COL. ARTURO C. FERRER (Ret.),
Petitioner, -
versus - ATTY.
ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA, DALISAY SORIANO and WILSON DE LOS REYES, embers,
Prequalification, Bidding and Awards Committee, Philippine International
Convention Center, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 155025 Present:
PUNO, c.j.,
Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August 24, 2007 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For our resolution is the instant
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing (1) the Resolution[1] of
the Court of Appeals (Special Former Fifth Division) dated
Col.
Arturo C. Ferrer (ret.), petitioner herein, is the president and general
manager of Odin Security Agency, Inc. (Odin), a private corporation engaged in
providing security and watchman services. Sometime in August 1999, Odin was one
of the bidders for the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC)
security services.
On
October 3, 1999, the Prequalification, Bidding and Awards Committee (PBAC) of
the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) disqualified Odin from
further participating in the bidding due to the results of a survey among its
clients showing that it has not rendered a “very satisfactory performance.”
Petitioner
sought reconsideration of the PBAC ruling and requested that he be furnished
the names of the informants. However, the
PBAC refused to divulge their names on the ground of confidentiality.
Petitioner
then filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 6713[3] against
the members of the PBAC of the PICC, docketed as OMB-ADM-0-00-0055.
On
Forthwith,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but in an Order dated
Petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 63645 but it was dismissed in a Resolution dated
There being no proof of service on the private respondents and the agency a quo as required under Sec. 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and as the petition is not accompanied with copies of all pleadings (such as Joint Counter-Affidavit) and documents relevant and pertinent thereto.
WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari is DISMISSED outright.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner
timely filed a motion for reconsideration but the Court of Appeals in its
Resolution of
x x x
An examination of the records shows
that even in the said motion, petitioner still failed to attach the required
affidavit of service of the petition. What was attached only was the affidavit
of service of the motion (p. 68, rollo). Further, the petition is still fatally
flawed because other relevant and pertinent documents, such as the joint
counter-affidavit, were not appended to the motion as required under par. 3,
Sec. 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
It cannot be overemphasized that procedural rules have their own wholesome rationale in the orderly administration of justice. Justice has to be administered according to the Rules in order to obviate arbitrariness, caprice, or whimsicality. (Republic v. Hernandez, 253 SCRA 509, 513).
WHEREFORE, the said Compliance with
Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, and the resolution dated
SO ORDERED.
Hence,
the instant petition raising the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred
in dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 63645 for petitioner’s failure to
comply with Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.
The
petition lacks merit.
Section
13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
SEC. 13. Proof of service. – Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place, and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. 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.
There
is no question that petitioner herein was remiss in complying with the
foregoing Rule. In Cruz v. Court of
Appeals,[4] we ruled
that with respect to motions, proof of service is a mandatory requirement.
We find no cogent reason why this dictum should not apply and with more reason
to a petition for certiorari, in view of Section 3, Rule 46 which requires that
the petition shall be filed “together with proof of service thereof.” We
agree with the Court of Appeals that the lack of proof of service is a fatal
defect. The utter disregard of the Rule cannot
be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal
construction of the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to
frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to effect the proper and
orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of court
dockets.
In the instant case, we find no
persuasive reason to relax the Rule. Moreover, even if we do so, petitioner’s failure
to attach the material and relevant documents to his petition filed with the
Court of Appeals is a sufficient ground to dismiss it. The second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 65 of
the same Rules clearly states:
SEC. 1. Petition for certiorari. –
x x x
The petition shall be accompanied
by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof,
copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of
Section 3, Rule 46.
The
foregoing Rule should be read in relation with Section 3, Rule 46, thus:
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition;
effect of non-compliance with requirements. –
x x x x x x x x x
It shall be filed in seven (7)
clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the
respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by
the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling
subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to
therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. x x x
x x x x x x x x x
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Petitioner
should have attached to his petition material portions of the record, such as
the Joint Counter-Affidavit of respondents herein and other supporting
documents. For without those supporting
documents, petitioner’s allegations in his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 63645 are
nothing but bare allegations.
In
Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[5] Atillo v.
Verily, we sustain the questioned
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE,
we DENY the petition. The challenged Resolutions
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63645 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 34. Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (deceased) and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. (retired) and Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz.
[2]
[3] An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, to Uphold the Time-Honored Principle of Public Office Being a Public Trust, Granting Incentives and Rewards for Exemplary Service, Enumerating Prohibited Acts and Transactions and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof and for Other Purposes.
[4] G.R. No. 123340,
[5] G.R. No. 140436,
[6] G.R. No. 136096,
[7] G.R. No. 143574,