Posted below is a copy of the scheduled case hearing on February 21 2012 at Makati Reigional Trial Court to decide the merits of enforcement a judgement of the Human Rights Class Suit Against the Marcos Estate. :
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CITY OF MAKATI
BRANCH 56
PRISCILA A. MIJARES, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
- versus – CIVIL CASE NO. 97-1052
ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, ETC.,
Defendant
x——————————————————————/
O R D E R
Submitted for resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order issued by now deceased Judge Reynaldo M. Laigo, on July 8, 2010, which dismissed the case on the ground that the plaintiffs were bereft of legal standing to sue in behalf of the class claimants filed by plaintiffs.
The defendant filed the Opposition to the afore-said motion.
Upon a thorough examination of the arguments of the parties in support of their respective positions on the incident under consideration as well as the whole records of the case, the Court finds compelling reasons to disturb the questioned order and to continue with the proceedings to the finish.
As gleaned from the records of the case, the issue affecting the legal personality of the plaintiffs to initiate the instant action was not among the following common grounds raised by the defendant via the separate motions to dismiss, respectively filed by its alleged representative and defendant-intervenor, Imelda R. Marcos and its duly appointed Executor, Ferdinand R. Marcos II, thus:
(a) Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Circular
7 (referring to the non payment of the filing fees);
(b) The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the complaint for it is in the
Nature of a charge against the estate which is cognizable by Branch 156 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City;
(c) The instant action is not proper for a class suit; and
(d) The Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the complaint for the
foreign judgment sought to be recognized and enforced is contrary to law
and jurisprudence and was rendered with evident mistake of fact and law.
Such being the case, the defendant is now stopped from belatedly availing itself of that particular ground (lack of legal capacity to sue) as the same was earlier considered by the Court to have been waived for its failure to set that up in the afore-said separate motions to dismiss upon which the complaint may be dismissed.
2
The procedural laws in point are sections 1(d), Rule 16 and 8, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which respective provides as follows:
“Section 1. Grounds – Within the time for but before filing the answer to the
Complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on
Any of the following grounds:
xxx
(e) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
xxx”
“Section 8. Omnibus motion – Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule
9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include
all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be
deemed waived.”
By way of a reminder to all the parties, the Court, then presided over by Hon. Santiago Javier Ranada, before acting on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, issued an Order dated June 1988 which serves as the controlling mandate of the Court in the final disposition of the instant case which reads, thus:
“At the hearing this morning, upon discussions and consultations with the
parties, the Court will now proceed to resolve the question of lack of
jurisdiction arising from the alleged failure of the plaintiffs to pay the
correct filing fees. The other issues raised in the motion to dismiss will be
tackled at the trial on merits, if and when the Higher Court will
ultimately rule in favour of plaintiffs’ position.
The parties are each given 5 days from receipt hereof within which to
submit a memorandum of authorities in support of their respective
positions.” (Underlining supplied)
Finally disposing of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court, upon finding that the proper amount of filing fees is not P410, the amount paid by the plaintiffs, but approximately P472 million, came up with an Order dated 9 September 1998 which DISMISSED the case, without prejudice and another Order dated 28 July 1999 which denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of its said order of dismissal.
Aggrieved, the plaintiffs, by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, elevated both orders of then Judge Ranada to the Honorable Supreme Court.
On April 12, 2005, the Honorable Supreme Court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed orders are
NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE, and a new order REINSTATING
Civil Case No. 97-1052 is hereby issued. No costs.”
In that decision, the Honorable Supreme Court made a clear pronouncement in this wise, thus:
3
“One more word. It bears noting that Section 48, Rule 39 acknowledges
that the Final Judgment is not conclusive yet, but presumptive evidence
of a right of the petitioners against the Marcos Estate. Moreover, the
Marcos Estate is not precluded to present – evidence, if any, of
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact. This ruling, decisive as it is on the
question of filing fees and no other, does not render verdict on
the enforceability of the Final Judgment before the courts under
the jurisdiction of the Philippines, or for that matter any other
issue which may legitimately be presented before the trial court.
Such issues are to be litigated before the trial court, but within
the confines of the matters for proof as laid down in Section
48, Rule 39. On the other hand, the speedy resolution of this
claim by the trial court is encouraged, and contumacious
delay of the decision on the merits will not be brooked by this
Court.”
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated 8 July 2010 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.
Let this case be set anew for trial on the merits on February 21, and 28, 2012 all at 8:30 a.m.
SO ORDERED.
Given this 2nd day of December, 2011 at Makati City.
HONORIO E. GUANLAO, JR.
Pairing Judge
xxx(end of document)xxxx
For added references we are also posting two other PDF documents related to the case (1) The original complaint filed in 1997 filed in Makati Court for enforcement of foreign judgement (2) the UN document on the decision of the local court. (click on the titles below)
1997 ROP Enforcement Complaint (00086196)
Posted on January 27, 2012
0