THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 132426. August 19, 1999]
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 253, Las Pinas City and MARTA D. MADRIAGA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
In this Petition for Certiorari
and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Public
Estates Authority (PEA) assails and seeks to set aside the two Orders[1] of Branch 253, of the Regional Trial Court, Las Pinas
City, in Civil Case No. LP-97-0034.
On October 2, 1997, the respondent
court issued the first challenged Order which considered as not filed the
Motion to Dismiss[2] interposed by the herein petitioner in Civil Case No.
LP-97-0034 on the ground of non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of
the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Meanwhile, the Complaint in
subject civil case was amended in view of the death of one of the
defendants. Petitioner then sent in a
Manifestation and Motion,[3] praying that its Answer previously filed be treated
as its Answer to the Amended Complaint.
But the same was denied by the respondent court in its second Order of
December 5, 1997 under attack, for failure to comply with Section 13,
Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Hence, the present petition,
theorizing that:
“I
RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN CONSIDERING AS NOT HAVING BEEN FILED, THE PLEADINGS ENTITLED ‘MOTION TO DISMISS’ AND ‘MANIFESTATION AND MOTION’ FILED BY PETITIONER THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL, ALLEGEDLY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 13, SECTIONS 11 AND 13 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
II
RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN UNJUSTIFIABLY FAILING TO RESOLVE WITH DISPATCH PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RESPONDENT JUDGE’S ORDER DATED OCTOBER 2, 1997.”[4]
The petition is impressed with
merit.
Section 6, Rule 1 of the Revised
Rules of Court reads:
“Sec. 6. Construction.
These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing just speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action
and proceeding.”
Mindful of the aforecited rule
relevant to the case under consideration, the court finds the explanation[5] in subject Motion to Dismiss of petitioner, although
not strictly in compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of
Civil Procedure,[6] to nonetheless be acceptable considering that
petitioner apparently did not ignore the rule.
Rules of procedure being designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice, their rigid application resulting in technicalities that tend to delay
or frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.[7]
As regards the failure of
petitioner to comply with the required proof of service under Section 13, Rule
13 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,[8] it is worthy to note that petitioner’s Manifestation
and Motion dated November 28, 1997 is not a contentious motion and therefore,
no right of the adverse party would be affected by the admission thereof. The filing of said pleading was not even
necessary since the Answer previously filed by petitioner could serve as the Answer
to private respondent’s Amended Complaint even if no motion to admit such
Answer was filed with the trial court, as provided in Section 3, Rule 11 of the
Revised Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED, the questioned Orders of
the respondent court dated October 2, and December 5, 1997, respectively, in
Civil Case No. LP-97-0034 are SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, let the case be remanded to the respondent court for
further proceedings, in accordance with the rules and with this
disposition. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Dated October
2, 1997 (Annex “A”, Rollo, p. 24) and December 5, 1997 (Annex “B”, Rollo,
p.26).
[2] A reconsideration
thereof filed on October 23, 1997, was denied by the respondent judge on
February 13, 1998, ratiocinating further that the Motion to Dismiss failed to
Comply with Section 13, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court. ( Annex “4”, Rollo,
p. 89)
[3] Rollo,
pp. 57-59.
[4] Petition, Rollo,
p. 10.
[5] “The
foregoing Motion to Dismiss is being served by mail, there being no pressing
need to resort to personal service.” Annex “G”, Rollo, p. 55.
[6] Sec. 11. Priorities in the modes of service and
filing.- Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other
papers shall be done personally. Except
with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must
be accompanied by a written explanation why service or filing was not done
personally. A violation of this Rule
may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
[7] Casa Filipina
Realty Corporation vs. Office of the President, 241 SCRA 165 [1995].
[8] Sec. 13. Proof of service.- x x x If service is made
by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry
receipt issued by the mailing office.
The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by
the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified
or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.