Case #1

Rule 1 Section 4
Title of the Case: GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON F.
GARCIA, in his capacity as PRESIDENT and GENERAL MANAGER of the GSIS versus
DINNAH VILLAVIZA, ELIZABETH DUQUE, ADRONICO A. ECHAVEZ, RODEL RUBIO,
ROWENA THERESE B. GRACIA, PILAR LAYCO, and ANTONIO JOSE LEGARDA
G.R. No. 180291
Ponente: MENDOZA, J.:
Facts: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. PGM
Garcia, as President and General Manager of the GSIS, filed separate formal charges against
respondents and eventually found them guilty for Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service and meting out the penalty of one (1) year suspension plus
the accessory penalties appurtenant thereto.
The charges contained that
respondent, wearing red shirt together with some employees, marched to or
appeared simultaneously at or just outside the office of the Investigation Unit in a
mass demonstration/rally of protest and support for Messrs. Mario Molina and Albert Velasco,
the latter having surreptitiously entered the GSIS premises. On appeal, CSC found that the acts
of respondents in going to the GSIS-IU office wearing redshirts to witness a public hearing do
not amount to a concerted activity or mass action proscribed above. CSC added that their
actuations can be deemed an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. The
CA found no cogent reason to deviate therefrom.
Petitioners primarily question the probative value accorded to respondents letters of
explanation in response to the memorandum of the GSIS-IU Manager. The respondents never
filed their answers to the formal charges. The petitioners argue that there being no answers, the
allegations in the formal charges that they filed should have been deemed admitted pursuant to
Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court which provides:
SECTION 11.Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted.Material averment in the
complaint, other than those as to the amount of liquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are
deemed admitted if not denied specifically and under oath.
According to the petitioners, this rule is applicable to the case at bench pursuant to Rule 1,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court which reads:
SECTION4.In what cases not applicable.These Rules shall not apply to election cases,
land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not
herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable
and convenient.
ISSUE: WHETHER AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MAY APPLY SUPPLETORILY
PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT ON THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY
ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER, WHERE
RESPONDENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS DID NOT FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE FORMAL CHARGES AGAINST THEM.

THE
THE
THE
ANY

Ruling: Suppletory is defined as supplying deficiencies. It means that the provisions in the
Rules of Court will be made to apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable
rule.There is, however, no such deficiency as the rules of the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) are explicit in case of failure to file the required answer.It is true that Section 4
of the Rules of Court provides that the rules can be applied in a suppletory character.
Suppletory is defined as supplying deficiencies. It means that the provisions in the Rules of
Court will be made to apply only where there is an insufficiency in the applicable rule. There is,
however, no such deficiency as the rules of the GSIS are explicit in case of failure to file the
required answer. What is clearly stated there is that GSIS may render judgment as may be
warranted by the facts and evidence submitted by the prosecution.
Even granting that Rule 8, Section 11 of the Rules of Court finds application in this case,
petitioners must remember that there remain averments that are not deemed admitted by the
failure to deny the same. Among them are immaterial allegations and incorrect conclusions
drawn from facts set out in the complaint. Thus, even if respondents failed to file their answer, it
does not mean that all averments found in the complaint will be considered as true and correct
in their entirety, and that the forthcoming decision will be rendered in favor of the petitioners. We
must not forget that even in administrative proceedings, it is still the complainant, or in this case
the petitioners, who have the burden of proving, with substantial evidence, the allegations in the
complaint or in the formal charges.

Case #2
Rule 1 Section 6
Title of the Case: MEDISERV, INC. versus COURT OF APPEALS (Special Former 13th
Division) and LANDHEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G.R. No. 161368
Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Facts: Petitioner Mediserv, Inc. executed a real estate mortgage in favor of China Banking
Corporation as security for a loan. Mediserv defaulted in its obligation and the real estate
mortgage was foreclosed. At the public auction sale, private respondent Landheights
Development Corporation emerged as the highest bidder with a bid price of P17,617,960.00 for
the subject property. Sometime in April 1998, Landheights filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila an Application for Possession of Real Estate Property Purchased at an Auction
Sale under Act No. 3135.3 On September 21, 1999, the title of the property was consolidated in
favor of Landheights and the Register of Deeds for the City of Manila issued TCT No. 242202 in
its favor. On March 13, 2000, Landheights, seeking to recover possession of the subject
property, filed a verified complaint for ejectment against Mediserv before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila (MeTC). The MeTC of Manila, Branch 15, rendered a decision in favor of
Landheights and defendant ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under said entity
to VACATE the premises and to PAY plaintiff the sum of P25,000.00 as attorneys fees.
Aggrieved, Mediserv appealed the decision to the RTC of Manila which reversed and set aside;
and the Complaint for Ejectment is hereby ordered to be dismissed and directed payment to the
defendant-appellant, the sum of Php 50,000.00 for actual damages and another sum of Php
50,000.00 for and as attorneys fees.
Landheights filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which however dismissed the
petition due to the fact that the written authority of Dickson Tan to sign the verification and
certification on non-forum shopping, as well as the copies of the complaint and answer, are not
attached to the petition.
Landheights seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration on December 26, 2002 and
subsequently submitted a Secretarys Certificate12 dated January 13, 2003 executed by its
Corporate Secretary, Ms. Polly S. Tiu, stating that the Board of Directors affirms the authority of
Mr. Dickson Tan to file the Petition for Review. On March 19, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued
a Resolution granting Landheights a new period of ten (10) days within which to correct and
rectify the deficiencies in the petition. On April 1, 2003, Mediserv filed a motion for
reconsideration praying that the March 19, 2003 Resolution be set aside and the December 12,
2002 Resolution, which dismissed the petition, be reinstated. On even date, Landheights filed its
Manifestation of Compliance. On September 16, 2003, the appellate court issued the first
assailed resolution reinstating that the petition for review due to the subsequent compliance of
the petitioner with the requirement of the rules and in the interest of substantial justice.
Mediserv filed a motion for reconsideration on October 3, 2003, while Landheights filed its
comment thereto on October 14, 2003.
On November 7, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued the second assailed resolution, the
significant portion of which states: However, again, in the interest of justice, we shall consider

the belatedly filed Secretarys Certificate as a subsequent compliance of our March 19, 2003
Resolution.
WHEREFORE, this Courts Resolution dated September 16, 2003 is hereby REITERATED. The
petition is hereby REINSTATED and the respondent is directed to file its Comment on the
petition within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court, petitioner is now
before us via the present recourse.
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION AND ACTED WITHOUT AND/ OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
REINSTATING THE PETITION AND RELAXING THE RULE REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION
OF THE CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favour of Landheights. The Supreme Court has allowed the belated
filing of the certification against forum shopping, with more reason should it allow the timely
submission of such certification though proof of the signatorys authority was submitted
thereafter.In Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, 458 SCRA 325 (2002), this Court
acknowledged that it has relaxed, under justifiable circumstances, the rule requiring the
submission of these certifications and has applied the rule of substantial compliance
under justifiable circumstances with respect to the contents of the certification. It also
conceded that if this Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification against forum
shopping for compelling reasons in previous rulings, with more reason should it sanction the
timely submission of such certification though the proof of the signatorys authority was
submitted thereafter.
Liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there may be some
excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the
essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the
rules.It is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be invoked in situations where there
may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same does
not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at
compliance with the rules. After all, rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense; they are used only to help secure substantial justice.

Case #3

Rule 1 Section 6
Title of the Case: SPS. HEBER & CHARLITA EDILLO versus SPS. NORBERTO &
DESIDERIA DULPINA G.R. No. 188360
Ponente: BRION, J.:

Facts: On February 21, 2006, plaintiffs-respondents Spouses Norberto and Desideria

Dulpina (plaintiffs-respondents) filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry against the
defendants-petitioners with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Del Carmen-San Isidro-San
Benito, Surigao del Norte (MCTC).
The plaintiffs-respondents alleged that they purchased from Wencelito Camingue a 235square meter residential lot and house located in Poblacion, San Isidro, Surigao del Norte,
through a Deed of Sale. On August 8, 2005, defendant-petitioner Heber Edillo, without
their consent and against their express prohibition, suddenly fenced off and occupied a 50square meter portion of the western part of the disputed property while uttering threats
against plaintiffs-respondents. On January 26, 2006, they sent the defendants-petitioners
a notice to vacate the disputed property, but the defendants-petitioners refused to comply.
In their Answer dated March 1, 2006, the defendants-petitioners countered that the
Complaint states no cause of action because the plaintiffs-respondents failed to allege that
they were in prior physical possession of the disputed property. They also alleged that they
acquired the disputed property through three (3) separate Deeds of Absolute Sale. The
MTC dismissed the complaint. The RTC reversed the decision of the MTC. After the RTC
denied the motion for reconsideration, the defendants-petitioners elevated the case to
the CA through a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. They argued
that the plaintiffs-respondents appeal with the RTC was filed out of time since the Revised
Rules of Summary Procedure (RRSP) prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
The CA dismissed the Petition in its Resolution of January 28, 2009] on the ground
that it does not contain a statement of the factual background of the case, in violation of
Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The defendants-petitioners moved to
reconsider the dismissal, to amend the petition, and to admit their First Amended Petition.
The CA denied the motions in its Resolution of June 11, 2009, noting that the amended
petition did not correct the infirmity of the original petition.
Faced with this development, the defendants-petitioners filed the present Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issue: Whether or not a relaxation of technical rules is justified by the merits of the case
the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs-respondents appeal because the
MCTC Decision had become final and executory.
Ruling:
In not a few cases, we have ruled that the right to appeal is neither a natural right
nor a part of due process; it is a mere statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the
manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of law allowing the appeal. But while
we have so ruled, we recognize nonetheless that the right to appeal is an essential part of
our system of judicial processes, and courts should proceed with caution in order not to
deprive a party of the right to appeal. We invariably made this recognition due to our
overriding concern that every party-litigant be given the amplest opportunity to ventilate