Republic of the Philippines

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DIVISION OF CITY SCHOOLS
Barangay Kilala, Marawi City

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

February 17, 2017

Hon. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
SUPREME COURT of the PHILIPPINES
Taft Avenue Cor. Padre Faura St.
Malate, Metro Manila

SUBJECTS:

1. The undersigned litigants would like to reiterate her

request for assistance before your HONORS, which her Motion for
Court to her Submitted Second Motion for Reconsideration [With
Motion to Refer to the Court En Banc] in G.R.No. 22180 now
pending before the SC 3rd Division be referred to the EN BANC,
because I saw a dim light if the SC 3 rd Division will refer it to the
EN BANC soon.

2. The undersigned believe if only her Second Motion for

Reconsideration be deliberated under the principle that fifteen
[15] heads is better than five [5], justice will be properly
dispensed and wise judgment be eventually issued, and
effectively preclude the LEGALLY ERRONEOUS and PATENTLY
UNJUST Court of Appeals Decision and the Supreme Court 3 rd
Division Resolution which are CAUSING UNWARRANTED and
IRREMEDIABLE INJURY to the herein petitioner;

3. The undersigned petitioner believe that if only the SC EN

BANC would take a second look into her Second Motion for
Reconsideration the SC EN BANC can save an INNOCENT MANS
life, honor, dignity, integrity and reputation TARNISHED and
DESTROYED WITHOUT HER FAULT.

4. That if only the SC EN BANC would take a look at the

herein petitioner, Your Honors, will notice that the denial of her
petition is likewise an utter disregard of too many time-honored
principles such as the following:

[A.]Doctrine laid down in the case of CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION vs MADLAWI B. MAGOYAG, G.R.No.197792,
December, 09, 2015;
 [B.]Primacy of the doctrine of immutability and un-
alterability of final judgment over annulment of Judgment;

[C.]Doctrine that in action in rem publication is enough to

notify and bind all interested parties including those so-called
indispensable parties;
[D.] Very stringent requirements of Annulment of Judgment
which were not satisfied by the private respondents;
[E.] Entitlement of a de facto officer to salaries and other
benefits and her power to the MOOE

Your Honors, please allow me to present the Tabular

Presentation of Similarities of RTC B-9 proceedings on the
Petition for Correction of Live Birth of Mona A. Macatanong and
Madlawi B. Magoyag and the Tabular Presentation of
Differences of the Court of Appeals Decisions and the Supreme
Court 3rd Decisions on both CSC vs
MadlawiB.Magoyag,G.R.No.197792, December 09, 2015and C.A,
and Hataman et al vs. Mona A. Macatanong, G.R.No.221807,
February 10, 2016 case on attached separate sheet. Likewise
attached are the following factual evidences for evaluation and
deliberation:

1. RTC B-9-SPL 1918-09,Court Proceedings(17 mos.) on the

Petition For Correction of Date of Birth in the Public Records of
MONA A. MACATANONG, dated December 2,2009, certified
through copy issued by Atty NADJER PINATARA ,Branch Clerk of
Court, to prove that there was NO Fraud and Collusion
committed by Mona A. Macatanong in obtaining the
favorable RTC decision.

2. Civil Service Commission GRANTED the Petition of Entry in the

Service Records of Mona A. Macatanong March 04,2013.

3. Tabular Presentation of the Differences of RTC-B 9 & 8 Petition

for Correction of Live Birth of Mona A. Macatanong and PNP
PS/Supt. Dimapinto Macawadib where the Court of Appeals
relied much their decision in my case and;

4. The SC four (4)strict rigid requirements for Annulment of

Judgment which were not satisfied by the private respondents
(Hataman et. al)

5. The RTC-B-8 TRO,WPI,WPMI,DECISION and WRIT OF EXECUTION

issued to RG Hataman et.al to CEASE AND DESIST in
implementing Dep-ED Orders No .27 &79 dated May
23&27,2014 respectively and the release of the Division MOOE
under the administration of SDS Macatanong.
 6. Civil Service Commission LEGAL OPINIONS dated August
04,2016 and September 26,2016 Still recognizing Macatanong
to be the Sitting Superintendent of Marawi City and;

7. R.G. Hataman et al continuously DEFIED, DISRESPECT and

DISREGARDED all the RTC decisions and CSC legal opinions,
assuming and believing that HE IS THE GOD OF ARMM, HE IS
ABOVE THE LAW and CAN BUY THE LAW.

Your Honors, your humble retired public school teacher

servant/litigant was the 1st and lone Dep-Ed ARMM Key Official
awarded of the prestigious, PLAQUE OF RECOGNITION as 2014-
DANGAL NA BAYAN AWARD OF THE Civil Service
Commission-ARMM (CSC Nationwide Honor Awards Program)
last December23,2014; Nominee to the CSC 2014 Annual
Search for Outstanding Public Officials and Employees
HERO ANG PUBLIC SERVANT ( PRESIDENTIAL LINGKOD
BAYAN and CSC PAGASA AWARD) For Outstanding Work
Performance-Individual Category, in March 31,2014; The MEDIA
AWARD AS OUTSTANDING DEP-Ed SUPERINTENDENT, by the
PhilMedia of Iligan City, February 17,2014 and CERTIFICATE OF
MERIT of the Dep-Ed ARMM in February 11, 2014.These
recognitions are proof that the undersigned was never involved in
any anomaly,

Your Honors, as an educator, I still believe in your wisdom

that there is EQUITY IN THE RULE OF LAW. I had a very HIGH
REGARDS and RESPECT to our CA and SC Justices who are
protector of harass people whose constitutional rights were
transgress. I am not in a position to argue or antagonize with our
Justices except to assert the TRUTH AND JUSTICE, based on
factual evidences and not on mere allegations and
insinuations.

Your Honors, the undersigned, reiterated to come to your

office in good faith , pleading and reverentially knocks to your
wisdom,heart and conscience for ASSISTANCE and HELP to
REDEEM my life, hard-earned honor, dignity, and integrity.
Your Honors, after looking at my case, for the seek of JUSTICE and
HUMANITY.I am appealing to your kind heart to INTERCEDE in my
case. I am already more than 65 years old, having illness and
need medical attention and suppose to enjoy the fruit of my 47
years of devotion and sacrifices in the Dep-Ed; but, for almost
three[3] years,I am suffering from anguish, humiliation, hardship,
both mental and physical torture and other atrocities inflicted to
me by RG Mujiv Hataman without probable cause. Until now, I did
not received my retirement benefits, unpaid salaries. and the
MOOE of my division, because RG HATAMAN informed me that
they will effect my retirement to October 18,1948, and will deduct
all salaries I received beyond my original retirement date, which I
do not deserve from the hands of RG Hataman and the rendered
unjust decisions of the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court 3 rd
Division.

Thank you very much, expecting and trusting that your

esteemed magistrates would give PREFERENTIAL ATTENTION to
the foregoing pressing concerns. More power.

Very truly yours,

MONA A.
MACATANONG,Ph.D
Schools Division Superintendent
[ret.]
Cell No.09063484694 or
09212866490
TABULAR SIMILARITIES IN THE RTC-B9 PROCEEDINGS

MONA A. MACATANONG MADLAWI B. MAGOYAG

GR No. 221807
February 10, 2016
1.She was a Schools Division
Superintendent, Dep-Ed at time
she filed her correction of Date of
Birth in December 2009;
GR No. 197792
December 09, 2015
1. He was Deputy Collector
of Custom/Dept of Finance
at time when he filed his
correction of Date of Birth;

2She filed her petition for 2.He applied for late

correction of Date of Birth for registration (NSO) of his birth
3 years, to correct the four from July 22 1947 to July 22
(4) sets of discrepancies in 1954 seven (7) years
her government records, in purposely to correct the
her Secondary permanent discrepancies on his Date
record October 18 1951; Dep- of Birth;
Ed ARMM October 18 1950;
CSC October 23 1949; NSO
late registration October 18
1948;the case was handled
by two(2)RTC Judges, late
Judge ANTONIO GUILING
for 8 mos. who died before
the termination of the case
and Judge GAMOR DISALO
who continued the case for
9mos.until terminated and 3.HE DID NOT IMPLEAD the
executed in June 8,2011. Department of Finance and the
Civil Service Commission
3.SHE DID NOT IMPLEAD the
Department of Education- 4.He PUBLISHED in
ARMM newspaper her petition for
correction of live birth as
ordered by the court
4.She PUBLISHED in
newspaper her petition for 5.The OFFICE OF THE
correction of live birth as SOLICITOR GENERAL was
ordered by the court on April notified an actively
4, 2010. participated in the court trials
and proceedings
5.The OFFICE OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL was
notified and enter their 6. His petition for correction of
Notice of Appearance on May live birth was filed in RTC
13,2010 and actively Branch-9 Marawi City. The
participated in the court RTC decision was issued on
trials and proceedings November 20, 2007. Another
amended RTC decision was
6.Her petition for correction of decided on February 06, 2008
live birth was filed in RTC
Branch-9 Marawi City. The
RTC decision was issued on 7. His NSO Certificate of Live
June 08, 2011 and the finality Birth was corrected from July
of judgment was issued on 22, 1947 to July 22, 1954
August 02, 2011 (7years)

7.Her NSO Certificate of 8.The Civil Service

Live Birth was corrected Commission DENIED the
from October 18, 1948 to written request on the
October 18, 1951 (3years). correction of entry in his
record despite the RTC
decisions dated November 20,
8. Her separate petition for 2007 and June 02, 2008 due to
correction of entry in IMPROBABILITIES.
service record of the Civil According to CSC if
Service Commission was Magoyag was born on July
GRANTED on March 04, 2013 20 1954 according to his
(from October 23, 1949 to submitted transcript of
October 18, 1951) after seven record (TRO) at LICEO de
(7) months of court Cagayan University,
proceeding Cagayan de Oro City he will
be Graduated College at
age thirteen (13);

TABULAR DIFFERENCES ON
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
1.Hataman et al filed PETITION FOR
ANNULMENT OF JUDGEMENT OF
RTC-B-9-SPL 1918-09 to the Court of
Appeals MIN [CDO].
2.The Court of Appeals Decision declared 2.The Court of Appeals FAVORED
the RTC-B-9-SPL 1918-09 NULL AND Madlawi Magoyag and the RTC-B-9
VOID and SET ASIDE
TABULAR DIFFERENCES IN
SUPREME COURT 3RD DIVISISION
DECISION
February 10, 2016
1. Macatanong Filed her PETITION
FOR REVIEW to the Supreme Court on
the Patently Unjust and Legally
Erroneous Decision of the Court of
Appeals on January 6,2016..
2.On February 10 2016 (month after I
filed my petition), the supreme court
hastily issued a NOTICE OF
RESOLUTION which reads as follows:
G.R.NO.221807 (MONA A.
MACATANONG vs. COURT OF
APPEALSet al)-- Acting on the petition
for review on certiorari in the above-
entitled case, assailing the Decision
dated December 4,2015of the Court of
Appeals (Cagayan de Oro) in CA-GRSP
Graduated high school at
age nine (9) years old and
Graduated Elementary at
the age of five (5)year old.
TABULAR DIFFERENCES ON
THE COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
1.The CSC filed PETITION for
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT OF
MAGOYAG RTC DECISIONS OF
HIS CORRECTION.,AT THE Court
of Appeals-MIN {CDO}
Decision.
TABULAR DIFFERENCES IN
SUPREME COURT 3RD DIVISION
DECISION
December 09, 2015
1. The CSC filed PETITION FOR
REVIEW to the Supreme Court on the
Annulment of Judgment of the
Favorable decision of the Court of
Appeals to RTC-Branch 9 decision of
Madlawi Magoyag
2. The Supreme Court DENIED the
petition for review of the Civil Service
Commission, GRANTING Magoyag
CORRECTION OF BIRTH DATE.
The Honorable Supreme Court
disregarded the issue of non-
inclusion of Indispensable parties
and chose to apply the DOCTRINE
that in ACTION IN REM,
PUBLICATION IS ENOUGH TO
NOTIFY AND BIND ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES. This is
No.06266-MIN, C.A. G.R. No. 06392 very PATENT in the decided case as
and C.A.G.R.No.07012-MIN, the Court hereto quoted It must be remembered
resolves to DENY the petition for that, a petition for correction is an
failure to sufficiently show that the ACTION IN REM an action against a
appellate court committed any thing and NOT against a person. The
reversible error in the challenged decision on the petition binds not only
decision to warrant the exercise by this the parties thereto but the whole world.
Court of its discretionary appellate An action in rem proceeding is
jurisdiction. validated essentially through
publication. PUBLICATION IS
However,considering that the NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD
actuation of Judge Gamor THAT THE PROCEEDING HAS FOR
Disalo,Regional Trial Court of Marawi ITS OBJECT TO BAR
City,Branch 9 in handling the Special INDEFINITELY ALL WHO MIGHT
Proceeding Case No. 1918-09 is highly BE MINDED TO MAKE AN
questionable,especially as regards the OBJECTION OF ANY SORT
allegations of herein respondents this AGAINST THE RIGHT TO BE
his Decision dated June 8,2011 in said ESTABLISHED. IT IS THE
case,which granted herein petitioner PUBLICATION OF NOTICE THAT
Mona A. Macatanongs petition for BRINGS IN THE WHOLE PARTY IN
correction of her date of birth in the THE CASE AND VESTS THE
public records, was obtained through COURT WITH THE JURISDICTION
fraud and collusion ,the Office of the TO HEAR AND DECIDE IT.AS
Court Administrator and the Office of the SUCH PETITIONER IS NOW
Bar Confidant are DIRECTED to make LEGALLY BOUND TO
the appropriate study and investigation on ACKNOWLEDGE ANDD GIVE
the matter for filing of administrative and EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF
criminal charges against Judge Gamor THE RTC.
Disalo.
In view of the denial of the 1.The Supreme Court uphold the
petition,the Court further resolves to doctrine of IMMUTABILITY
NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the AND UNALTERABILITY OF
petitioners: FINAL JUDGMENT
INSTEAD OF ANNULMENT
(1) Very Urgent Manifestation and OF JUDGMENT IN
Motion to Amend for Issuance of a MAGOYAG CASE. This
Restraining Order to Issuance of Status doctrine of finality of judgment
Quo Ante Order(with very Urgent for is grounded on fundamental
Immediate Issuance Thereof) dated considerations of public policy
January 18,2016 and and sound practice. In fact,
(2) Urgent Supplemental NOTHING IS MORE
Manifestation with Reiterated Prayer for SETTLED IN LAW THAN
Issuance of a Status QUO Ante Order THAT ONCE A JUDGMENT
dated January 29,2016.SO ORDERED. ATTAINS FINALITY IT
THEREBY BECOMES
1. UPON RECEIPT OF IMMUTABLE AND
THESUPREME COURT UNALTERABLE IT NO
DECISION, Macatanongs counsel LONGER BE MODIFIED IN
seasonably filed her Motion for ANY RESPECT,EVEN IF
 Reconsideration on April 20,2016 THE MODIFICATION IS
and Supplemental Motion For MEANT TO CORRECT
Reconsideration on May 16,2016 WHAT PERCEIVEDTO BE
unto the Honorable Supreme Court ERRONEOUS
resolution. (1) Pleading and CONCLUSION OF FACT OF
seeking to apply the doctrine of LAW,AND REGARDLESS OF
precedence in the recently decided WHETHER THE
caseCivil Service MODIFICATION IS
CommissionvsMadlawiB.Magoyag ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE
,G.R.N0.197792 dated December BY THE COURT
09,2017 which is strikingly similar RENDERING IT OR BY THE
to Macatanong case and (2) Plea to HIGHEST COURT OF THE
uphold the RTC ruling on the LAND. IT ALSO BE BORNE
ground that respondent Dep-Ed IN MIND THAT THE RIGHT
FAILED to comply with the FOUR OF THE WINNING PARTY TO
(4) RIGID REQUIREMENTS TO ENJOY THE FINALITY OF
ANNUL JUDGMENT WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THE
FINALITY. CASE IS ALSO AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF PUBLIC
I prayed to the Honorable Supreme POLICY AND ORDERLY
Court to give DUE COURSE to my ADMINISTRATION OF
motion for reconsiderations based on JUSTICE.
arguments and evidences, but I was
DISAPPOINTED when the Supreme
Court issued its 2nd Notice of
Resolution as quoted hereunder:

II. Please take notice that the Third

Division, issued a Resolution dated
June 27, 2016 which reads as follows:

G.R. No.221807 (Mona A.

Macatanong vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)
Acting on petitioners motion for
reconsideration of the Resolution dated
February 10, 2016 which denied for
review on certiorari, the Court resolves to
DENY the motion FINALITY, as no
substantial arguments were raised to
warrant its reconsideration
The Court further resolves to NOTE
petitioners :

(1.) Supplemental motion for

reconsideration; and
(2.) Manifestation with Supplemental
Arguments dated May 5, 2016 stating
that, in her motion for reconsideration,
she invited the Courts attention to the
 case of Civil Service Commission vs.
Madlawi B. Magoyag (G.R. No.197792)
decided only on December 9, 2015, the
factual of which are strikingly similar to
this present case prompted her to plead
its application to her situation. Let entry
of judgment be made in due course.

THE COURT OF APPEALS PROCEEDINGS

The Court of Appeals and Hataman et al. RELIED

UPON THE CASE OF SENIOR POLICE SUPT DIMAPINTO
MACAWADIB VS. THE PNP DIRECTORATE FOR RECORDS IN
SC GR NO. 286610 JULY 29,2013 which is
CONTRADISTINGUISHED, to the case of MONA A.
MACATANONG. PS/Supt. Macawadib correction of date of
birth DECISION WAS CLEARLY OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUD
AND MISREPRESENTATION. Please see Tabular presentation of
differences between Macatanong and Macawadib petition for
correction :

Tabular Differences in RTC-B-9 [Macatanong] & RTC-B-8 [Macawadib]

Mona A. Macatanong GR No. 221807 Dimapinto Macawadib GR

February 10, 2016 No. 186610 July 29, 2013

A.Her petition for correction of Date of Birth A. His petition for correction
in RTC Branch-9 was handled by two (2) of Date of Birth was
Judges such as late Judge ANTONIO clearly obtained
GUILING handled the case for eight (8) through fraud and
months who died before the termination of misrepresentation.
the case and Judge GAMOR DISALO
 continued the case for nine (9) months until
finally decided June 8,2011 and the Finality
of Judgement was issued on August2,2011.

1. The purpose of petition for correction of Date

of Birth for 3years is to correct the 1. The intention of
discrepancies in her government records Macawadib in correcting his
from October 18, 1948 to October 18, 1951. Date of Birth was to stay
more in service for 10years
2. Macatanong applied for NSO late from January 11, 1946 to
registration in 1997. 16 years before her January 11, 1956.
original retirement.
2. Applied for registration
only on September 03, 2001
or 34 days after the PNP
3.She DID NOT IMPLEAD the Dep-Ed issuance of its order for his
ARMM compulsory retirement
which was due on January
11, 2002
4. She PUBLISHED the petition in a
general circulating newspaper in 3 3.He DID NOT IMPLEAD the
consecutive weeks per order of court on PNP, Napol com, CSC
April 04, 2010 5.
4.NO PUBLICATION of the
5. The OFFICEOF THE SOLICITOR petition in the newspaper
GENERAL (City Prosecutor) enter their
Notice of Appearance last May 13,2010
and actively participated in all court
proceedings until it was terminated on August 5. NO PARTICIPATION OF THE
02, 2011. SOLICITOR GENERAL (city
prosecutor) during the trial of
6. Her case was decided by the trial court the case.
after seventeen (17) months of court
proceedings.

7. Her separate petition for correction of 6. His case was decided by

entry into the service record of the Civil the trIal court in less than
Service Commission (CSC) was GRANTED two (2) months
ON MARCH 04, 2013

8.Her NSO was corrected from October

7. NO CIVIL SERVICE
18,1948 to October 18,1951.
COMMISSION GRANT
9.Her two witnesses werecross- examine and
grilled in open court by the City prosecutor
(SG) on March 15, 2011
8.NO CORRECTED NSO
 9.His witnesses were not
tested in crucible crossed
examination
COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS
DECISIONDecember o4,2015 DECISION,December 17,2008

For failure of RTC Marawi,Branch WHEREFORE, finding the instant

9 to acquire jurisdiction over the petition impressed with merit,the
DepEd-ARMM who is an same is hereby GRANTEDThe
indispensable party in Special assailed Decisions dated
Proceedings Case No, 1918-09 December4,2001 is the respondent
Renders the courts subsequent in Spl. No.782-01 is NULLIFIED
actions Including the decision and SET ASIDE. Also, so as to
rendered therein, Null and Void. prevent further damage upon the
PNP, let a permanent injunction
WHEREFORE, the amended petition issue in the meantime, barring the
for Annulment of Judgment in private respondent Dimapinto Babai
CA=GR sp No. 06266 is hereby Macawadib from continuing and
GRANTED.The Decision dated June prolonging his tenure with the PNP
o3,2011 rendered by RTC of Marawi beyond the mandatory retirement
City,Branch 9 in Special Proceedings age of fifty six (56) years..
Case No,1918-09 is ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE. Consequently, private
Respondent Mona A. Macatanong, is
deemed to have already reached the
compulsory retirement age of sixty
Five (65)years by October 18,2013
and has no right to continue or
prolong her tenure with the DepEd-
ARMM beyond said date, nor
continue to receive salaries and
emoluments from the Dep-Ed ARMM,
nor administer the funds Pertaining
to the Office of the Division Schools
Superintendent of Marawi City
Division of the Dep-Ed ARMM which
she occupied.

On the other hand, for the

reasons discussed above, the
petitions for certiorari in CA-GR SP
Nos.06392-MIN and 07012-MIN are
rendered moot and academic by the
Courts Decision in CA-GR SP No
o6266-MIN

SO ORDERED.
 SUPREME COURT RULE 47
FOUR STRICT RIGID REQUIREMENTS

The Court of Appeals ignored the application of the four (4)

stringent rigid requirements to annul judgment with finality in
Macatanong case. According to Rule 47 of the RULE OF COURT the
grounds for ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT WITH FINALITY are .[1.]
EXTRINSIC FRAUD [2.] LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER
INDESPENSABLE PARTIES AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS .The
Supreme Court laid down strict compliance with THE FOUR [4]
RIGID REQUIREMENTS to ANNUL JUDGMENT WITH FINALITY
such as;

I. THE PETITIONER CAN NO LONGER RESORT TO THE ORDINARY

REMEDIES OF NEW TRIALS, APPEAL, PETITION FOR RELIEF OR
OTHER APPROPRIATE REMEDIES WITHOUT THE FAULT ON HIS
OWN.

I.A . HATAMANet al.,DID NOT COMPLY with the 1st

requirement because:

[a.] Secretary Kulayan LIED in court because as early as

July31,2012, Macatanong personally delivered to Secretary
Kulayans office the letter of her counsel dated July 28,2012
formally informing and furnishing him copies of her petition for
correction of entry in the service records of the CSC, Central
Office, with the RTC-B-9-SPLNo.1918-09 Decision with Finality, the
NSO[SECPA] indicating the
correcteddateofbirthMacatanongfromOctober18,194toOctober18,
1951,correctedGSISmembership,andothersupportingdocuments.
Secretary Kulayan admitted to received this
letter/documents on par.6 of his Dep-Ed Order #27,dated
May 23,2014[retroactive retirement from government of Mona
Macatanong as SDS effective October 18,2013.]

[b] Mr. GAMAL TAMPOGAO,AdminV

and.ChiefPersonnelDivision, Dep-Ed ARMM executed
judicial affidavit and testified in Court of Appeals trial that
he received on June 19,2013,copies of CSC resolution dated
March 4,2013, Granting Macatanongs corrected date of birth from
October 23,1949 to October 18,1951, RTC-B-9 SPLNo.1918-09
Decision with Finality,NSO [SECPA] and other documents.All
documents were identified on direct examination and were un-
rebutted by Hataman et al. in the C.A. trial. With the
acknowledgment of the Chief, Personnel Division,Dep-Ed
ARMM,the respondents, under the law, are charged with
knowledge of its receipt and contents.

II. THE BASIS OF THE PETITION MUST BE EITHER EXTRINSIC FRAUD

OR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR LACK OF DUE PROCESS.

II.A. Hataman et al., DID NOT COMPLY with the second

requirements;

[ a] Hataman et al., were not able to offer any credible

explanation why Macatanongs corrected date of birth
October 18,1951 was already entered in the PLANTILLA OF
SERVICES AND ITEMIZATION OF PERSONNEL [PSIOP]of the
Dep-Ed ARMM for FISCAL YEAR 2012 received in CSC-
ARMM on March 23,2014 as testified to in C.A. trial by
petitioners witness, DIR. DOMINADOR E. GONZALES JR., of
CSC-ARMM field Office, through his Court Appeals judicial
affidavit

[b] MOBARAK P. PANDI,REGL Information Officer,Dep-Ed

ARMM also testified in C.A. trial and affirmed the
authenticity and genuineness of the personnel plantilla of the
Dep-Ed ARMM Marawi City for fiscal year 2012 and its delivery to
the CSC-ARMM office, which completely rebuffed Hataman et
al. allegation that they had NO PRIOR knowledge of
Macatanongs corrected date of birth, he was unrebutted and
unshaken in the cross-examination in the C.A.Trial. Based on the
foregoing discussion, Macatanong DID NOT
EMPLOY,PERFORM OR COMMIT any act constituting
extrinsic fraud. Except for Hataman et al. ALLEGATION
that they were NOT IMPLEADED, AS INDESPENSABLE
PARTY she found NO SPECIFIC FRAUDELENT ACT OR
DECEITFUL CONDUCT that could be attributed to her which
prevented Hataman et al. from taking proper action to
present their case or oppose Macatanongs petition to
correct her date of birth.

III. THE PETITION TO ANNUL THE DECISION SHOULD BE FILED

WITHIN FOUR [4] YEARS FROM THE DISCOVERY OF THE EXTRINSIC
FRAUD AND BEFORE IT IS BARRED BY LACHES OR ESTOPPEL IF
BASED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION.
III. Hataman et al., DID NOT COMPLY with the third
requirements;

[III.A]. Hataman et al. are GUILTY OF ESTOPPEL because

Macatanong was allowed to participate and/or handle
national, regional and division activities beyond October
18,2013[original date of her compulsory retirement] as
described or depicted in her Petition and which were NOT
disputed by Hataman et al in C.A. trial, has by their own
inaction, silence or omission, ineluctably and deliberately led
Macatanong to believe that the correction of her date of birth has
been acknowledge by the respondents.

[III.1.] From October,2013 to May 2014,Macatanong was

allowed to remain in the service and received her regular monthly
salaries from the Dep-Ed ARMM.

[III.2]. From October,2013 to May 2014. Macatanong was

allowed to disbursed and disposed the regular monthly MOOE of
Marawi City Division downloaded to their LBP account.

[III.3) On November 26-29,2013 SDS Macatanong lead and

conducted the annual Division Palarong Panlungsod,Marawi City
and on December 28-29,2013 held the annual celebration of
Marawi City Teachers Day Celebration and Dep-Ed ARMM
Secretary Kulayan was the Guest Speaker in both occasion.

[III.4] On February 10-15,2014SDS Macatanong again led and

HOSTED the 2014 PALARONG ARMMAA [Regl Athletic Meet] with
RG MUJIV S. HATAMAN as GUEST of HONOR held for the
1sttime in Marawi City Division in preparation for the2014 Palarong
Pambansa national event slated in Laguna City on May 5-10,2014.

[III.5] On March 7,2014,SDS Macatanong attended and

participated in Dep-Ed ARMM Regl Management Committee
Meeting [MANCOM] with Secretary Kulayan, Regional key officials and
SDS of the 9 divisions of ARMM
[III.6] On May 1-3,2014 SDS Macatanong attended and
participated in the Philippine Association of Schools
Superintendent[PASS] Convention at theHeritage Hotel, Pasay
City,

[III.7] On May 5-10,2014,SDS Macatanong was with the

delegation of ARMM together Secretary Kulayan at the PALARONG
PAMBANSA in Laguna City.

[III.8] On March 10,2014,SDS Macatanong was nominated by

Secretary Kulayan as the 1st and lone candidate to the most
prestigious CSC PRESIDENTIAL LINGKOD BAYAN AWARD and CSC
PAGASA AWARD in the 2014 Annual Search for Outstanding Public
Officials and Employees- Individual Category.

[III.9] On May 16,2014 SDS Macatanong attended Dep-Ed

ARMM MASS OATH-TAKING CEREMONY of I,000 newly hired
teachers. She presented the 112 teachers assigned new teachers
for Marawi City Divisionand deployed them upon arrival in Marawi
City.

IV.THE PETITION TO ANNUL THE DECISION SHOULD BE VERIFIED

AND SHOULD ALLEGE WITH PARTICULARITY THE FACTS AND THE
LAW RELIED UPON FOR ANNULMENT ,AS WELL AS THOSE
SUPPORTING THEIR ACTION.

IV.A. Hataman et al DID NOT COMPLY with the fourth

requirements.

[ a] There were only two [2] affidavits accompanying the

petition with the Court of Appeals, namely [1] the affidavit
of Pharida Sansarona attesting to the alleged grandiose
60th birthday celebration of Macatanong, [2] the Affidavit
of Merit executed by Hataman and Kulayan to support
their application for Temporary Restraining Order.
Hataman et al. application for TRO/MR was DENIED by the
C.A. on August 5,2014 and October 23,2014 respectively.

IV-B. NONE of the foregoing affidavits described the

ALLEGED EXTRINSIC FRAUD supposedly committed by
Macatanong which effectively prevented Hataman et al.,in fully
exhibiting their case.

IV-C. The failure of Hataman et al., to submit the required

affidavit of witnesses constitutes a FATAL procedural
defect that CONTRAVENED the FOURTH essential statutory
requirement.The Honorable Court of Appeals ignored this
requirements and hence committed a GRAVE AND
REVERSIBLE ERROR.