Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

ROCK CONSTRUCTION FIRM

PETITIONER,

-- VERSUS –

OBLATES OF MARY IMMACULATE, INC.,

AND NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY, INC.
RESPONDENT

X-------------------------------------------------X

PETITION FOR REVIEW

(Rule 45)

PETITIONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully

alleges:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a petition for review pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

of the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of Cotabato City,
entitled ROCK CONSTRUCTION FIRM vs. OBLATES OF MARY
IMMACULATE, INC., AND NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY, INC., which
dismissed plaintiff's (now petitioner's) complaint, upon defendant's (now
respondent's) motion to dismiss on the ground that it stated no valid cause of
action, which dismissal was affirmed by the trial court when it denied the
motion for reconsideration. Only questions of law are raised, there being no
factual issues involved.

THE PARTIES

Petitioner is of legal age and is the plaintiff in said Civil Case

No._________, RTC BR. 13, Cotabato City.

Respondent is also of legal age and is the defendant in Civil Case

No._______, RTC BR. 13, Cotabato City.He may be served with legal
process through his counsel, ATTY. GEOSCI SAIDEE, with Office
Address at EM Manor Building, Sinsuat Avenue, Cotabato City.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION

On January 14, 2017, petitioner received copy of the decision of the

RTC BR. 13, Cotabato City in Civil Case No.______. Certified true copy of
said decision is attached hereto as ANNEX "A".

On January 18, 2017or within the 15-day period from receipt of said
decision stated in ANNEX "A", petitioner filed his motion for
reconsideration of said decision, copy of which motion for reconsideration
is attached hereto as ANNEX "B".

On January 20, 2017, petitioner received a copy of the order of the

trial court denying said motion for reconsideration. Certified true copy of
said order is attached hereto as ANNEX "C".

This instant petition is filed within the 15-day period from receipt on
January 31, 2017 denying the motion for reconsideration.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED

The factual background and proceedings are as follows:

1. Sometime on June 25, 2015, respondent entered into a project
management contract with petitioner for the construction of Junior of Oblate
of Mary Seminary (JOMI Seminary) which contract in herein attached as
ANNEX “D”;

2. On December 15, 2015, herein respondent failed to pay their initial. A

demand letter dated January 05, 2016 was made by petitioner to demand
payment of the same which was personally received by herein respondent.
The same is herein attached as ANNEX "D";

3. Despite said demand letter, respondent failed to pay the constructed

building. On January 15, 2016 a second demand letter was executed by
herein petitioner which was received personally by respondent on the same
date, said demand letter is herein attached as ANNEX "E";

4. The second demand letter was not heeded by respondent, as the amount
due December 15, 2015 remained unpaid;

5. On December 30, 2016, a third demand letter was executed by herein

petitioner demanding full payment for the amount of PHP 47,889,749.39,
which demand letter is herein attached as ANNEX "F";

6. Despite repeated demands, both verbal and written, respondent failed and
continues to fail to settle his obligations to herein petitioner, to the prejudice
of the latter;

7. On January 06, 2017, Petitioner filed a collection of sum of money,

breach of Contract and damages against the respondent before the RTC Br.
13, Cotabato City and was docketed as Civil Case No._____, herein
attached as ANNEX "G";

8. On January 14, 2017, the RTC Br. 13 rendered a judgment ruling in favor
of respondents, which petitioner received on January 16, 2017, which
decision is herein attached as ANNEX "H";
9. On January 18, 2017, Petitionert filed a motion for reconsideration,
herein attached as ANNEX "I";

10. On January 20, 2017, petitioner received the order of the RTC
Br. 13 of Cotabato City Denying the motion for reconsideration of
petitioner, herein attached as ANNEX "J";

11. On February 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration through a second resolution, holding that the motion raise
no new issues or substantial ground that would merit the reconsideration of
the court petitioner filed motion for reconsideration, herein attached as
ANNEX "K";

12. On March 1, 2017, petitioner filed this instant petition for review under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

ISSUES RAISED

1. First, Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for Certiorari

by failing to consider the exception in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 41 of the
rules of court;

2. Second, whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion

when it held that he complaint stated no cause of action against
Oblate of Mary Immaculate, Inc.

ERRORS COMMITTED BY TRIAL COURT

1. The RTC committed grave abused of discretion when it granted OMI,

INC.’s Motion to dismiss on the basis of the document submitted in
support of the complaint and not solely on the allegations stated
therein.

2. Allegation raised questions of fact and law, which should have been
threshed out during trial, when both parties have been given the
 chance to present evidence supporting their allegation respective
allegations.

GROUNDS OR REASON FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

1. The appeal should be granted as it was filed within the reglamentary

period of 15 days.

2. The appeal should be granted as there is no plain, speedy and

adequate remedy available to the petitioner.

3. The appeal should be granted as substantial injustice was committed

against the rights of the petitioner, which rights were ignored by the
trial court.

4. The appeal should be granted as manifest violation of petitioner's rights to

property were not protected.

DISCUSSION

1. On January 16, 2017, herein petitioner received the order to the Regional
Trial Court, Br. 13 of Cotabato City denying the latter's motion for
reconsideration with regards the order of the aforesaid court dated January
14, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration over the same
which the trial court denied in its order received by petitioner on January 20,
2017. On January 30 or 15 days after the receipt of the order denying the
motion for reconsideration herein petitioner filed this instant petition for
review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Despite diligent efforts made by petitioner to secure all the proper

documents to support his interests and to demand payment from respondent,
the trial court ruled in favor of the latter, causing great prejudice to the
rights of herein petitioner. Being that no other plain, speedy or adequate
remedy is available, this petition was hereby availed of.
3. The respondent failed to pay the contracted amount of constructed
building due on December 15, 2016 as stipulated in the Contract and duly
signed by the respondent.

4. The petitioner's rights to his property were violated when the trial court
ignored the substantial and overwhelming evidence against the respondent -
contrary to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the New Civil Code.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the petitioner and
for the grant of the following:

1. That the petition be given due course;

2. That after due proceedings, judgment be rendered setting aside the

questioned decision and ordering annex "J" hereof be set aside and a new
one be rendered.

3. Ordering the respondent to pay the petitioner the following sums:

A. The amount of FORTY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED

EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND AND SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY NINE
PESOS AND THIRTY NINE CENTS (47,889,749.39) Philippine Currency,
representing respondent's due.

B. Cost of suits.

4. Petitioner likewise prays for other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the
premises are similarly prayed for.

Cotabato City, Philippines. March 4, 2017.

 ATTY. MENNALDZ A. AMILHASAN
Counsel for Petitioner
PTR no.
IBP No.
ROA No. MCLE
Compliance No.
Cotabato City
Republic of the Philippines)
City of Manila . . . . . . . . ) S.S.

X-----------------------------X

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING/

VERIFICATION

I, ROCO MANAHAN SANCEHZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen,

single, with office address at #34, 5th St. Bonifacio Global City
Taguig, MM, Philippines after having been duly sworn to an oath in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

That I am the President of Rock Construction Firm. with office

address at #34, 5th St. Bonifacio Global City Taguig MM,
Philippines;

That I have been tasked and authorized by Rock Construction Firm..

through its Board Resolution to caused to prepare and file the petition
for certiorari before the Court of Appeals the assailed resolution of
the RTC;

That in compliance thereof, I prepared and/or caused the foregoing

petition; I have read it’s contents and the same are true and correct
based on my personal knowledge and of the authentic records;

That I hereby certify that there is no other action or proceeding

involving the same subject matter, issues, and parties pending in any
other court or tribunal; and in case, if I learned of any action or
proceeding involving the same subject matter, issues and parties
pending in any other court or tribunal, I hereby undertake to report
the same to this Honorable Court within Five (5) days from date of
knowledge thereof;
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature this
14th day of February, 2017 at Cotabato, Philippines.

ROCO M. SANCHEZ
Affiant/Petitioner
LTO ID No. N27-02-006784

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of

February, 2017 at Cotabato City, Philippines.

Doc No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2017.