De Lima vs Gatdula Case Digest GR 204528 February 19, 2013

De Lima vs Gatdula Case Digest 

GR 204528 ; February 19, 2013

PRINCIPLE/S:

Statutory Construction

a) Liberal construction of the rules

The Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its rules in order to promote a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The rules can be suspended on the following grounds:

(1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property,

(2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances,

(3) the merits of the case,

(4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules,

(5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and

(6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 

Special Proceeding

a) Natute of a Writ of amparo

The remedy of the Writ of Amparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty and security as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was issued as an exercise of the Supreme Court’s power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It aims to address concerns such as, among others, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

b) Writ of amparo is a special proceeding. 

A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced. 

c) Procedure for the issuance of the Writ of amparo

*Procedure for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is devised to afford swift but decisive relief due to the delicate and urgent nature of the controversies involved.

1) Initiated through a petition to be filed in a Regional Trial Court, Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.

2) The judge or justice then makes an “immediate” evaluation of the facts as alleged in the petition and the affidavits submitted “with the attendant circumstances detailed”.

3) After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the Writ of Amparo or immediately dismiss the case.

a) Dismissal = petition and the supporting affidavits do not show that the petitioner’s right to life, liberty or security is under threat or the acts complained of are not unlawful.

b) Issuance = sets in motion presumptive judicial protection for the petitioner. The court compels the respondents to appear before a court of law to show whether the grounds for more permanent protection and interim relies are necessary.

4) The respondents are required to file a Return after the issuance of the writ through the clerk of court.

- The Return serves as the responsive pleading to the petition. Unlike an Answer, the Return has other purposes aside form identifying the issues in the case, Respondents are also required to detail the actions they had taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.

- If the respondents are public officials or employees, they are also required to state the actions they had taken to: (i) verify the identity of the aggrieved party; (ii) recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition; (iii) identify witnesses and obtain statements concerning the death or disappearance; (iv) determine the cause, manner, location, and time of death or disappearance as well as any patter or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance; and (v) bring the suspected offenders before a competent court. Clearly these matters are important to the judge so that s/he can calibrate the means and methods that will be required to further the protections, if any, that will be due to the petitioner.

5) Summary hearing after the Return is filed to determine the merits of the petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the Return is not filed, the hearing will be done ex parte. 

6) After the hearing, the court will render the judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations are proven with substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper ans appropriate. The judgment should contain measures which the judge views as essential for the continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo case. These measures must be detailed enough o that the judge may be able to verify and monitor the actions taken by the respondents.

- It is this judgment that could be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court via Rule 45. After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be satisfied.

- In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioner’s life, liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the judgment. Parenthetically, the case may also be terminated through consolidation should a subsequent case be filed – either criminal or civil. Until the full satisfaction of the judgment, the extraordinary remedy of Amparo allows vigilant judicial monitoring to ensure the protection of constitutional rights. 

d) Writ of Amparo is an interlocutory order. 

This “Decision” pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, not the judgment under Section 18. The “Decision” is thus an interlocutory order, as suggested by the fact that temporary protection, production and inspection orders were given together with the decision. The temporary protection, production and inspection orders are interim reliefs that may be granted by the court upon filing of the petition but before final judgment is rendered. 

e) Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo.

- The requirement to file an Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy to those whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated.

- The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be done prior to the hearing, not after.

f) Memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the writ of Amparo. 

A memorandum is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually required before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these submissions have different functions in facilitating the suit.

g) Privilege of the Writ of Amparo vs "Actual Order" of the the Writ of Amparo

Privilege of the Writ of Amparo

- interlocutory order

- not appealable via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

- privilege includes the availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the rule on the Writ of Amparo

"Order" of the the Writ of Amparo

- final order

- appealable via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

FACTS: Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in the RTC. The Writ of Amparo was directed against petitioners Justice Secretary Leila De Lima et al. Gatdula wanted De Lima, et al. "to cease and desist from framing up Petitioner (Gatdula) for the fake ambush incident (of Deputy Director Esmeralda) by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder against Gatdula in relation to the alleged ambush incident."

Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued summons and ordered De Lima et al. to file an Answer. He also set the case for hearing in order to determine whether a temporary protection order may be issued. During that hearing, counsel for De Lima, et al. manifested that a Return, not an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases.

The Judge insisted that "[s]ince no writ has been issued, return is not the required pleading but answer". The judge noted that the Rules of Court apply suppletorily in Amparo cases and thus required an Answer. Judge Pampilo then proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case. Even without a Return nor an Answer, he ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within 5 working days after that hearing. Since the period to file an Answer had not yet lapsed by then, the judge also decided that the memorandum of De Lima, et al. would be filed in lieu of their Answer.

RTC rendered a "Decision" granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo. The RTC also granted the interim reliefs prayed for, namely: temporary protection, production and inspection orders. The production and inspection orders were in relation to the evidence and reports involving an on-going investigation of the attempted assassination of Deputy Director Esmeralda. It is not clear from the records how these pieces of evidence may be related to the alleged threat to the life, liberty or security of the respondent Gatdula.

RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by De Lima, et al. De Lima, et al. thus came to this Court assailing the RTC "Decision" dated 20 March 2012  through a Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON the "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 could be a judgment or final order that is appealable via Rule 45 as enunciated under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

2) WON there are procedural irregularities in issuing the Writ of Amparo in RTC.

3) WON the instant petition should be dismissed.

HELD:

1) NO. The "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 is an interlocutory order since it pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, not the judgment under Section 18. The "Decision" being an interlocutory order is suggested by the fact that temporary protection, production and inspection orders were given together with the decision. The temporary protection, production and inspection orders are interim reliefs that may be granted by the court upon filing of the petition but before final judgment is rendered.  Hence, a Petition for Review under Rule 45 may not yet be the proper remedy at this time since such remedy can only be availed for a final order such as a judgment under Section 18 of the  Rule on Amparo

2) YES. The procedural irregularities are as follows:

a) The insistence on filing of an Answer.

It is the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy to those whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated.

Judge Pampilo's basis for requiring an Answer was Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure since the the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. But the Judge’s basis is misplaced since this type of summary procedure only applies to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. Aside from that, this Court limited the application of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.

b) Holding of a hearing on the main case prior to the issuance of the writ and the filing of a Return.

c) RTC requiring a memorandum in lieu of a responsive pleading (Answer) of De Lima, et al.

The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on the other hand, is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usuallyrequired before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these submissions have different functions in facilitating the suit. More importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the

Writ of Amparo.

d) "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 itself.

In the body of its decision, the RTC stated:"Accordingly this court GRANTS the privilege of the writ and the interim reliefs prayed for by the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied).

This gives the impression that the decision was the judgment since the phraseology is similar to Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo

The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. After examining the petition and its attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner'slife, liberty or security.

A judgment which simply grants "the privilege of the writ" cannot be executed. It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the petitioner. Petitions filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo arise out of very real and concrete circumstances. Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or ritualistic as "granting the privilege of the Writ of Amparo."

3) NO. The Petition for Review is not the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory order denominated as "Decision" dated 20 March 2012. A Petition for Certiorari, on the other hand, is prohibited. Simply dismissing the present petition, however, will cause grave injustice to the parties involved. It undermines the salutary purposes for which the Rule on the Writ of Amparo were promulgated.

In many instances, the Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its rules in order to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The rules can be suspended on the following grounds: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (2) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (3) the merits of the case, (4) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

Hence, the Supreme Court nullified the writ of amparo issued by Judge Pampilo, Jr. in favor of former NBI director Magtanggol Gatdula. The high court found procedural irregularities committed by the trial court judge and directed him "to determine within forty-eight (48) hours from his receipt of this Resolution whether the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is proper on the basis of the petition and its attached affidavits."

A year after its filing and over a week after SC nullified orders issued by Judge Pampilo, Jr., RTC Manila dismissed Gatdula's petition for lack of merit.