G.R. No. 110020 September 25, 1998 of TCT-T-1071 and OCT No.

of TCT-T-1071 and OCT No. 0-145-L before the RTC, Branch XIV of Laoag
City; that said petition was granted on April 18, 1989 and pursuant thereto,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-1071 and on April 18, 1989 and
vs. pursuant thereto, owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-1071 and OCT No.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. LUIS BELLO, JR., Presiding Judge of 0-145-L were issued; that Harold M. Hernando, as attorney-in-fact of the
RTC, Branch 16, Laoag City, HAROLD M. HERNANDO, and SPOUSES Quetulios, sold the property in question to the spouses Rolando V. Abadilla
ROLANDO V. ABADILLA And SUSAN SAMONTE, respondents. and Susan Samonte for and in consideration of the sum of One Million Three
Hundred Pesos (P1,000,300.00); that said second sale is null and void as
For our consideration is a petition for review on certiorari impugning the the lots in question are already owned by petitioner Republic; and that the
Decision dated February 8, 1993 and the Resolution dated April 27, 1993 of spouses-vendees acted in bad faith as they already had prior knowledge of
respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29460.1 the first sale.

The relevant antecedents are as follows: Accordingly, petitioner prayed that (1) the deed of sale by Harold M.
Hernando in favor of the spouses Abadilla be declared null and void; (2)
Sometime in December 1991, petitioner filed a complaint for rescission (of TCT Nos T-21484 and T-21485 covering the lots in question issued in the
a deed of sale), cancellation (of transfer certificates of title), reconveyance name of the spouses Abadilla be declared null and void; (3) the Register of
and damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and Deeds of Laoag City be directed to cancel the TCTs and reinstate the old
of a temporary restraining order, against the spouses Rolando Abadilla and ones; and (4) Harold M. Hernando and the spouses Abadilla be made liable
Susan Samonte, Harold M. Hernando, for himself and as attorney-in-fact of to pay P500,000.00 by way of actual and punitive damages.2
Apolinario, Serafin, Dominica and Maria, all surnamed Quetulio, * and the
Register of Deeds of Laoag City, before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag The spouses Abadilla filed their Answer in due time on January 28, 1992.
City, Branch 16, docketed as Civil Case No. 9934-16. It is alleged in the said
complaint that sometime in 1984, the then Ministry of Public Works and On February 14, 1992, petitioner filed a Reply to the spouses Abadilla's
Highways, in collaboration with the then Ministry of Transportation and answer.
Communication filed an expropriation case against Serafin, Apolinario,
Dominica and Maria, all surnamed Quetulio, involving two (2) parcels of land No answer was filed by respondents Hernando and the Quetulios within the
containing an aggregate area of ninety four thousand nine hundred thirteen 15-day reglementary period to file a responsive pleading.
(94,913) square meters, for the construction of a terminal building for
international flights of the Laoag International Airport; that said expropriation Meanwhile, the initial hearing for the instant case was set for February 27,
case was docketed as Civil Case No. 8396-XV and raffled to RTC, Branch 1992. Said hearing was, however, postponed for no apparent reason.
XV, Laoag City; that a compromise agreement was entered into in the said Nonetheless, respondent Harold M. Hernando, who was then present in
case on January 24, 1985 whereby the parties agreed to fix the amount of court, moved that (a) he be granted the opportunity to formally appear as
just compensation at One Million Four Hundred Fifty Four Thousand Eight counsel for himself and his co-defendants as he was then still serving a five
Hundred Fifty Nine pesos (P1,454,859.00); that a decision was rendered on (5) month suspension from the practice of law for malpractice pursuant to
January 31, 1985 whereby the trial court approved and adopted in toto the the Resolution of this Court dated October 17, 1991 in Administrative Case
said compromise agreement; that disbursement vouchers in the amount No. 1359 entitled Buted v. Hernando3 and (b) he be allowed to file an
agreed upon were turned over to the Quetulios; that on November 29, 1985, answer despite petitioner's oral manifestation that he be declared in default
Harold M. Hernando executed an affidavit revoking the compromise for failure to file his answer within the reglementary period. Both motions
agreement he signed as attorney-in-fact of the Quetulios; that sometime in were granted by the trial court.
1989, the Quetulios, again represented by Harold M. Hernando, filed a
petition for the issuance of another owners' and co-owner's duplicate copy
On February 28, 1992, respondent Hernando filed a pleading denominated Per our Resolution dated October 12, 1992, G.R. No. 107229 was referred
as "Comment/Answer/Motion to Dismiss"4 praying for the dismissal of the to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. Therein, G.R. No. 107229
complaint on the basis of the "Affidavit of Revocation" executed by him on was docketed anew as CA-G.R. SP No. 29460.
November 29, 1985 cancelling the Compromise Agreement because Atty.
Sixto S. Pedro allegedly withheld ten (10) checks in the amount of On February 8, 1993, the Court of Appeals dismissed the said petition for
P500,000.00 which were supposed to be part of the consideration for the certiorari after treating the same as an ordinary appeal filed out of time.
property expropriated; and that Atty. Sixto S. Pedro, in his capacity as According to the appellate court:
"Special Attorney" for the Ministry of Public Works and Highways, Ilocos
Norte, and representing the Republic of the Philippines, had signed a Considering that petitioner admittedly received a copy of the Order dated
Rescission of Compromise Agreement and the Deed of Conveyance dated 04 September 1992 denying its Motion For Reconsideration on 14
December 2, 1985 (in favor of the Abadilla spouses). September 1992, the reglementary period within which to file an appeal
therefrom expired on 29 September 1992.
On May 5, 1992, the trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint
ratiocinating that: The record discloses that the instant petition was filed on 08 October 1992.
Consequently, the questioned Order had attained finality at the time the
As the plaintiff has not filed any reply/opposition or comment to the petition was filed. 6
comment/answer/motion to dismiss, said party is deemed to have admitted
the due execution and genuiness (sic) of the instruments which are exhibits A motion for reconsideration of said decision was denied on April 27, 1993.
3 and 4 of the motion to dismiss, Sec, 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. This
is so as said instruments which are exhibits 3 and 4 are copied verbatim as Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari grounded on the
part of the pleading of defendants Atty. Harold Hernando and Dominica following issues, viz.:
Quetolio, Sec. 7, Rule 8 of the New Rules of Court. Plaintiff having admitted
the execution and genuiness (sic) of the instruments, said patty has already I
abandoned its claim to the land in suit or the claim of said party plaintiff has
been extinguished. 5 Whether or not respondent Honorable Court of Appeals has decided a
question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Honorable
Petitioner received a copy of the above-stated order on May 13, 1992. Supreme Court or that it has decided it in a way not in accord with law or
with applicable decisions of this Honorable Court, in denying due course to
On May 25, 1992, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order the petition in G.R. SP No. 29460, purportedly on the ground that the 15-
of dismissal. day reglementary period had already elapsed despite patent showing on the
face of the petition that it was filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
The motion was denied in an order received by petitioner on September 14, of Court.
1992.
II
On October 8, 1992, twenty-four (24) days after it received a copy of the
order denying its motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for Whether or not respondent Honorable Court of Appeals has patently
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before this Court, docketed as sanctioned such departure by respondent Hon. Luis B. Bello, Jr., from the
G.R. No. 107229. usual and accepted course of judicial proceeding as he (Judge Bello)
considered a mere affidavit as an actionable document such that petitioner's
failure to file an opposition or comment to herein private respondent-Harold
Hernando's pleading wherein said affidavit was attached and copied,
amounted to an admission of its due execution and genuineness, being property at P1,454,859.00 which was, as the records show, fully paid by
allegedly an actionable document, pursuant to Sec. 8, Rule 8 of the Revised petitioner as evidenced by the disbursement vouchers (Annexes "D-1" to
Rules of Court. 7 "D-12" to complaint). 8 Said compromise agreement had long become final
and executory, before respondent Hernando allegedly executed the
We grant the petition. "Affidavit of Revocation" unilaterally revoking the same on November 29,
1985. It is well-settled that a judicial compromise has the effect of res
The threshold issue in this case is whether or not respondent Court of judicata and is immediately executory and not appealable unless a motion
Appeals committed reversible error in denying due course and dismissing to set aside the same is filed on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, in
CA-GR-SP No. 29460 for having been filed out of time. which event an appeal may be filed from an order denying the same.9 A
court cannot set aside a judgment based on compromise without having
Respondent Court of Appeals ruled that an ordinary appeal not a petition for declared in an incidental hearing that such a compromise is vitiated by any
certiorari under Rule 65, was the proper remedy from the trial court's Order of the grounds for nullity enumerated in Art. 2038 of the Civil Code.
of dismissal dated May 5, 1992 which has attained finality. Consequently, it was utterly erroneous for the trial court to rule that there
was such a revocation of the judicially approved Compromise Agreement.
Our careful study of the facts inevitably yields to the conclusion that the
Regional Trial Court presided by Hon. Luis B. Bello, Jr. committed grave Moreover, considering that petitioner is not a party to the annexes attached
abuse of discretion not only in issuing its order dismissing petitioner's to the Comment/Answer/Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent Hernando
complaint in Civil Case No. 9934 on a starkly erroneous ground, but also it and the Quetulios, the trial court had no legal basis in dismissing petitioner's
committed a grossly irresponsible act of allowing respondent Hernando who complaint in Civil Case No. 9934-16 on the ground that petitioner had
was then under suspension from the practice of law, to represent himself admitted the due execution and genuineness of said annexes consisting of
and his co-defendants in the case. Also, as appearing from the records, the "Affidavit of Revocation," and "Rescission of Compromise Agreement
after the lapse of the period to file an answer on the part of respondents and Deed of Conveyance."
Hernando and the Quetulios, the trial court set the case for pre-trial without
formally ruling on petitioner's motion to declare them in default. Surprisingly, Sec. 8 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides:
the trial court thereafter, allowed said defendants to file their answer upon
the latter's verbal motion. This enabled respondent Hernando to file his Sec. 8. How to contest genuineness of such documents. — When an action
pleading "Comment/Answer/Motion to Dismiss," with certain annexes which or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to
were considered by the trial court as actionable documents, despite the fact the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the
that petitioner was not a party thereto. All these circumstances clearly genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted
demonstrate the trial court's bias and arbitrariness that should have unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets
warranted the setting aside of the questioned order of dismissal for grave forth what he claims to be the facts; but this provision does not apply when
abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when
petitioner's original action for certiorari filed with respondent Court of compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
Appeals on October 8, 1992 to annul the trial court's Order dated May 5, refused. (Emphasis ours.)
1992 dismissing petitioner's complaint should have been given due course.
While the signature of Atty. Sixto S. Pedro is found in both instruments, he
The Compromise Agreement entered into by the petitioner and the Quetulio could not have, in any way, bound the petitioner thereto for total lack of
spouses in the expropriation case, docketed as Civil Case No. 8396-XV, on authority from the latter to enter into any agreement prejudicial to or in
January 24, 1985 was approved and adopted in toto by the Regional Trial diminution of the rights of the Government. It is to be noted that the "Affidavit
Court of Laoag City, Branch XV in its decision of January 31, 1985. The of Revocation" executed on November 29, 1985 by respondent Hernando
compromise agreement fixed the amount of just compensation for the repudiated the judgment by compromise on the ground that Atty. Sixto S.
Pedro, alleged Special Attorney of the Ilocos Norte District of the Public Court of Appeals for disposition, respondent RTC Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr.
Works, had withheld ten (10) checks in the total mount of P500,000.00 did not rule on petitioner's oral motion to declare the Quetulios in default for
which were part of the consideration for the property subject of the not filing their answer within the reglementary period. Instead, after the case
Compromise Agreement. The document was signed by Atty. Pedro with the was set for initial hearing on February 27, 1992, the judge admitted the
words "acknowledged and my express conformity." Similarly, the formal appearance of respondent Hernando as counsel for himself and for
"Rescission of Compromise Agreement and Deed of Conveyance" was his co-defendants and allowed him to file an answer to the complaint.
executed by the Quetulios and signed by Atty. Pedro describing himself as Evidently, when respondent Hernando appeared before the trial court at the
"Special Attorney of the NPWH I.N. Engineering District and representing initial hearing of the case on February 27, 1992, and when he filed the
the Republic of the Philippines." Even granting hypothetically that Atty. pleading denominated as Comment/Answer/Motion to Dismiss, he was still
Pedro was duly designated as Special Attorney of the Office of the Solicitor under suspension from the practice of law. A suspended lawyer, during his
General, and was authorized to represent the Solicitor General at the suspension, is certainly prohibited from engaging in the practice of law 13
hearings of the expropriation case, it is still the Solicitor General who retains and if he does so, he may be disbarred. The reason is that, his continuing
supervision and control of the representation of the case and who has to to practice his profession during his suspension constitutes a gross
approve actions involving withdrawal, non-appeal and other matters which misconduct and a wilful disregard of the suspension order, which should be
appear to compromise the interest of the Government, not to mention that obeyed though how erroneous it may be until set aside. 14
only notices of orders, resolutions and decisions served on him will bind the
Government. 10 The authority to enter into any agreement or arrangement While as a general rule, certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lapsed appeal,
adversely affecting the rights and interests of the Government cannot be however, where the rigid application of the rule will result in a manifest
assumed; it has to be established by him who asserts its existence. failure, or miscarriage of justice, the rule may be relaxed. 15 Technicalities
should be disregarded if only to accord to the respective parties that which
Nonetheless, assuming further that petitioner is a party to the questioned is due them. Therefore, considering the broader and primordial interests of
instruments, still, the dismissal of its complaint by respondent trial court was justice, particularly when there is grave abuse of discretion as in the case at
not correct. Petitioner's alleged failure to deny under oath the genuineness bar, an occasional departure from the general rule that the extraordinary
and due execution of the said instruments simply means that it impliedly writ of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal is warranted. 16 In the
admitted their authenticity and due execution. Failure to deny the instant case, we rule that respondent court erred in not entertaining the
genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not special civil action for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 29460) before it,
preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, considering the patent irregularity and grave abuse of discretion committed
compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel and want of by the trial court in dismissing petitioner's complaint, such that appeal
consideration. 11 Neither does it bar a party from raising the defense in his therefrom was not an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
answer or reply and prove at the trial that there is a mistake or imperfection
in the writing, or that it does not express the true agreement of the parties, However, it has not escaped the attention of the Court that the petition in
or that the agreement is invalid or that there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the G.R. No. 107229 was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General nine (9)
writing. 12 days beyond the reglementary period. Rules of procedure are intended to
insure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of the
Apart from the aforestated erroneous application of the law, the proceedings substantive rights of the parties in judicial proceedings. Needless to state,
conducted by the respondent judge were grievously tainted by the Government lawyers assigned to the case should have acted more
appearance of respondent Hernando in the case despite his suspension at scrupulously and sedulously in seeing to it that their client's interests are
the time from the practice of law. protected by observing deadlines in filing of pleadings to avoid situations
such as that obtaining in this case which involves a valuable property.
As explicitly stated in the present petition as well as in the petition previously
filed in this case, docketed as G.R. No. 107229 which was referred to the
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Civil Case No.
9934-16 before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 16, is hereby
REINSTATED and the court a quo is ORDERED to proceed hearing the
case and resolve the same with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.