office of the Court Administrator; verified feedback from the IBP; and a verified statement as to his performance for the past three years, which shall include his caseload, his average monthly output in all actions and proceedings, the number of cases deemed submitted and the date they were deemed submitted, and the number of his decisions during the immediately preceding two-year period appealed to a higher court and the percentage of affirmance thereof.  (Rule 3, Section 4)

Other accomplishments

The JBC likewise considers other accomplishments of the applicant, such as authorship of law books, treatises, articles and other legal writings, whether published or not; and leadership in professional, civic or other organizations. (Rule 3, Section 5)

Integrity

In determining integrity, the JBC shall take every possible step to verify the applicant's record of and reputation for honesty, integrity, incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards.  For this purpose, the applicant shall submit to the JBC certifications or testimonials thereof from reputable government officials and non-governmental organizations, and clearances from the courts, the National Bureau of Investigation, police, and from such other agencies as the JBC may require. (Rule 4, Section 1)

Background check

The JBC may order a discreet background check on the integrity, reputation and character of the applicant, and receive feedback thereon from the public, which it shall check or verify to validate the merits thereof.  (Rule 4, Section 2)

Testimony of parties

The JBC may receive written opposition to an applicant on ground of his moral fitness and, at its discretion, the JBC may receive the testimony of the oppositor at a hearing conducted for the purpose, with due notice to the applicant who shall be allowed to cross-examine the oppositor and to offer countervailing evidence. (Rule 4, Section 3)

Anonymous complaints

Anonymous complaints against an applicant shall not be given due course, unless there appears on its face a probable cause sufficient to engender belief that the allegations may be true. In the latter case, the JBC may either direct a discreet investigation or require the applicant to comment thereon in writing or during the interview. (Rule 4, Section 4)

Disqualification

The following are disqualified from being nominated for appointment to any judicial post or as Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman:

a)      Those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases;

b)      Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals; and

c)      Those who have been convicted in any criminal case; or in an administrative case, where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000, unless he has been granted judicial clemency.

Incumbent judges, officials or personnel of the Judiciary who are facing administrative complaints under informal preliminary investigation (IPI) by the Office of the Court Administrator may likewise be disqualified from being nominated if, in the determination of the JBC, the charges are serious or grave as to affect the fitness of the applicant for nomination.

Insofar as pending regular administrative cases are concerned, the JBC shall, from time to time, furnish the Office of the Court Administrator the name of an applicant upon receipt of the application/recommendation and completion of the required papers; and within 10 days from receipt thereof the Court Administrator shall report in writing to the JBC whether or not the applicant is facing a regular administrative case or an IPI case and the status thereof.  As regard the IPI case, the Court Administrator shall attach to his report copies of the complaint and the comment of the respondent. (Rule 4, Sections 5-6)

Probity/Independence

Any evidence relevant to the candidate's probity and independence such as, but not limited to, decisions he has rendered if he is an incumbent member of the judiciary or reflective of the soundness of his judgment, courage, rectitude, cold neutrality and strength of character shall be considered. (Rule 5, Section 1)

The JBC may likewise consider validated testimonies of the applicant's probity and independence from reputable officials and impartial organizations. (Rule 5, Section 2)

Sound Physical, Mental and Emotional Condition

In addition to “proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence” the JBC also evaluates the applicant’s health.

The JBC recognizes that “[g]ood physical health and sound mental/psychological and emotional condition of the applicant play a critical role in his capacity and capability to perform the delicate task of administering justice”. Thus, the applicant or the recommending party is requires to submit together with his application or the recommendation a sworn medical certificate or the results of an executive medical examination issued or conducted, as the case may be, within 2 months prior to the filing of the application/recommendation. The JBC may require the applicant to submit himself to another medical and physical examination if it still has some doubts on the findings contained in the medical certificate or the results of the executive medical examination. (Rule 6, Section 1)

The applicant shall also submit to psychological/psychiatric tests to be conducted by the Supreme Court Medical Clinic or by a psychologist and/or psychiatrist duly accredited by the JBC.  (Rule 6, Section 2)

Application Process

How does the selection process begin? Under the Rules of the JBC, once the vacancy occurs, applications are filed with the Secretariat of the JBC (Rule 1, Sec. 6).   Applications may be done by the applicant himself or by recommendation of another person/association/organization.  If recommended, the recommendee must manifest acceptance of the recommendation in the recommendation paper itself or in a separate document.

The application must be in the form prescribed by the JBC.   (Rule 1, Sec. 7)

The list of applicants or recommendees which the JBC shall consider in a given time shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and once in a newspaper of local circulation in the province or city where the vacancy in question is located.  Copies of the list shall likewise be posted in three conspicuous places in the province, city, or municipality where the vacancy concerned is located. As far as practicable, copies thereof shall be furnished the major religious, civic, social, professional, business and other non-governmental organizations in the city or municipality where such vacancy is located.  The IBP, as well as its Chapter in the province or city where the vacancy is located shall also be furnished copies of the list.  The publication shall invite the public to inform the JBC within the period fixed therein of any complaint or derogatory information against the applicant/recommendee.  (Rule 1, Sec. 9)

Personal Interviews

The JBC shall conduct personal interviews of candidates to, inter alia, observe their personality, demeanor, deportment, and physical condition; assess their ability to express themselves, especially in the language of the law in court trials/proceedings and in their decisions or rulings; test their mastery of the law and legal principles; inquire into their philosophies, values, etc.; determine their probity and independence of mind; and evaluate their readiness and commitment to assume and fulfill the duties and responsibilities of judgeship.

The interviews for the positions in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman shall be conducted in public. Access by the media to the interviews shall be subject to the rules that the JBC may promulgate. For this purpose, the list of candidates, date and place of interview shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and once in a newspaper of local circulation in the province or city where the vacancy in question is located. (Rule 7, Section 1)

No applicant shall be considered for nomination for appointment to a judicial position unless he shall obtain the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the Members of the JBC.  (Rule 10, Section 1)

In every case where the integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise disqualified for nomination is raised or challenged, the affirmative vote of all the Members of the JBC must be obtained for the favorable consideration of his nomination.  (Rule 10, Section 2)

In every case, the JBC shall give due weight and regard to the recommendees of the Supreme Court. For this purpose, the JBC shall submit to the Court a list of the candidates for any vacancy in the Court with an executive summary of its evaluation and assessment of each of them, together with all relevant records concerning the candidates from whom the Court may base the selection of its recommendees.  (Rule 8, Section 1)

The JBC must consider the nominee’s age with a view to discourage appointment of those who would not be able to serve it for a reasonably sufficient time. (Rule 8, Section 2)

So when you have something to say about the Supreme Court, remember that apart from their qualifications, they are there because of the President and the JBC.  And either blame or praise for the quality of appointments lies with them.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Writ of Kalikasan

By Siesta-friendly

The months-long gas leak/oil spill caused by holes in the petroleum pipeline owned by First Philippine Industrial Corp. (FPIC) is about to cause another set of news.  The victims are reportedly set to file the first ever petition for a writ of kalikasan.

The writ of kalikasan forms part of the new procedures in civil, criminal and special civil actions involving environmental laws. (Rule 1, Section 2, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)[1]   There are 2 special civil actions in the new rules for environmental cases, one is the writ of continuing mandamaus and the other is the writ of kalikasan.

The writ of kalikasan may be sought by anyone a) whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or b) whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is threatened with violation, by an unlawful act of omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity and such violation or threat involves “environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants of two or more cities, or provinces.” (Rule 7, Section 1)

The petition for the writ of kalikasan “shall be filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals.”  (Rule 7, Section 3)   Note, however, that the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or administrative actions. (Rule 7, Section 17) 

Within 3 days from filing the petition deemed sufficient in form and substance, the Court shall issue the writ and require the respondent to file a return. (Rule 7, Section 5) 

In response, the respondent is required to file a return containing his defenses and supporting evidence within a non-extendible 10-day period after the service to him of the writ. He must raise all defenses in the return, otherwise they are deemed waived.  A general denial of the petitioner’s allegations shall be deemed an admission by the respondent. (Rule 7, Section 8)  If the petition fails to file a return, the hearing shall proceed ex parte (i.e., the hearing will proceed with only 1 side being heard).  (Rule 7, Section 10)

The penalty of indirect contempt may be meted out to a) a respondent who refuses to file the return, b) a respondent who unduly delays the filing of a return, c) a respondent who falsifies a return, or d) any one who disobeys or resists a lawful process of court order. (Rule 7, Section 13)

In further recognition of the importance of a speedy resolution, the following filings are prohibited:

a)      motion to dismiss

b)      motion for extension of time to file return

c)      motion for postponement

d)     motion for a bill of particulars

e)      counterclaim or cross-claim

f)       third-party complaint

g)      reply, and

h)      motion to declare respondent in default. (Rule 7, Section 9) 

However, the following motions are allowed:

1. motion for ocular inspection (1) indicating the place/s sought to be inspected and  (2) supported by “affidavits of witnesses having personal knowledge of the violation or threatened violation of environmental law.” and
2. motion for production or inspection of documents or things.  (Rule 7, Section 12) 

When the court receives the return, it may call a preliminary conference “to simplify the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions from the parties, and set the petition for hearing.” The petition shall be given the same priority as petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, amparo and habeas data; thus, the hearing and the preliminary conference shall be all done within 60 days (Rule 7, Section 11) 

After the hearing, the case shall be submitted for decision in which case, the court may require the filing of memoranda within a non-extendible 30-day period from the date the case is submitted for decision.

Within 60 days from the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall grant or deny the privilege of the writ of kalikasan.  The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

a)      Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in  violation  of  environmental  laws  resulting  in environmental destruction or damage;

b)       Directing  the  respondent  public  official,  government agency,  private  person  or  entity  to  protect,  preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

c)      Directing  the  respondent  public  official,  government agency,  private  person  or  entity  to  monitor  strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

d)     Directing  the  respondent  public  official,  government agency, or private person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and

e)      Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award of damages to individual petitioners. (Rule 7, Section 15)

Appeal to the Supreme Court, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (i.e. a petition for review on certiorari), is available within 15 days from the notice of the judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration.  It is important to note that this appeal may raise questions of fact. (Rule 7, Section 16) 

As an aside, reports on the writ of kalikasan seem to point to FPIC as the only respondent.  How then do we deal with government officials eager to clear culprits of wrongdoing?  Remember the news report that came out July this year long before the source of the gas leak/oils spill was discovered this November? –

The Department of Energy (DOE) has officially cleared First Philippine Industrial Corp. (FPIC) as the culprit for the oil leak in a Makati building.

Energy Secretary Jose Rene Almendras said the DOE shares the view of the Makati City government that the pipelines of FPIC have nothing to do with the supposed petroleum leak in the West Tower Building in Bangkal, Makati City.

“Yes, it was a joint inspection and effort,” Almendras said when asked if it agreed with the findings clearing FPIC as the source of the leak.

xxx

Makati City engineer Nelson Morales said that tests on the pipelines of FPIC proved negative for leaks.

“We are ruling out the FPIC pipelines as the source of the gas leak, so that leaves us with the basement of the condominium as the only area that we have not thoroughly investigated,” Morales said.[2]

Maybe FPIC had availed of a writ of palakasan?

---

[1]  A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 29, 2010.

[2]   Gatdula, D.L. (2010, July 30). DOE clears first phil industrial corp in makati's west tower oil leak . Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=597907&publicationSubCategoryId=66

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST