Scribd
Upload
59 views2 pages

181 - Macedonio V Ramo

1) Macedonio filed a civil case against Ramo in 2004 regarding the purchase of property that was later found to have liens and encumbrances. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute after the parties failed to submit a compromise agreement. 2) Ramo then secured ownership documents for the property and subdivided it, transferring portions to other parties. Macedonio filed motions seeking return of payment which the court allowed the parties to settle orally. 3) In 2010, Macedonio filed another case against Ramo regarding the property. The court dismissed this case, citing forum shopping and failure to inform of the previous case. Macedonio appealed.

Uploaded by

Jake lerios
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views2 pages

181 - Macedonio V Ramo

1) Macedonio filed a civil case against Ramo in 2004 regarding the purchase of property that was later found to have liens and encumbrances. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute after the parties failed to submit a compromise agreement. 2) Ramo then secured ownership documents for the property and subdivided it, transferring portions to other parties. Macedonio filed motions seeking return of payment which the court allowed the parties to settle orally. 3) In 2010, Macedonio filed another case against Ramo regarding the property. The court dismissed this case, citing forum shopping and failure to inform of the previous case. Macedonio appealed.

Uploaded by

Jake lerios
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Macedonio v.

Ramo
G.R. No. 193516, March 24, 2014

Facts:
On January 6, 2004, Vilma Macedonio filed a civil case for rescission with damages against Catalina
Ramo with the Baguio RTC. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5703-R. The contract to be
rescinded was in the form of an agreement for the purchase by Macedonio of a portion of Ramo’s
unregistered lot, assured by the latter to be free from liens and encumbrances; Macedonio later
discovered this assurance to be untrue, which in time led to the filing of the above-stated case. During
the course of the proceedings, the parties mutually agreed to settle. However, the parties were unable
to submit a compromise agreement on the date set by the trial court, which led to the issuance of an
Order dismissing Civil Case No. 5703-R for failure to prosecute. Meanwhile, Remo was able to secure a
Sales Patent – and later on, a certificate of title – over the subject property in her name. The trial court
soon issued an Order considering the case terminated.

Later, Ramo caused the subject property to be subdivided into three lots, which she then transferred to
her co-respondents. No part of the property was transferred to Macedonio, who filed a Motion praying
that the trial court issue an Order directing Ramo to return her advance. Ramo opposed the motion,
arguing that the subject of the motion has become moot and academic for petitioner’s failure to file a
motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s last Order. The trial court issued a new Order allowing the
parties to agree orally on how Macedonio is to be given her downpayment back, which was done by the
parties. All seemed to be well at that point, but due to a disagreement arising as to how much money
should be reimbursed, Macedonio prayed that the case be set for pre-trial in view of failure to settle the
issues between the parties. Ramo opposed the same manifestation and motion, insisting that the case
has been terminated. The trial court later issued an Entry of Judgment certifying that the Order
terminating Civil Case No. 5703-R already became final and executory.

In the meantime, Macedonio filed a written Protest with the office of the Regional Executive Director of
the DENR, CAR Branch, seeking an investigation into Ramo’s acquisition of the subject property. No
action has been taken on the protest. On April 21, 2010, Macedonio filed with the Baguio RTC another
civil case – this time for specific performance and annulment of documents and titles with damages –
docketed as Civil Case No. 7150- R. Ramo filed her answer with a motion to dismiss, claiming that in
filing the case, petitioner violated the rule against forum–shopping since there had already been a prior
terminated case (Civil Case No. 5703-R) and a pending Protest with the DENR. To this, Macedonio filed
her comment and opposition, arguing that since Civil Case No. 5703-R was not decided on the merits
and no trial was conducted, Civil Case No. 7150-R is not barred. The trial court issued an Order
dismissing Civil Case No. 7150–R with prejudice on the grounds of forum-shopping, failure to inform the
court of the existence of Civil Case No. 5703-R, and litis pendentia.

Macedonio moved to reconsider, but the trial court stood its ground – thus, this direct recourse.
Issue:
Whether or not Macedonio’s failure to inform the trial court of the existence of Civil Case No. 5703-R a
valid ground to dismiss Civil Case No. 7150-R with prejudice

Ruling:
No. It is true that while it was incumbent for petitioner to have informed the trial court of Civil Case No.
5703-R and the pending DENR Protest, this Court is inclined to forego petitioner’s failure to abide by the
requirements of the 1997 Rules regarding certifications against forum-shopping, in favor of deciding the
case on the basis of merit, seeing, as the Court does, that a rigid interpretation of the 1997 Rules would
result in substantial injustice to petitioner. The circumstances require that substance must prevail over
form, keeping in mind, as the Court has held countless times, that procedural rules are mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice; their application should be relaxed when they hinder
instead of promote substantial justice. Public policy dictates that court cases should as much as possible
be resolved on the merits and not on technicalities. Besides, “the Rules of Civil Procedure on forum
shopping are not always applied with inflexibility.”

More to the point, “the hallowed office and cardinal objective of the Rules is to provide, at each possible
instance, an expeditious and full resolution of issues involving the respective rights and liabilities of the
parties under substantive law.” “The interests of truth and justice are better served where the court,
giving due consideration to technical objections, goes deeper into the basic legal merits of the
controversy and concentrates itself on the fundamental principles of fairness and square dealing which
always outweigh technical considerations.”

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy