G.R. No. 154704.June 1, 2011.

NELLIE VDA. DE FORMOSO and her children, namely, MA.

THERESA FORMOSO-PESCADOR, ROGER FORMOSO, MARY
JANE FORMOSO, BERNARD FORMOSO and PRIMITIVO
MALCABA, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
FRANCISCO ARCE, ATTY. BENJAMIN BARBERO, and
ROBERTO NAVARRO, respondents.
Remedial Law; Certiorari; Certiorari is an extraordinary, prerogative
remedy and is never issued as a matter of right; the party who seeks to avail
of it must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.Certiorari is an
extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never issued as a matter of right.
Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail of it must strictly observe the
rules laid down by law.
Same; Same; The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the
grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion
of the court; instances where the Court may reject or dismiss a petition for
certiorari.The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant
of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the
court. Although the Court has absolute discretion to reject and dismiss a
petition for certiorari, it does so only (1) when the petition fails to
demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency, or branch of the
government; or (2) when there are procedural errors, like violations of
the Rules of Court or Supreme Court Circulars.
Same; Same; Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically
states that the petition led shall raise only questions of law, which must be
distinctly set forth.Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
categorically states that the petition led shall raise only questions of law,
which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is
doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an
examination of the

_______________
*SECOND DIVISION.

36

36

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.

The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the
given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of
the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Gerwin A. Rabing for petitioners.
MENDOZA,J.:
Assailed in this petition are the January 25, 2002 Resolution1 and
the August 8, 2002 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which
dismissed the petition for certiorari led by the petitioners on the
ground that the verication and certication of non-forum shopping
was signed by only one of the petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 67183,
entitled Nellie P. Vda. de Formoso, et al. v. Philippine National
Bank, et al.
The Factual and
Procedural Antecedents
Records show that on October 14, 1989, Nellie Panelo Vda. de
Formoso (Nellie) and her children namely: Ma. Theresa FormosoPescador, Roger Formoso, Mary Jane Formoso, Bernard Formoso,
and Benjamin Formoso, executed a special power of attorney in
favor of Primitivo Malcaba (Malcaba) authorizing him, among
others, to secure all papers and documents including the owners
copies of the titles of real properties pertaining to the loan with real
estate mortgage
_______________
1 Rollo, pp, 26-27; penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now
Supreme Court Justice) and concurred in by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes
(former Supreme Court Justice) and Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao.
2Id., at p. 29.
37

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011

37

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

originally secured by Nellie and her late husband, Benjamin S.

Formoso, from Philippine National Bank, Vigan Branch (PNB) on
September 4, 1980.

On April 20, 1990, the Formosos sold the subject mortgaged real
properties to Malcaba through a Deed of Absolute Sale.
Subsequently, on March 22, 1994, Malcaba and his lawyer went to
PNB to fully pay the loan obligation including interests in the
amount of P2,461,024.74.
PNB, however, allegedly refused to accept Malcabas tender of
payment and to release the mortgage or surrender the titles of the
subject mortgaged real properties.
On March 24, 1994, the petitioners led a Complaint for Specic
Performance against PNB before the Regional Trial Court of Vigan,
Ilocos Sur (RTC) praying, among others, that PNB be ordered to
accept the amount of P2,461,024.74 as full settlement of the loan
obligation of the Formosos.
After an exchange of several pleadings, the RTC nally rendered
its decision3 on October 27, 1999 favoring the petitioners. The
petitioners prayer for exemplary or corrective damages, attorneys
fees, and annual interest and daily interest, however, were denied for
lack of evidence.
PNB led a motion for reconsideration but it was denied for
failure to comply with Rule 15, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. PNB then led a Notice of Appeal but it was dismissed
for being led out of time.
The petitioners received their copy of the decision on November
26, 1999, and on January 25, 2001, they led their Petition for Relief
from Judgment4 questioning the RTC decision that there was no
testimonial evidence presented to warrant the award for moral and
exemplary damages. They reasoned out that they could not then le
a motion for reconsideration because they could not get hold of a
copy of the tran_______________
3Id., at pp. 131-144.
4Id., at p. 158.
38

38

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

scripts of stenographic notes. In its August 6, 2001 Order, the RTC

denied the petition for lack of merit.5
On September 7, 2001, the petitioners moved for reconsideration
but it was denied by the RTC in its Omnibus Order of September 26,
2001.6
Before the Court of Appeals
On November 29, 2001, the petitioners led a petition for
certiorari before the CA challenging the RTC Order of August 6,

2001 and its Omnibus Order dated September 26, 2001.

In its January 25, 2002 Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition
stating that:
The verication and certication of non-forum shopping was signed by
only one (Mr. Primitivo Macalba) of the many petitioners. In Loquias v.
Ofce of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000, it was ruled
that all petitioners must be signatories to the certication of non-forum
shopping unless the one who signed it is authorized by the other petitioners.
In the case at bar, there was no showing that the one who signed was
empowered to act for the rest. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the one
who signed knew to the best of his knowledge whether his co-petitioners
had the same or similar claims or actions led or pending. The ruling in
Loquias further declared that substantial compliance will not sufce in the
matter involving strict observance of the Rules. Likewise, the certication
of non-forum shopping requires personal knowledge of the party who
executed the same and that petitioners must show reasonable cause for
failure to personally sign the certication. Utter disregard of the Rules
cannot just be rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.

Aggrieved, after the denial of their motion for reconsideration,

the petitioners led this petition for review anchored on the
following
_______________
5Id., at p. 18.
6Id., at p. 14.
39

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011

39

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

GROUNDS
THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT
ALL THE PETITIONERS MUST SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING IN A PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI WHEREIN ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE
INVOLVED.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED
IN DISMISSING THE WHOLE PETITION WHEN AT THE VERY
LEAST THE PETITION INSOFAR AS PETITIONER MALCABA IS
CONCERNED BEING THE SIGNATORY THEREOF SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GIVEN DUE COURSE.
THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN GIVING MORE
WEIGHT ON TECHNICALITIES WHEN THE PETITION BEFORE
IT WAS CLEARLY MERITORIOUS.7

The petitioners basically argue that they have substantially

complied with the requirements provided under the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure on Verication and Certication of Non-Forum
Shopping. The petitioners are of the view that the rule on
Verication and Certication of Non-Forum Shopping that all
petitioners must sign should be liberally construed, since only
questions of law are raised in a petition for certiorari and no factual
issues that require personal knowledge of the petitioners.
The petitioners further claim that they have a meritorious petition
because contrary to the ruling of the RTC, their Petition for Relief
clearly showed that, based on the transcript of stenographic notes,
there was enough testimonial evidence for the RTC to grant them
damages and attorneys fees as prayed for.
On the other hand, PNB counters that the mandatory rule on the
certication against forum shopping requires that all of the six (6)
petitioners must sign, namely: Nellie Vda. de
_______________
7Id., at p. 15.
40

40

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

Formoso and her children Ma. Theresa Formoso-Pescador, Roger

Formoso, Mary Jane Formoso, and Bernard Formoso, and Primitivo
Malcaba. Therefore, the signature alone of Malcaba on the
certication is insufcient.
PNB further argues that Malcaba was not even a party or
signatory to the contract of loan entered into by his co-petitioners.
Neither was there evidence that Malcaba is a relative or a co-owner
of the subject properties. It likewise argues that, contrary to the
stance of the petitioners, the issue raised before the CA, as to
whether or not the petitioners were entitled to moral and exemplary
damages as well as attorneys fees, is a factual one.
Finally, PNB asserts that the body of the complaint led by the
petitioners failed to show any allegation that Macalba alone suffered
damages for which he alone was entitled to reliefs as prayed for.
PNB claims that the wordings of the complaint were clear that all
the petitioners were asking for moral and exemplary damages and
attorneys fees.
Our Ruling
The petition lacks merit.

Certiorari is an extraordinary, prerogative remedy and is never

issued as a matter of right. Accordingly, the party who seeks to avail
of it must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.8 Section 1,
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SECTION1.Petition for certiorari.When any tribunal, board or
ofcer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the
_______________
8Eagle Ridge Golf & Country Club v. Court of Appeals & Eagle Ridge Employees Union
(EREU), G.R. No. 178989, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 116.
41

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011

41

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may le a veried

petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or ofcer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certied true copy of the
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certication of nonforum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
[Emphasis supplied]

Under Rule 46, Section 3, paragraph 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, as amended, petitions for certiorari must be veried and
accompanied by a sworn certication of non-forum shopping.
SECTION3.Contents and ling of petition; effect of non-compliance
with requirements.The petition shall contain the full names and actual
addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the
matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied
upon for the relief prayed for.
In actions led under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the
material dates showing when notice of the judgment or nal order or
resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, if any, was led and when notice of the denial thereof was
received.
It shall be led in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of
service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the
court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a
clearly legible duplicate original or certied true copy of the judgment,

order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the

record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent
thereto. The certication shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court
or his duly authorized representative, or by the proper ofcer of the court,
tribunal, agency or ofce involved or by his duly authorized representative.
The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied
by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.
42

42

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn
certication that he has not theretofore commenced any other action
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such
other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he
should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been led or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly
inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within ve
(5) days therefrom.
The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees
to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time
of the ling of the petition.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufcient ground for the dismissal of the
petition. [Emphases supplied]

The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of

due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of
the court. Although the Court has absolute discretion to reject and
dismiss a petition for certiorari, it does so only (1) when the petition
fails to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by any court, agency,
or branch of the government; or (2) when there are procedural
errors, like violations of the Rules of Court or Supreme Court
Circulars.9 [Emphasis supplied]
In the case at bench, the petitioners claim that the petition for
certiorari that they led before the CA substantially complied with
the requirements provided for under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure on Verication and Certication of Non-Forum Shopping.
The Court disagrees.
_______________
9Athena Computers, Inc. and Joselito R. Jimenez v. Wesnu A. Reyes, G.R. No.
156905, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 343, 350.

43

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011

43

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

provide:
SEC.4.Verication.Except when otherwise specically required
by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, veried or accompanied by
afdavit.
A pleading is veried by an afdavit that the afant has read the
pleadings and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal
knowledge or based on authentic records.
A pleading required to be veried which contains a verication based on
information and belief or upon knowledge, information and belief or
lacks a proper verication, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.
SEC.5.Certication against forum shopping.The plaintiff or
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certication annexed
thereto and simultaneously led therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or led any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof;
and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim
has been led or is pending, he shall report that fact within ve (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been led.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable
by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall
be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certication or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. xxx.
44

44

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

In this regard, the case of Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon

Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative,10 is enlightening:

Respecting the appellate courts dismissal of petitioners appeal due to

the failure of some of them to sign the therein accompanying verication
and certication against forum-shopping, the Courts guidelines for the
bench and bar in Altres v. Empleo, which were culled from jurisprudential
pronouncements, are instructive:
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form
the jurisprudential pronouncements already reected above respecting noncompliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective,
verication and certication against forum shopping:
1)A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective verication, and non-compliance
with the requirement on or submission of defective certication against
forum shopping.
2) As to verication, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein
does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The Court may
order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
3)Verication is deemed substantially complied with when one who
has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the
complaint or petition signs the verication, and when matters alleged in the
petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certication against forum shopping, non-compliance
therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verication, is generally not curable
by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
relax the Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of
special circumstances or compelling reasons.
5) The certication against forum shopping must be signed by all the
plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be
dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
_______________
10G.R. No. 164205, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 27.
45

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011

45

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

justiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners

share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense,
the signature of only one of them in the certication against forum shopping
substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certication against forum shopping must be executed
by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or
justiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a
Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his
behalf.

The petition for certiorari led with the CA stated the following
names as petitioners: Nellie Panelo Vda. de Formoso, Ma. Theresa
Formoso-Pescador, Roger Formoso, Mary Jane Formoso, Bernard
Formoso, Benjamin Formoso, and Primitivo Malcaba.
Admittedly, among the seven (7) petitioners mentioned, only
Malcaba signed the verication and certication of non-forum
shopping in the subject petition. There was no proof that Malcaba
was authorized by his co-petitioners to sign for them. There was no
special power of attorney shown by the Formosos authorizing
Malcaba as their attorney-in-fact in ling a petition for review on
certiorari. Neither could the petitioners give at least a reasonable
explanation as to why only he signed the verication and
certication of non-forum shopping. In Athena Computers, Inc. and
Joselito R. Jimenez v. Wesnu A. Reyes, the Court explained that:
The verication of the petition and certication on non-forum shopping
before the Court of Appeals were signed only by Jimenez. There is no
showing that he was authorized to sign the same by Athena, his copetitioner.
Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules states that a pleading is veried by an
afdavit that the afant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein
are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. Consequently, the
verication should have been signed not only by Jimenez but also by
Athenas duly authorized representative.
In Docena v. Lapesura, we ruled that the certicate of non-forum
shopping should be signed by all the petitioners or
46

46

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

plaintiffs in a case, and that the signing by only one of them is

insufcient. The attestation on non-forum shopping requires personal
knowledge by the party executing the same, and the lone signing
petitioner cannot be presumed to have personal knowledge of the ling
or non-ling by his co-petitioners of any action or claim the same as
similar to the current petition.
The certication against forum shopping in CA-G.R. SP No. 72284 is
fatally defective, not having been duly signed by both petitioners and
thus warrants the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. We have
consistently held that the certication against forum shopping must be
signed by the principal parties. With respect to a corporation, the
certication against forum shopping may be signed for and on its behalf, by
a specically authorized lawyer who has personal knowledge of the facts
required to be disclosed in such document.
While the Rules of Court may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty
reasons to relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his failure
to comply with the prescribed procedures, nevertheless they must be

faithfully followed. In the instant case, petitioners have not shown any
reason which justies relaxation of the Rules. We have held that procedural
rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their nonobservance may have prejudiced a partys substantive rights. Like all rules,
they are required to be followed except for the most persuasive of reasons
when they may be relaxed. Not one of these persuasive reasons is present
here.
In ne, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the
petition for certiorari in view of the procedural lapses committed by
petitioners.11 [Emphases supplied]

Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the CA should not have

dismissed the whole petition but should have given it due course
insofar as Malcaba is concerned because he signed the certication.
The petitioners also contend that the CA should have been liberal in
the application of the Rules because they have a meritorious case
against PNB.
The Court, however, is not persuaded.
_______________
11Supra note 9.
47

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011

47

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

The petitioners were given a chance by the CA to comply with

the Rules when they led their motion for reconsideration, but they
refused to do so. Despite the opportunity given to them to make all
of them sign the verication and certication of non-forum
shopping, they still failed to comply. Thus, the CA was constrained
to deny their motion and afrm the earlier resolution.12
Indeed, liberality and leniency were accorded in some cases.13 In
these cases, however, those who did not sign were relatives of the
lone signatory, so unlike in this case, where Malcaba is not a relative
who is similarly situated with the other petitioners and who cannot
speak for them. In the case of Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v.
Plaridel Mingoa, Sr.,14 it was written:
In the instant case, petitioners share a common interest and defense
inasmuch as they collectively claim a right not to be dispossessed of the
subject lot by virtue of their and their deceased parents construction of a
family home and occupation thereof for more than 10 years. The
commonality of their stance to defend their alleged right over the
controverted lot thus gave petitioners xxx authority to inform the Court of
Appeals in behalf of the other petitioners that they have not commenced any

action or claim involving the same issues in another court or tribunal, and
that there is no other pending action or claim in another court or tribunal
involving the same issues.
Here, all the petitioners are immediate relatives who share a common
interest in the land sought to be reconveyed and a common cause of action
raising the same arguments in support thereof. There was sufcient basis,
therefore, for Domingo Hernandez, Jr. to speak for and in behalf of his copetitioners when he certied that they had not led any action or claim in
another court or
_______________
12Rollo, p. 29.
13Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Plaridel Mingoa, Sr., G.R. No. 146548, December
18, 2009, 608 SCRA 394; and Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers MultiPurpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 164205, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 27.
14Id.
48

48

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

tribunal involving the same issues. Thus, the Verication/Certication that

Hernandez, Jr. executed constitutes substantial compliance under the Rules.
[Emphasis supplied]

The same leniency was accorded to the petitioner in the case of

Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose
Cooperative,15 where it was stated:
The same leniency was applied by the Court in Cavile v. Heirs of
Cavile, because the lone petitioner who executed the certication of nonforum shopping was a relative and co-owner of the other petitioners with
whom he shares a common interest. xxx16

Considering the above circumstances, the Court does not see any
similarity at all in the case at bench to compel itself to relax the
requirement of strict compliance with the rule regarding the
certication against forum shopping.
At any rate, the Court cannot accommodate the petitioners
request to re-examine the testimony of Malcaba in the transcript of
stenographic notes of the April 25, 1999 hearing concerning his
alleged testimonial proof of damages for obvious reasons.
Primarily, Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically
states that the petition led shall raise only questions of law, which
must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is
doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the
alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not

involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence

presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue
must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of
_______________
15Supra note 10.
16Id.
49

VOL. 650, JUNE 1, 2011

49

Vda. de Formoso vs. Philippine National Bank

circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the

evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.17
In this case, the petition clearly raises a factual issue. As
correctly argued by PNB, the substantive issue of whether or not the
petitioners are entitled to moral and exemplary damages as well as
attorneys fees is a factual issue which is beyond the province of a
petition for review on certiorari.
Secondly, even if the Court glosses over the technical defects, the
petition for relief cannot be granted. A perusal of the Petition for
Relief of Judgment discloses that there is no fact constituting fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence which are the grounds
therefor. From the petition itself, it appears that the petitioners
counsel had a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes which was
in his cabinet all along and only discovered it when he was
disposing old and terminated cases.18 If he was only attentive to his
records, he could have led a motion for reconsideration or a notice
of appeal in behalf of the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta and Abad, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Note.The rule that only questions of law are entertained in
appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court is not absolute.
(Mitsubishi Motors Phils. Corporation vs. Simon, 551 SCRA 555
[2008])
o0o
_______________
17Cebu Bionic Builders Supply, Inc. vs. Development Bank of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 154366, November 17, 2010, 635 SCRA 13.
18Petition for Relief of Judgment, paragraph 7; Rollo, p. 158.

 Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.