REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

- versus - CA-G.R. No. _________

For: Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 with Prayer
for issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction
and/or Injunction

HON. CHRISTIAN P.
CASTAÑEDA, in his
capacity as Presiding
Judge, the Regional Trial
Court, Pasay City, Branch
109, MARY ANN PUNLA-
CAILLAN and ARNEL
CAILLAN,

Respondents.
x-------------------------------x

P E T I T I ON

Petitioner REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through

the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENTPREFATORY STATEMENT

“An act of a court or tribunal may only be

considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

when the same was performed in a capricious or

whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and personal
hostility.”1No less than the Code of Judicial Conduct
mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the laws and
maintain professional competence. Indeed, competence
is a mark of a good judge. A judge must be acquainted
with legal norms and precepts as well as with
procedural rules. When a judge displays an utter lack
of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s
confidence in the competence of our courts. …xxx...
One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes
the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the
law. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of
incompetence. Basic rules of procedure must be at the
palm of a judge’s hands.

Thus, this Court has consistently held that a judge

is presumed to know the law and when the law is so

elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross

ignorance of the law. Verily, failure to follow basic legal

commands embodied in the law and the Rules

constitutes gross ignorance of the law, from which no

one is excused, and surely not a judge2

This is because judges are expected to exhibit

more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes

and procedural laws.  They must know the laws and

1
Goodland Company, Inc. vs. Co, G.R. No. 196685, December 14, 2011.
2
Pesayco vs. Layague, 447 SCRA 450 (insert year)

2
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

apply them properly in good faith as judicial

competence requires no less.3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. 1. This is a Petition for Certiorari with prayer

for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
and/or injunction filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court seeking to (a) annul, nullify and set aside the
i.) Decision dated February 23, 2018, (ii.) Order dated
December 3, 2018, (iii.) Entry of Judgment dated
January 9, 2019 and (iv) Order dated February 5,
2021 denying the Republic’s Motion to Lift/Recall
Entry of Judgment, and (b) while the instant petition is
being heard, issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or
Permanent Injunction against the registration of the Entry of
Judgment dated January 9, 2019 in the Book of Marriages of
the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. in the alternative, order
public respondent to furnish petitioner a copy of the Order
dated December 3, 2018 denying its Motion for
Reconsideration in Civil Case No. R-PSY-17-26853-CV
entitled “Mary Ann Punla Caillan vs. Arnel A. Caillan”.
Original copies of the Entry of Judgment and the
February 5, 2021 Order are attached as Annexes “A”
and “B”. In the meantime, and while the petition is being
heard, a writ of preliminary injunction is also being sought to
be issued enjoining the registration of the subject Entry of
Judgment in the Book of Marriages of the Local Civil
Registrar of Manila.
2.

THE PARTIES

3
Atty. Bautista v. Judge Causapin, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044, June 22, 2011.

3
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

3. 2. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines is a

sovereign entity with an interest in the instant case
under Article II, Section 12 and Article XV, Section 2
of the Constitution providing that the State recognizes
the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous and
inviolable social institution. It may be served with
legal processes through the Office of the Solicitor
General at 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati
City.

4. 3. Public Respondent Hon. Christian F.

Castañeda is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Pasay City, Branch 109, who issued the
herein assailed Entry of Judgment and February 5,
2021 Order denying the OSG’s Motion to Lift/Recall
Entry of Judgment and who failed to furnish the OSG
copy of its December 3, 2018 Order denying the
Republic’s Motion fFor Reconsideration. He may be
served with orders and legal processes at the said
judicial station with address at The Hall of Justice,
F.B. Harrison Street, Pasay City.

5. 4. Private Respondent Mary Ann Punla-Caillan

(Mary Ann) is the petitioner-wife in Civil Case No. R-
PSY-17-26853-CV, who desires to have her marriage
with private respondent Arnel A. Caillan declared null
and void under Article 36 of the Family Code and in
whose favor the assailed Entry of Judgment and
December 3, 2018 and February 5, 2021 Orders were
issued. She may be served with orders and legal
processes through her counsel of record, Atty. Ruel B.
Nario at NARIO & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, Suite
403B Web Jet Building, No. 64 Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City.

6. 5. Private Respondent Arnel A. Caillan (Arnel)

is the respondent-husband in Civil Case No. R-PSY-17-
26853-CV. HPer the Petition dated July 7, 2017 filed by
Mary Ann in the trial court, he may be served with orders

4
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

and processes at No. 629, Villafojas Street, Tondo,

Manila.4

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

7. 6. The Republic received the February 23, 2018

Decision5 of the trial court on March 2, 2018.

8. 7. On March 13, 2018, the Republic timely filed

its Marchits March 12, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration6
of the said February 23, 2018 Decision.

9. 8. On June 29, 2020, while awaiting resolution

of its Motion for Reconsideration, the Republic
received an Entry of Judgment7 (EOJ) dated January 9,
2019 and issued by one Atty. Lei S. Tungpalan,
Officer-in-Charge .

10. 9. OThereupon, on July 14, 2020, the Republic

filed, via electronic mail, its Motion to Lift/Recall
Entry of Judgment dated July 13, 2020.8

11. 10. On February 5, 2021, public respondent

judge issued an Order denying the Republic’s Motion
to Lift/Recall Entry of Judgment.

12. 11. On March 4, 2021, the Republic was

furnished a copy of the February 5, 2021 Order of
public respondent judge.

13. 12. TMeanwhile and to this date, the Republic

has not been officially and properly served a copy of
4
Petition dated July 7, 2017.
5
Annex “__” hereof.
6
Annex “__” hereof.
7
Annex “ ”, hereof
8
Annex “ ” hereof.

5
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

the purported December 3, 2018 Order denying its

Motion for Reconsideration.

14. 13. As will be explained later, the Republic

finds it no longer necessary to file a motion for
reconsideration of the February 5, 2021 Order.

15. 14. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the

Republic has sixty (60) days from notice of the last
Order or until May 3, 2021 to file a petition for
certiorari. Hence, this Petition is filed within the 60-
day reglementary period.
16.

EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF

DOCKECT FEES AND OTHER LEGAL FEES

17. 15. Under Section 22 of Rule 141 of the Rules

of Court, the Republic of the Philippines is exempt
from paying docket and other legal fees required
under the Rules of Court.
18.

6
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND

OF THE RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A QUO

19. 16. On July 12, 2017, private respondent Mary

Ann filed with the RTC of Pasay City a verified
Petition praying that judgment be rendered declaring
9

as null and void ab initio the marriage between her

and Arnel pursuant to the provisions of Article 36 of
the Family Code.
20.

21. 17. On September 7, 2017, the Republic,

through the OSG was furnished copy of the Petition.
22.

23. 18. On September 13, 2017, the OSG filed its

Notice of Appearance and Deputation10 in favor of the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City.
24.

25. 19. Preliminary and Pre-trial conferences

were then held on October 4, 2017 and October 17,
2017, respectively.
26.

27. 20. Trial then ensued.

28.

29. 21. On January 3, 2018, Mary Ann

11
submitted her Formalher Formal Offer of Evidence and
the same was admitted by the trial court on January
4, 2018.
30.

9
Annex “__” hereof.
10
Annexes “___” and “ “ hereof, respectively;
11
Annex “____” hereof.

7
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

31. 22. On February 23, 2018, the trial court

promulgated its Decision12 granting the petition. The
dispositive portion reads:
,

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the marriage between

MARY ANN PUNLA-CAILLAN and
ARNEL A. CAILLAN which was
celebrated on 14 May 1991 in
Manila, Philippines as null and
void under Article 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines; and

2. Further directing the Local Civil

Registrar of the City of Manila,
Civil Registrar General, Philippine,
Philippine Statistics Authority to
stamp/annotate on said Certificate
of Marriage of parties in their
respective register (Book of
Marriage), rendering the same
without force and effect.

SO ORDERED.

32. 23. On March 2, 2018, the OSG received the

February 23, 2018 Decision of the trial court.

33. 24. On March 13, 2018 or eleven (11) days

from its receipt of the February 23, 2018 Decision on
March 2, 2018, the OSG filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on the ground that the totality of
evidence submitted by respondent Mary Ann did not
prove Arnel’s psychological incapacity..
34.

35.

12
Annex “___” hereof.

8
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

25. On April 23, 2018, the Republic received a

copy of Mary Ann’s April 4, 2018 Comment and/or
Opposition, interposing:

Petitioner has narrated before the Honorable Court

the facts that would show that respondent failed to
comply with his essential marital obligations to
petitioner as a husband and to his children as a father.
Petitioner was able to prove that respondent never
became a true father to his wife petitioner under the
meaning provided for in Article 68 of the Family Code,
to wit:

“The husband and wife are obliged to live

together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual love and support.”

In case at bar, petitioner was able to show or

prove the infidelity of the respondent by abandoning
his family and went to his other woman. …xxx…
Petitioner and her witness were able to prove that
respondent violated the above mentioned provision like
having an illicit affair with another woman and worse
having children with his paramour.13

36. 26. On June 29, 2020, the OSG received a

copy of a January 9, 2019 Entry of Judgment (EOJ)
issued by one Atty. Lei S. Tungpalan, Officer-in-Charge
(OIC) stating:

“That the Decision dated 23 February

2018 and the Order dated 3 December 2018, on
9 January 2019 have become final and
executory.”

37. 27. Upon receipt of the January 9, 2019 Entry of

Judgment the undersigned Senior State Solicitor verified
from After verifying from the OSG’s Enhanced Case

13
Annex “___” hereof.

9
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

Management Tool (E-CMT) whether the December 3,

2018 Order was received by the OSG.

38. Upon verification, it was discovered by the

undersigned Senior State Solicitor that the December 3,
3, 2018 Order was not among those received by the
OSG. in the instant case,

10
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

39. Oon July 14, 2020, the OSG filed, via electronic
mail, its a Motion to Lift/Recall Entry of Judgment
arguing that the issuance of the assailed EOJ is
premature for lack of service and notice upon the OSG
of an Order denying its Motion for Reconsideration.
40.

41.
42. 28. On February 5, 2021, public respondent
judge issued an Order denying the Republic’s Motion
to Lift/Recall Entry of Judgment, to wit:

“The motion is anchored on the non-receipt

by the OSG of the Order dated December 3,
2018, denying the Motion for Reconsideration;
xxx But, records show that the Order dated
December 3, 2018, was received by the OSG on
December 5, 2018, because there is a stamp
received from the “OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL BY: DOCKET MANAGEMENT SERVICE”
and the date of “DEC 05 2018” was superimposed
therein. xxx.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

Motion to Lift/Recall Entry of Judgment is denied.

43. 29. On March 4, 2021, the OSG was

furnished a copy of public respondent judge’s February
5, 2021 Order dated February 5, 2021.

44. The 30. uSurprised, undersigned Senior State

Solicitor (SSS) then likewise sent a Memorandum dated
March 9, 202114 to the OSG’s Docket Management
Service (DMS) asking that:

a.) To conduct an investigation as to

whether the OSG, indeed, received the
Order dated December 3, 2018 under
the circumstances cited by the trial
court;
b.) To secure clear and legible certified true
copies of the Order dated December 3,
2018 for purposes of determining the
14
Annex “__” hereof.

11
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

authenticity of the alleged stamp-

markings purportedly done by the OSG
thereon;
c.) Iif the OSG stamp-marks are forgeries,
determine the persons liable for such
forgery and recommend imposition of
disciplinary actions.
d.)

45. 31. Acting on said Memorandum, on March 10,

2021 staff from the OSG’s DMS went to the trial court
to secure a certified true copy of the Order dated
December 3, 2018.

46. On the same day, Nilo Odilon Palestroque,

Director IV, DMS (Dir. Palestroque) ,), sent an email15
on their visit to the trial court. Said email stated
that Aamong the irregularities that his staff noticed
was that the said order was manually-
stamped despite being personally served. Personally
served or hand-carried documents are supposed to
be machine-stamped -- besides the date, the time of
receipt is indicated in the document.

47. On____________, 32. Dir. Palestroque also

furnished undersigned SSS with a certified true copy
of the purported December 3, 2018 Order. dated
December 3, 201816. Upon perusal of the said document, it
is apparent that the stamp is not the official machine stamp
being used in the DMS receiving window of the OSG.17
48.

49. 33. Further, in a Memorandum dated March

31, 202118, Dir. Palestroque requested for the creation
of an independent body to investigate numerous
incidents of forgery and falsification in the DMS,
including this case.

15
Annex “__” hereof.
16
Annex ‘__” hereof
17
Annex “__ hereof.
18
Annex “__” hereof.

12
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

50. Hence, this Petition for Certiorari.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC

RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE
ASSAILED ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 5,
2021 IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT’S A.M. NO. 02-11-10-
SC ANDSC AND THE EXPRESS
PROVISION OF THE RULES OF COURT
ON PROOF OF SERVICE UNDER RULE
13, SECTION 13 OF THE 1997 RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE.

GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR THE

GRANT OF THE INSTANT PETITION

34. Section 19 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on on

Declaration of Absolute Nullity of of Void Marriages and

Annulment of Voidable Marriages, as amended provides:

Section 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a decision granting the

petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity or

decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance

with Article 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the

Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.

(2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public

prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the decision personally or by

13
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to

appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decision shall be

published once in a newspaper of general circulation.

(3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from

notice to the parties. Entry of judgment shall be made if no motion for

reconsideration or new trial, or appeal is filed by any of the parties,

the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor General.

(4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court shall forthwith issue the

corresponding decree if the parties have no properties.

If the parties have properties, the court shall observe the

procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this Rule.

The entry of judgment shall be registered in the Civil Registry

where the marriage was recorded and in the Civil Registry where the

Family Court granting the petition for declaration of absolute nullity or

annulment of marriage is located.

51. 35. Sections 19 (2) and 19 (3) of A.M. No. 02-11-

10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, as
amended provides:

(2) (2) The parties, including the Solicitor

General and the public prosecutor, shall
be served with copies of the decision
personally or by registered mail. If the
respondent summoned by publication

14
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

failed to appear in the action, the

dispositive part of the decision shall be
published once in a newspaper of
general circulation.

(3) (3) The decision becomes final upon the

expiration of fifteen days from notice to
the parties. Entry of judgment shall be
made if no motion for reconsideration or
new trial, or appeal is filed by any of the
parties, the public prosecutor, or the
Solicitor General.

52. Moreover, the then prevailing 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure relevantly provides:

Sec. 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or

resolutions.-. - Judgments, final orders or
resolutions shall be served either personally or
by registered mail. xxx

Sec. 13. Proof of service. – Proof of personal

service shall consist of a written admission of
the party served, or the official return of the
server or the affidavit of the party serving,
containing a full statement of the date, place,
and manner of service. xxx

53. 36. In the instant case, in absolute defiance and

total dismissal of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, as amended and
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, public respondent jJudge
issued the herein assailed February 5, 2021 Order in
manifest disregard of the basic rules and procedures
expressly required constitutes a grave abuse of discretion on
his part, which is correctible only by a writ of certiorari. 19

54. In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman v.

Judge Medel Belen, the Supreme Court held as inexcusable

19
Jesus Crisologo and Nanette Crisologo vs. JEWN Agro-Industrial
Corporation, .
GR No. 196894, March 3, 2014.

15
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

abuse of authority the trial judge's "obstinate disregard of

basic and established rule of law or procedure." Such level of
ignorance is not a mere error of judgment. It amounts to
"evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of
law," or in essence, grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.20

55. In Abutin v. San Juan, the Court ruled:

“Obstinate disregard of basic and established

rule of law or procedure is not mere error of
judgment. It amounts to evasion of a positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation
of law. It is grave abuse of discretion correctible
by certiorari.”21

37. Since
56. Further, since an EOJ has already been issued
by the trial court’s OIC Atty. Tungpalan and affirmed
by public respondent Judge, further filing of a Motion
for Reconsideration by the OSG would be an exercise in
futility.

57. People vs. Hon. Nazar U. Chavez, et al., G.R.

No. 140690, June 19, 2001, enunciates that the denial of
a motion to recall entry of judgment is a special
circumstance warranting the non-filing of a motion for
reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition for
certiorari, viz:
58.

The precipitate entry of judgment worked

injustice against petitioner, and the People whom
petitioner represents. In effect, the entry of
judgment, done in haste, foreclosed petitioner’s
right to appeal the adverse decision of the Court
of Appeals to this Court. Petitioner’s right to
appeal in this case must be upheld. We have
declared that while the right to appeal is a
20
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012.
21
G.R. No. 247345, July 6, 2020.

16
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

statutory, not a natural right, “it is an essential

part of our judicial system and courts should
proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party
of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that
every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity
for the proper and just disposition of his cause,
freed from the constraints of technicalities.

It must be pointed out that petitioner

manifested in its Motion to Recall Entry (of
Judgment) before the Court of Appeals that it did
not receive said Resolution. The Court of Appeals
from then on should have seriously considered
the allegation of petitioner by requiring petitioner
to prove its claim and by awaiting petitioner’s
acknowledgement of its receipt of the Resolution
in question.

We also agree with petitioner that in this

case, the filing of a motion for reconsideration is
not a condition precedent for the filing of
certiorari. While as a general rule, a motion for
reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the
grant of certiorari, this rule admits of an
exception. A motion for reconsideration is no
longer necessary where other special
circumstances warrant the immediate and more
direct action.22

38.
59. As Tthere is also no appeal or any other plain,
adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of
law, the present Petition for Certiorari is proper..
60.

ARGUMENTS

I.

SC ANDPUBLIC RESPONDENT JUDGE

22
G.R. No. 140690, June 19, 2001.

17
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING
THE ASSAILED ORDER DATED
FEBRUARY 5, 2021 IN UTTER
DISREGARD OF THE SUPREME COURT’S
A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC AND THE
EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE RULES OF
COURT ON PROOF OF SERVICE UNDER
RULE 13, SECTION 13 OF THE 1997
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

II.

THE OSG’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION DATED MARCH 12,
2018 IS BASED ON VALID AND
SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS.
IN UTTER AND MANIFEST DISREGARD OF A.M.

NO. 02-11-10-SC AND RULE 13, SECTION 13 OF

THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PUBLIC

RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS

OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DATED JANUARY 9, 2019

AND ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2021 DESPITE

LACK OF PROOF THAT THE OSG RECEIVED THE

ORDER DATED DECEMBER 3, 2018 DENYING ITS

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED MARCH

12, 2018.

18
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

II.

THE OSG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DATED MARCH 12, 2018 IS BASED ON VALID AND

SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS.

DISCUSSION

Ii.
Public respondent judge acted
with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the assailed Order
dated February 5, 2021 in
utter disregard of the
Supreme Court’s A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC and the express
provision of the Rules of
Court on proof of service
under Rule 13, Section 13 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. In utter and
manifest disregard of A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC and Rule
13, Section 13 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure,
public respondent acted with
grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when he
ignored the express
provision of the Rules of

19
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

Court relative to proof of

service - in issuing the Order
dated February 5, 2021
despite lack of proof that the
OSG received the Order
dated December 3, 2018
denying its Motion for
Reconsideration dated March
12, 2018.

-----------------------------------------

61. 39. As expressly stated, Sections 19 (2) and 19 (3)

of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages, as amended provides that :
62.
63. Section 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a
decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that
the decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall
be issued by the court only after compliance with Article 50
and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule
on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.
64.
65. (2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and
the public prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the
decision personally or by registered mail. If the respondent
summoned by publication failed to appear in the action, the
dispositive part of the decision shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation.
66.
67. (3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration
of fifteen days from notice to the parties. Entry of judgment
shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial,
or appeal is filed by any of the parties, the public prosecutor,
or the Solicitor General.
68.
69. (4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court shall
forthwith issue the corresponding decree if the parties have
no properties.
70.

20
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

71. If the parties have properties, the court shall

observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this Rule.
72.
73. The entry of judgment shall be registered in
the Civil Registry where the marriage was recorded and in
the Civil Registry where the Family Court granting the
petition for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of
marriage is located.
74. As stated in Article 19(3) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
that a decision for declaration of nullity of marriage cases
filed therein becomes final only upon the expiration of
fifteen (15) days from notice to the parties. Eand entry
of judgment can only be made if no motion for
reconsideration or new trial, or appeal is filed by any
of the parties, the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor
General.

21
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

75. 40. It is undisputed thatIn the instant case, the

OSG received the February 23, 2018 Decision dated
February 23, 2018 on March 2, 2018. On March 13, 2018
or thirteen days later, the Republic filed its Motion for
Reconsideration dated March 12, 2018. Pending
resolution of the OSG’s said motion, the Decision
dated February 23, 2018 cannot attain finality.

76. 41. It came, therefore, as a surprise when the

OSG received the EOJ on June 29, 2020 stating that
the trial court’s February 23, 2018 Decision dated
February 23, 2018 and an December 3, 2018 Order dated
December 3, 2018 denying the OSG said Motion for
Recosnideration have become final and executory.

77. As verified by the undersigned SSS, oOfficial

records of the OSG, however, show that the no
December 3, 2018 Order dated December 3, 2018 was
ever not received by the OSG. As per Certification from
the OSG’s Docket Management Service, the OSG did not
receive the December 3, 2018 Order of the trial court.

78. Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the time

honored principle that the law bestows upon a public official
the presumption of regularity in the discharge of one’s
official duties and functions.23

79. Here, the OSG enjoys the presumption of regularity

in the performance of its duties when it certified that it did
not receivenot receive the December 3, 2018 Order.

Despite this, public respondent judge still denied the

Hence, the OSG’s July 13, 2020 filed a Motion to Lift/Recall
Entry of Judgment dated July 13, 2020.

80. 42. Public respondent judge denied to lift/recall the

EOJ, rationalizing that:

The motion is anchored on the non-receipt by

the OSG of the Order dated December 3, 2018,
denying the Motion for Reconsideration; xxx But,
23
Gatmaitan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 149226, June 26, 2006.

22
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

records show that the Order dated December 3,

2018, was received by the on December 5, 2018,
because there is a stamp received from the
“OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL BY:
DOCKET MANAGEMENT SERVICE” and the date of
“DEC 05 2018” was superimposed therein. xxx.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

Motion to Lift/Recall Entry of Judgment is denied.

81. In the assailed February 5, 2021 Order, 43. public

respondent judge found that the December 3, 2018 Order
denying the OSG’s Motion for Reconsideration was already
received by the OSG on December 5, 2018 through personal
service as evidenced by an alleged stamp received from the
“OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL BY: DOCKET
MANAGEMENT SERVICE” and the date of “DEC 05 2018”.

82. However, a mere stamp received does not satisfy

the stringent requirements found under the Rules of Court.

83. Rule 13, Section 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure states, as amended, then prevailing
unequivocably provides:

Section 17. Proof of Service. – Proof of personal

service shall consist of a written admission of the
party served, or the official return of the server or
the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full
statement of the date, place, and manner of
service. xxx

84.
85.
Section 17. Proof of Service. – Proof of personal service
shall consist of a written admission of the party served,
or the official return of the server or the affidavit of the
party serving, containing a full statement of the date,
place, and manner of service….

23
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

86. 44. Thus, to prove that the Order dated

December 3, 2018 was duly personally served on the
Republic, through the OSG, any of the following must
be shown:

a) a a.) written admission of the

concerned OSG personnel that
he/she received a copy of the
adverted Order; or
b)
c) b.)an official return of the
respondent judge’s RTC court’s
process server of the Order or
affidavit of the court-authorized
party serving; and
d)
e)
f) c.) containing a statement of the
date, place, and manner of service.
g)

87. 45. These stringent requirements are

purposely to safeguard the parties from detrimental
consequences of fraud and other forms of mischief,
including the protection of a party’s right to appeal an
adverse decision.  Service of judgment serves as the
reckoning point to determine whether a decision was
appealed within the reglementary period, because
otherwise, i.e.,  in the absence of an appeal or if the
appeal was made beyond the reglementary period, the
decision would, as a consequence, become final. The
purpose of the aforequoted rule on service is to make
sure that the party being served with the pleading,
order or judgment is duly informed of the same so
that such party can take steps to protect its
interests, i.e.,  enable to file an appeal or apply for
other appropriate forms of relief before the decision
becomes final.24

88. 46. HereIn the case at bar, a mere stamp

received without compliance with the aforementioned
Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Services vs. CA and Philippine Ports
24

Authority, G.R. No. 163286, August 22, 2012.

24
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

requirements do not constitute there is no showing of any

valid proof of service as expressly required by the
Rules.

89. First, there is no written admission from OSG

of its receipt of the subject Order. To the contrary, the
OSG has expressly stated in its Motion to Lift/Recall
Entry of Judgment that it has not received the same.

90. Second, there is no official return from the

court’s process server or any court-authorized
representative to act as the party serving.

91. Third, and most importantly, there is no

statement of the date, place and manner of service.

92. 47. Quite surprising, Ppublic respondent Judge

who is assumed to know the basic requirements of the
Rules therefore cannot merely relyied upon the alleged
OSG stamp mark appearing on the trial court’s copy of
the December 3, 2018 Order. To insist that the stamp
mark is enough proof of service has no basis whatsoever.
To insist that the stamp mark is enough proof of service has
no basis whatsoever – not in law, jurisprudence, or even
traditional or common practice. In fact, under Section 12 of
Rule 13 of the then 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure a stamp
mark merely proves the filing and not the service of a
pleading or paper, to wit:

93. In Collao v. Albania, the Supreme Court held that

failure to present proof of service such as a registry return
card of the Decision of the trial court does not constitute
valid proof of service. Thus:

“Despite the foregoing, however, and

fortunately for petitioner, it can take refuge in the
fact that there is neither a registry return

25
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

card nor proof of service attached to the

records of the case to show that it was
notified of the RTC Decision. Section 1, Rule
37 and Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court
provide that a party has a period of fifteen (15)
days from notice of the RTC Decision within which
to file either a motion for reconsideration or a
petition for review before the CA to assail said
RTC Decision. Further, Sections 9, 10, and 13
provide that a party shall be deemed served
with the judgment either personally or by
registered mail. The service of judgment
serves as the reckoning point to determine
whether a decision had been appealed
within the reglementary period or has
already become final. In the present case,
while the RTC insisted that it had duly sent
copies of its September 26, 2003 Decision to
the parties, the records, however, did not
contain proof thereof. As attested to by
petitioner's military officer, it was only when
he went to the RTC on February 28, 2012
that petitioner was able to obtain a copy of
the RTC Decision. Thus, the RTC appropriately
gave due course to petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration dated March 12, 2012 for being
filed within the reglementary period.”25
Section 12. Proof of Filing. – The filing of a
pleading or paper shall be proved by its existence in
the record of the case. If it is not in the record, but is
claimed to have been filed personally, the filing shall
be proved by the written or stamped acknowledgment
of its filing by the clerk of court on a copy of the
same...

48. When the OSG stated in its Motion to Lift/Recall

Entry of Judgment that it has not received a copy of the said
order, public respondent being knowledgeable of the law and
of the rules should have checked his Rules and discovered
easily that the requirements of Rule 13, Section 13 of the
Rules of Court have not been complied by the trial court’s
own process server or authorized representative.
25
G.R. No. 228905, July 15, 2020. (Emphasis supplied)

26
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

94. 49. By disregarding the basic and express

requirements on proof of service under the Rules of
Court, public respondent Judge acted in a capricious,
whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the
exercise of jurisdiction, which is tantamount to excess
or lack of jurisdiction.26 In Remedios Pascual v. Benito
Burgos, et al.,27 the Supreme Court explained:

“By grave abuse of discretion is meant such

capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be grave as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility and must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
contemplation of law.

95. 50. More specifically, in the case of Jesus

Crisologo and Nanette Crisologo vs. JEWN Agro-Industrial
Corporation28, the Court declares that:.
GR No. 196894, March 3, 2014, declares that:

xxx manifestxxx manifest disregard of the

basic rules and procedures constitutes a grave
abuse of discretion.

In State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman

v. Judge Medel Belen, the Court held as
inexcusable abuse of authority the trial judge’s
"obstinate disregard of basic and established rule
of law or procedure." Such level of ignorance is
not a mere error of judgment. It amounts to
"evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all
in contemplation of law," or in essence, grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

26
Abedes v. CA, G.R. 174373, 15 October 2007, 536 SCRA 268.
27
G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016.
28
GR No. 196894, March 3, 2014

27
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

Needless to say, Jjudges are expected to

exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance
with statutes and procedural laws. They must
know the laws and apply them properly in good
faith as judicial competence requires no less.

By grave abuse of discretion is meant such

capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be grave as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility and must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in
contemplation of law.

96.

97.
98.
51. The n
99. The null and void issuance by public
respondent of the Order dated February 5, 2021
denying the OSG’s Motion to Lift/Recall Entry of
Judgment dated July 13, 2020, resulted in the
Republic being denied its right to appeal the Decision
dated February 23, 2018 and Order dated December 3,
2018, with no recourse to an appeal and to other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
100.
101. Clearly, public respondent judge acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed February 5, 2021 Order.
The filing of the instant petition for certiorari under

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is the only and proper

recourse under the circumstances.

28
 PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

52. At this point, the OSG is hereby manifesting to the

Honorable Court that an investigation is to be conducted into

the anomalous transaction over the forged or falsified

receipt of the purported December 3, 2018 Order. Please

see attached Memorandum dated March 31, 202129 of the

approved request of Nilo Palestroque, Director IV, Docket

Management Service (DMS) of the OSG, for the creation of

an independent body to investigate numerous incidents of

forgery and falsification in the DMS, including this case.

I. II. Tthe osg’s OSG’s

Mmotion for
Rreconsideration dated
Mmarch 12, 2018 is
based on valid and
substantial grounds.

THE OSG’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION DATED

MARCH 12, 2018 IS BASED

ON VALID AND

SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS.

102. 53. A reading of the OSG’s Motion for

Reconsideration date March 12, 2018 would show that
the same is based on valid and substantial grounds.

29
Annex “ “ hereof.

29
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

103. 54. In Perez-Ferraris v. Ferraris,30 the

Supreme Court defined psychological incapacity as a
serious psychological illness afflicting a party even
before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady
so grave and permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

104. 55. In determining the existence of

psychological incapacity, the court is mandated to
inquire into the gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability of the alleged psychological incapacity.
This requirement earlier set forth by the Supreme
Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals,31 was incorporated
in the guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina:32

The incapacity must be grave or serious such

that the party would be incapable of carrying out
the ordinary duties required in the marriage; it
must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it
were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.

105. 56. The totality of evidence adduced by

Mary Ann does not support a finding that Arnel is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his
marital obligations.

106. 57. Based on Mary Ann’s testimony, she

and Arnel were constrained to marry by their parents,
when Arnel got Mary Ann pregnant when they were
college sweethearts. On May 14, 1991, they
exchanged wedding vows in a civil ceremony held at
the Manila City Hall. Mary Ann set up a sari-sari store
while Arnel worked as a sales representative in the
car industry. They both shared the expenses for the
household’s needs with Mary Ann shouldering most of

30
495 SCRA 396 (2006).
31
240 SCRA 20 (1995).
32
268 SCRA 198 (1997).

30
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

the expenses. During that period, Arnel would arrive

home late at night from some meetings with clients
and left Mary Ann alone in the house. When
confronted by Mary Ann, Arnel would get mad and
verbally abuse her. Mary Ann gave birth to their eldest
child, Mark Jairus, on December 16, 1991. Arnel
continued with his ways claiming he was just busy
with his job. Mary Ann discovered that respondent had
many flings because of some messages he received on
his cellphone from some women. Mary Ann kept silent
about it. This behavior of Arnel continued on until
1996. In the meantime, Mary Ann went back to school
in 1994 and finished college. She became a Customer
Service Representative for Europe and Intra Asia in
Mitsui OSK Lines. After a series of confrontations,
Arnel finally admitted his indiscretions. In 1996, the
couple went into marriage counseling. They also
agreed not to have another baby until their
relationship was strong enough. In June 1999, after
believing that their marriage was strong, petitioner
got pregnant and gave birth to their second child,
Aliah Jaira P. Caillan, on February 25, 2000. The
parties then had an uneventful and seemingly
harmonious relationship. Things started to get bad in
2005 when Mary Ann went to Saudi Arabia to work.
Though she regularly communicated with her family,
Arnel became suspicious that she had an illicit affair
even though it was not true. Arnel verbally abused her
and never even considered her sacrifice in going
abroad to give the family a better life. Arnel
eventually joined her in Saudi Arabia when Mary Ann
found work for him. After a year, however, Arnel’s
jealousy erupted again. Despite her having incurred
enormous medical expenses as she had just
undergone hysterectomy, Arnel demanded that she
buy a car for him as he was uncomfortable going to
work without one. He quit his job when Mary Ann did
not buy him a car. He never even visited her at the
hospital. Eventually, Arnel abandoned his family.

107. 58. While above evidence would show that

Arnel behaved badly during the marriage, the alleged
characteristics and behavior of Arnel, however, are
not manifestations of some deep-seated, grave,

31
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

permanent and incurable psychological incapacity. At

best, they simply constitutesimply constitute
irreconciliableirreconcilable differences and conflicting
personalities between the parties and not an outright
manifestation of psychological incapacity to perform
the marital obligations. An unsatisfactory marriage is
not a null and void marriage.33 In fact, the evidence
would show that Arnel was perfectly capable of
performing his marital obligations. After going into
marriage counseling in 1996, and until the year 2005,
the marriage was fine. Mary Ann even described it as
uneventful and that they had a seemingly harmonious
relationship. It is not far-fetched then to conclude that
Arnel was cognitive of and in fact, complied
withcomplied with his marital obligations.

108. 59. What obviously happened in the

marriage is that the parties entered the same at an
age when they were not yet emotionally mature to
deal with the complexities of married and family life.
They married purely to save Mary Ann from shame
and ridicule. In Republic vs. Albios34, it was held that:

Motives for entering into a marriage are

varied and complex. The State does not and
cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple
chooses to lead. Any attempt to regulate their
lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to
privacy and would raise serious constitutional
questions. The right to marital privacy allows
married couples to structure their marriages in
almost any way they see fit, to live together or
live apart, to have children or no children, to love
one another or not, and so on. Thus, marriages
entered into for other purposes, limited or
otherwise, such as convenience, companionship,
money, statue, and title, provided that they
comply with all the legal requisites, are equally
valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a
marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for
marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by
law, may validly support a marriage.

33
Siayngco vs. Siayngc, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004.
34
707 SCRA 584.

32
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

109. 60. Emotional immaturity cannot also be

equated with psychological incapacity.35

110. 61. While Mary Ann’s marriage with Arnel

may have failed, the remedy is not always to have it
declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological
incapacity. Marriage, being an inviolable social
institution is protected by the State. 36 Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.37
111.

APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF

PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND/OR
INJUNCTIONOR INJUNCTION.

112. As discussed above, the January 9, 2020 Entry of

Judgment and the February 5, 2021 Order issued by public
respondent Judge were issued without basis in fact and in
law effectively depriving the Republic of its right to appeal
the February 23, 2018 Decision and December 3, 2018
Order.

113. Hence, that while the instant petition is being

heard, it is just and proper that a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction be issued, enjoining the registration of the said
Entry of Judgment in the Book of Marriages of the Local Civil
Registrar of the City of Manila and that if, such registration
has been done, that the same be lifted and/or cancelled.

35
Pesca vs. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001.
36
Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.
37
Supra, note 9.

33
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

114. That if the Honorable Court grants the instant

petition, the said writ of preliminary injunction be made
permanent.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner

respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:

(1) (1) GIVE DUE COURSE to and

GRANT the instant Petition;

(2) (2) ANNUL, NULLIFY and SET

ASIDE the Decision dated February
23, 2018, Order dated December 3,
2018, Entry of Judgment dated
January 9, 2019 and Order dated
February 5, 2021; or in the alternative,
DIRECT public respondent Judge to
properly serve upon the OSG the Order
dated December 3, 2018;

(3) (3) while the instant petition is

being heard, ISSUE a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and/or
Permanent Injunction against the
registration of the Entry of Judgment
dated January 9, 2019 in the Book of
Marriages of the Local Civil Registrar of
Manila.

Other forms of relief, just and equitable under the

premises, are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, April 295, 2021.

34
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

JOSE C. CALIDA
Solicitor General
Roll No. 24852
IBP Lifetime No. 015360/ 08-18-16
MCLE Exemption No. VII-OSG000228, 11- 8-19

NYRIAM SUSAN O. SEDILLO-HERNANDEZ

Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 35338
IBP Lifetime No. 07708, 8-13-2008
MCLE Exemption No. VII-OSG000221, 11-5-2019

NOEL CEZAR T. SEGOVIA

Senior State Solicitor
Roll No. 40524
IBP No. 120946, 12-18-2020
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021137, 03-26-2019
Email: [email protected]

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Telefax No. 8817-9836; 8
Email: [email protected]

35
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sections 3 and 5, Rule 13 of the 2019 Amendments to
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Petition for Certiorari is being served and

filed by registered mail due to lack of office personnel.

NOEL CEZAR T. SEGOVIA

Senior State Solicitor

COPY FURNISHED:

HON. CHRISTIAN P. CASTAÑEDA

Presiding Judge, RTC Pasay City, Br. 109
Public Respondent
The Hall of Justice, F.B. Harrison Street, Pasay City

36
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

ATTY. RUEL B. NARIO,

Counsel for Private Respondent Mary Ann Punla Caillan
NARIO & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
Suite 403B Web Jet Bldg.
No. 64 Quezon Avenue corner BMA Avenue, Quezon City

ARNEL A. CAILLAN
Private Respondent
No. 629 Villafojas St., Tondo, Manila.

NSOSH/NCTS/marb:19: 19-012116

37
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, NOEL CEZAR R. SEGOVIA, with office address at

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, after having
been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state
that:

1. I am Senior State Solicitor of the Office of the

Solicitor General and the handling lawyer of
the present case;
2. I prepared the foregoing Petition for Certiorari;
3. I have read the contents of the same;
4. The allegations in the pleading are true and
correct based on my own personal knowledge
and on authentic documents;
5. This pleading is not filed to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the
cost of litigation;
6. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary
support, or if specifically identified, will likewise
have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery;
7. I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency;
8. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no
such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency;
9. If I should learn thereafter that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact within five (5)
calendar days therefrom to this Honorable
Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

this day of ______________ in Makati City.

NOEL CEZAR R. SEGOVIA

38
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
Republic v. Hon. Judge Castañeda et al
CA-G.R.No. ___________________
x--------------------------------------------------x

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day

of _____________ in Makati City, affiant, who is personally
known to me for being my colleague in the Office of the
Solicitor General, appeared and signed the foregoing
verification.

_____________________
Senior State Solicitor

39