We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
NOE R. PAGARAO, JR. and
REBECCA CABALLA,
Patitioners,
GR. No. No. 265223,
For: Review of CA-G.R. SP No.
COURT OF APPEALS, ieee
IMMACULADA T. TRINIDAD
Respondent.
—K
~versus~
ro
COMPLIANCE/MANIFESTATION
COMES NOW, the petitioners thru counsel, unto the Honorable
Court respectfully states:
1. That on February 9, 2023 0 fifteen (15) days from receipt by the
Court of Appeals’ Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration,
petitioners personally filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 with this Honorable Court;
2. That Section 4 Rule 45 or the contents of the petition states that
legible duplicate original or certified true copies or the original copy of
the Judgment or final order or resolution must be attached to the
petition;
3, That, petitioners attached among others the Certified True
Copies of Decision of the Court of Appeals certified true and original
by the Regional Trial Court 138, Antipolo City, Province of Rizal;
4, That however, the undersigned counsel was informed by the
‘Supreme Court Docket Office that the Certified True Copy of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals must come from the Court of Appeals
and that petitioners must submit electronic copies of the received
petition and its annexes to the Supreme Court pursuant to AM, 10-3-
TSC;
age tof 5, That the undersigned apologizes forthe mistake or inadvertence
Accordingly, petitioners are submitting the herein attached Duplicate
Original Copy of the Decision of the Court of Appeals for the kind
consideration of the Honorable Court and by way of substantial
compliance;
6. That petitioners are likewise giving notice that the undersigned's
2023 IBP Number and PTR Number have been corrected hereunder
land electronic copies of the Petition and its annexes have been
electronically sent twice to the email address provided under A.M. 10-
3-T-SC at 2:27pm and 3:50pm, respectively, on February 10, 2023;
7. In De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, 326 Phil. 182, 191 (1996)
this Court decreed:
‘The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth
‘uidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain
the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts willbe mere slaves
10 or robots of technical rules, shom of judicial discretion. That is
precisely why court in rendering real juste have always been, as
they in fact ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that
‘when on the balance, technicalities take a backseat againet
substantive rights, and not the other way around. Truly then,
technicalties, in the appropriate language of Justice Makalinal,
“should give way tothe reales ofthe situation” x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
8. It is for this reason that petitioners humbly submit the
attached original duplicate of the Decision of the Court of Appeals
and implore this Court to consider this compliance/manifestation,
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this
‘Compliance be NOTED and kindly CONSIDERED as substantial
‘compliance with the Rules of Court and with the Proposed Rules on E-
filing,
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Pasig City for Manila, Philippines, 14 February, 2023.
Page 20f3 ‘TOLENTINO TEVES AND TEVES LAW OFFICES
Counsel for the Petitioners
No. 13 Alfonso St., Rosarp, Pasig Ci
Telephone
IBP No, 254932, 12/18/2022
MCLE No. Vil-0003173, 05/15/2021
Email Address: cherietevesiaw@gmail.com
Copy Furnished:
HON. COURT OF APPEALS
MARIA OROSA ST.
1000 ERMITA MANILA,
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Seals TER veestonc, nce
ce Coa en
a i
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE
‘MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
CCAINTA, PROVINGE OF RIZAL :, H®,TEVES Lan OFF
SERIES BOE, SANT,
ATTY. JOSELITO A. OLIVEROS:
163-8 KAMIAS ROAD, 1101 AEN ii
QUEZON CITY —__ Cam nna
foe ao
‘The foregoing ComplanceMi"f1 2
Court, to the counsel fr res."
with prof of devery due to
personnel thereby rendering ~*~
