Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sample Petition For Certiorari
Sample Petition For Certiorari
Sample Petition For Certiorari
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
-versus-
NAPICO HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION III, INC.,
represented by its Vice
President ROSELLER D.
FORTICH,
Honorable Commissioners
REA CORAZON GOLEZ-
CABRERA, ROLANDO B.
FALLER and DOMNINA T.
RANCES of the HLURB
Board of Commissioners
Third Division
1
NOW COMES the Petitioner, BY THEMSELVES, in the above-
entitled case, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most
respectfully avers THAT:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
“If the misery of the poor be caused not by the
laws of nature, but by our institutions,
great is our sin.”
― Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle
3
6. Under Rule 65, petitioners have sixty (60) days from 20 March
2015 within which to file this petition. The 60th day falls on 20 May 2015
to consider that petitioner filed the same on time. Petitioner will pay the
docket and other lawful fees simultaneous with the filing of this petition.
PARTIES
BACKGROUNDS
4
Republic Act 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners and
Homeowners Associations) was already in effect.
5
17. In seeking petitioners’ comments, the Hon. Joselito Melchor
opened the door for assailing whatever proceedings transpired.
Petitioners did not change the course of their arguments in their
Comments and Opposition but asserting that RA 9904 (Magna
Carta for Homeowners) is already in effect and should be applied.
Photocopy of the petitioners’ Comments and Opposition is
attached as Annex “D”.
6
showing that the relief being sought will redress the asserted
injury. Petitioners stand to suffer directly from the non-application
of the operative law that governs the instant case, and the same act
can be applied to other members and non-members of CMP and
other land tenurial programs of the government.
7
be inappropriate. The confusion of the agency a quo and the
Honorable Court of Appeals on what law should be applied
signaled that the issue is ripe for reexamination and possible
overruling or limitation.
8
or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from
their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when
the purpose of justice requires it. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Mirant Pagbilao Corporation (formerly Southern Energy Quezon, Inc.), G.R. No.
159593, October 16, 2006, 504 SCRA 484, 496.)
The Majority Leader also clarified that "all homeowners can become members of the
homeowners' association and at the same time allows homeowners not to engage or
member in any homeowners association as indicated in Article III, sec. 8 of the 1987
Constitution, stating "membership in homeowner's association is generally
voluntary, subject only to a few exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court through
various decisions on the matter."
He said that while the law recognized that membership in any association is voluntary
unless it is stipulated in the contract or annotated in the title.
The proposed act likewise recognized two classes of homeowners exist, non-member
homeowners and the homeowner members.
"The rights of both classes are enumerated in the proposed legislation, subject to any
additional benefits which they may receive by virtue of the homeowners' association
by-laws," Zubiri said.
"A non-member homeowner has the duty to pay the costs and expenses incurred by
the association for the payment of basic community services."
10
the Official Gazette; Baltazar v. CA, 104 SCRA 619, denying retroactive
application to P.D. No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the
bondage of the soil, and P.D. No. 316 prohibiting ejectment of tenants
from rice and corn farm holdings, pending the promulgation of rules and
regulations implementing P.D. No. 27; Nilo v. Court of Appeals, 128
SCRA 519, adjudging that RA 6389 which removed ‘personal
cultivation’ as a ground for the ejectment of a tenant cannot be given
retroactive effect in the absence of a statutory statement for retroactivity;
Tac-An v. CA, 129 SCRA 319, ruling that the repeal of the old
Administrative Code by RA 4252 could not be accorded retroactive effect;
Ballardo v. Borromeo, 161 SCRA 500, holding that RA 6389 should have
only prospective application; (see also Bonifacio v. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294
and Balatbat v. CA, 205 SCRA 419). chanrobles virtual law library
The prospectivity principle has also been made to apply to administrative
rulings and circulars, to wit: ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v.
CTA, October 12, 1981, 108 SCRA 142, holding that a circular or ruling
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may not be given retroactive
effect adversely to a taxpayer; Sanchez v. COMELEC, 193 SCRA 317,
ruling that Resolution No. 90-0590 of the Commission on Elections,
which directed the holding of recall proceedings, had no retroactive
application; Romualdez v. CSC, 197 SCRA 168, where it was ruled that
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 29, s. 1989 cannot be given
retrospective effect so as to entitle to permanent appointment an employee
whose temporary appointment had expired before the Circular was issued.
11
36. The heart-breaking result of the present controversy
emanated from the gross negligence of the petitioners’ counsel
applying the doctrine “negligence of the counsel is negligence of the
client.” However, herein petitioners believe that their present plight
is an exception to the doctrine. The Most Honorable Court, in the
long line of cases decided admitted exceptions to the general rule
when: (1) the client is deprived of due process, (2) the application of the
general rule will result in outright deprivation of client’s liberty or
property, and (3) where the interest of justice so requires, and accord relief
to client who suffered by reason of lawyers gross negligence.
12
negligence, mistake or lack of competence of his
counsel, in the interest of justice and equity,
exception may be made to such rule, in accordance
with the facts and circumstances of each case.
Adherence to the general rule would, in the instant
case, result in the outright deprivation of their
property through a technicality.”
40. One specific point that petitioners beg the Most Honorable
Court to consider is the claim of ownership by the respondent on
the premises occupied by the petitioners, which is a patent
misrepresentation. There is nothing in the Complaint that alleged
herein respondent is the absolute owner of the property being an
essential requisite of mortgage and it has the free disposal of the
property.
14
45. The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Court of Appeals
Sixth Division and the Honorable Chairman and Members of the Most
Honorable Supreme Court Third Division were not named public
respondent due to the fact that they are also victims of the respondent who
places the administration of justice in mockery.
However, the Most Honorable Court has relaxed this rule in order
to serve substantial justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty,
honor or property, (b) the existence of special or compelling
circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review
sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will
not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. (APO Fruits Corporation and Hijo
Plantation, Inc. vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164195,October 12, 2010).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner most respectfully
prays of the Most Honorable Court the following:
15
1. That this Petition be given due course;
Other reliefs and remedies, which are just and equitable, are
likewise prayed for.
16
3. That we have not previously filed a similar complaint,
petition or any other action before the Honorable Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court or any other
office or tribunal, and if such complaint, petition, action or
proceedings will be discovered by us in the future, we
undertake to report the same to this Honorable Office
within five (5) days from discovery thereof.
Notary Public
Copy furnished:
17
Diliman, Quezon City
EXPLANATION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, WILLIAM B. TING, Filipino, of legal age and presently residing
in NAPICO, Manggahan, Pasig City, after being duly sworn on
oath, depose and state:
NAPICO Homeowners
437 Chico St., NAPICO, Registered Mail
Association III, Inc. as
Mangahan, Pasig City
represented by Roseller
18
Fortich
WILLIAM B. TING
NOTARY PUBLIC
19