THIRD
DIVISION
|
JUAN G. GARCIA, JR. and DOROTEO C. GAERLAN, Petitioners, - versus - HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GARCIA PASION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(GPDC), represented by RAMONA G. AYESA and MARCELO F. AYESA, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 171098 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -x
In this Petition for Certiorari,
petitioners seek to set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals,
dated
From
the records, it appears that petitioners are stockholders of private respondent
Garcia Pasion Development Corp. (GPDC), a family
corporation duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). Petitioners are defendants in SP.
Proc. No. 03-106410, a stockholders’ derivative suit with prayer for attachment
and receivership filed by GPDC, represented by Ramona G. Ayesa
and Marcelo F. Ayesa, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of
WHEREFORE, plaintiff and defendants respectfully pray that the Honorable Court issue an Order as follows:
(a) Directing that all the dividends declared or to be declared in the future to plaintiff Garcia Pasion Development Corporation by Kenram Philippines, Inc. and Kenram Industrial Development, Inc., or other corporations, including those still in the custody of the latter two corporations, be delivered to the Branch Clerk of Court;
(b) Directing the Branch Clerk of Court to open an account in the name of Garcia Pasion Development Corporation [GPDC], with a bank designated by the Honorable Court, in which account shall be deposited all funds received by said Branch Clerk of Court as and by way of dividends due to GPDC; and
(c) Directing that no withdrawal shall be made from the bank account except upon motion of the parties approved by the Court.[5]
The
RTC issued an Order[6] of even
date which partially granted the parties’ prayer, directing that the dividends
be delivered to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC,
As prayed for, all the dividends declared or to be declared in the future to [private respondent] Garcia Pasion Development Corporation [GPDC], by Kenram Philippines, Inc. and Kenram Industrial Development, Inc., or other corporations, including those still in the custody of the latter two corporations, are hereby directed to be delivered not to the Branch Clerk of Court but to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Manila.[7]
Unsatisfied, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Amend the Order dated 22
February 2005, praying that the RTC modify the same by directing that all the dividends
of GPDC delivered to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC of Manila, be
deposited in an account to be opened in the name of GPDC with a bank designated
by the RTC, and that no withdrawal shall be made except upon joint motion of
the parties approved by the court.[8]
Acting
on the said Joint Motion, the RTC issued an Order[9]
dated
x x x considering that under Section 2.1.2 of [T]he 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, particularly the provisions that “only one depository bank shall be maintained, that deposits shall be made in the name of the court and that the clerk of Court shall be the custodian of the passbook to be issued by the depository bank x x x,” the joint motion is hereby denied.[10]
On
On
Hence,
the instant Petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the
Petition for Certiorari on mere
technicality.
Private
respondent GPDC in its Comment[12]
joins petitioners in their prayer that this Court give due course to the
Petition.
We
dismiss the Petition.
The
acceptance of a petition for certiorari,
as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the
sound discretion of the court.[13] It must be stressed that certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy,[14]
the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid
down by the law[15] and
non-observance thereof may not be brushed aside as mere technicality.[16]
In
the matter of the requirement that a petition for certiorari be accompanied by a
certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, Section
1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari.-
x 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.
Significantly,
Section 3, Rule 46 of the same Rules, provides:
SECTION 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. –
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. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.
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.”
It
is true that Section 3 of Rule 46 does not require that all supporting papers
and documents accompanying a petition be duplicate originals or certified true
copies.[17] However, it explicitly directs that all cases
originally filed in the Court of Appeals shall be accompanied by a clearly
legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order,
resolution or ruling subject thereof. [18] Similarly, under Rule 65, which covers certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, petitions
need to be accompanied only by duplicate originals or certified true copies of
the questioned judgment, order or resolution.[19]
Other relevant documents and pleadings attached to it may be mere machine
copies thereof.[20] In the case at bar, petitioners failed to
attach duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed Orders of
the RTC, dated
In
Circular No. 3-96, we made the following clarifications and supplemental rules
on what is a duplicate original or certified true copy:
1. The
"duplicate original copy" shall be understood to be that copy of the
decision, judgment, resolution or order which is intended for and furnished to
a party in the case or proceeding in the court or adjudicative body which
rendered and issued the same. The "certified true copy" thereof shall
be such other copy furnished to a party at his instance or in his behalf, duly
authenticated by the authorized officers or representatives of the issuing
entity as hereinbefore specified.
2. The
duplicate original copy must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or
the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at
least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the
authenticity and completeness of such copy. For this purpose, all courts,
offices or agencies furnishing such copies which may be used in accordance with
Paragraph (3) of Revised Circular No. 1-88 shall make arrangements for and
designate the personnel who shall be charged with the implementation of this
requirement.
3. The
certified true copy must further comply with all the regulations therefor of the issuing entity and it is the authenticated
original of such certified true copy, and not a mere xerox
copy thereof, which shall be utilized as an annex to the petition or other
initiatory pleading.
4.
Regardless of whether a duplicate original copy or a certified true copy of the
adjudicatory document is annexed to the petition or initiatory pleading, the
same must be exact and complete copy of the original and all the pages thereof
must be clearly legible and printed on white bond or equivalent paper of good
quality with the same dimensions as the original copy. Either of the aforesaid
copies shall be annexed to the original copy of the petition or initiatory
pleading filed in court, while plain copies thereof may be attached to the
other copies of the pleading.
5. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the party
using documents required by Paragraph (3) of Circular No. 1-88 to verify and
ensure compliance with all the requirements thereof as detailed in the
proceeding paragraphs. Failure to do so shall result in the rejection of such
annexes and the dismissal of the case. Subsequent compliance shall not warrant
any reconsideration unless the court is fully satisfied that the noncompliance
was not in any way attributable to the party despite due diligence on his part,
and that there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to
make such other disposition as it may deem just and equitable.
Based
on the foregoing, it is incontrovertible that a certified true copy is not a
mere xerox copy.
Further, it is imperative that the duplicate original copy required by
the rules must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the
corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at
least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the
authenticity and completeness of such copy.
Petitioners’ xerox copies are wanting in this
respect.
Petitioners
seek a liberal application of the procedural rules. For their failure to attach certified true
copies of the assailed orders of the RTC, petitioners place the blame on the
appellate court. Petitioners brazenly suggest that what the Court of Appeals
should have done was to issue an Order directing them to comply with the rule
on attaching certified true copies, instead of dismissing the case on its face. We do not see reason to grant liberality in
the application of the rules. It must be emphasized that the liberality in the interpretation
and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable
causes and circumstances.[21] While it is true that litigation is not a
game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted
in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy
administration of justice.[22] Only strong considerations of equity, which
are wanting in this case, will lead us to allow an exception to the procedural
rule in the interest of substantial justice.[23] To further suggest petitioners’ impervious
attitude towards rules, they even failed to attach certified true copies or
duplicate original copies of the assailed Orders in their Motion for
Reconsideration filed with the Court of Appeals. Concomitant to a liberal application of the
rules of procedure should be an effort on the party invoking liberality to at
least explain its failure to comply with the rules.[24] Circular No. 3-96 is also unequivocal that it
shall be the duty and responsibility of the party to verify and ensure
compliance with all the requirements detailed therein. In fact, failure to do so shall result in the
rejection of such annexes and the dismissal of the case.[25]
Petitioners’
contention that the Court of Appeals ought to have issued an Order directing
them to file the certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders is hardly a
plausible explanation. They have
everything within their power to ensure compliance with all the requirements
laid down by the rules. As parties who
wish to seek the aid of the courts and avail of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, petitioners should have
taken the duty and the responsibility to observe the rules.
At
any rate, we do not find merit in the Petition.
Petitioners’ prayer that the Branch Clerk of Court be directed to open
an account in the name of GPDC, with a bank designated by the RTC may not be
granted. The guidelines to be observed in
making deposits or withdrawals of all collections from bailbonds,
rental deposits and other fiduciary collections, or moneys received in trust
are enumerated in Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, dated
CIRCULAR NO. 13-92
To : All Executive Judges and Clerks of
Court of the Regional Trial Courts and Shari’a District Courts.
Subject: Court Fiduciary Funds
x x x
x
x
x x The following procedure
is, therefore, prescribed in the administration of Court Fiduciary Funds:
“Guidelines in Making
Deposits:
“1) Deposits shall be made under a savings
account. Current account can also be maintained provided that it is on
automatic transfer of account from savings.
“2) Deposits shall be made in the name of
the Court.
“3) The Clerk of Court shall be the
custodian of the Passbook to be issued by the depository bank and shall advise
the Executive Judge of the bank’s name, branch and savings/current account
number.
“Guidelines in Making
Withdrawals
“1) Withdrawal slips shall be signed by the
Executive Judge and countersigned by the Clerk of Court.
“2) In maintaining a current account,
withdrawals shall be made by checks. Signatories on the checks shall likewise
be the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court.
“All
collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other
fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court
concerned, upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depository bank.[26]
The
same rule is also embodied in the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.[27] Pertinently, the rule is that deposits shall
be made in the name of the Court. Perforce,
the instant Petition is without merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant
Petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals,
dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES–SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Working Chairperson’s attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 79-80.
[2]
[3] SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
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.
[4] Rollo, pp. 66-68.
[5]
[6] Records, Volume III, p. 398.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] CA rollo, pp. 28-33.
[12] Rollo,
pp. 73-76.
[13] Tan
v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., G.R. No. 148420,
[14] Manila
Midtown Hotels & Land Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 351
Phil. 500, 506 (1998); Solidum v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161647,
22 June 2006, 492 SCRA 261, 269.
[15] Balayan v. Acorda, G.R. No.
153537, 5 May 2006, 489 SCRA 637, 643, citing Matagumpay
Maritime Co., Inc., v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 144638, 9 August 2005, 466 SCRA
130, 134; Seastar Marine Services, Inc. v. Bul-an, Jr., G.R. No. 142609, 25 November 2004, 444
SCRA 140, 153.
[16] De
Los Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147912, 26 April 2006, 488 SCRA
351, 358; Teoville Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ferreira, G.R.
No. 140086, 8 June 2005, 459 SCRA 459, 472; Sea
Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603, 611
(2001).
[17] OSM
Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 446
Phil. 793, 802-803 (2003).
[18] Circular No. 39-98 reads, in part:
Rule 46, Sec 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. –
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 subject thereof, such material portions of the
record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent
thereto. The certification shall be
accomplished by the proper clerk of court of by his duly authorized
representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or
office involved or by his duly authorized representative.
[19]
[20]
[21] Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780, 784 (1996).
[22]
[23] Bago v. People, 443 Phil. 503, 506 (2003).
[24] Prudential
Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146559, 13
August 2004, 436 SCRA 478, 483; Lapid v. Judge Laurea, 439 Phil. 887, 896 (2002).
[25] Paragraph 5 of Administrative Circular No. 3-96 , states:
[5]It
shall be the duty and responsibility of the party using the documents required
by paragraph 3 of Circular No. 1-88 to verify and ensure compliance with all the
requirements thereof as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. Failure to do so
shall result in the rejection of such annexes and the dismissal of the case.
Subsequent compliance shall not warrant any reconsideration unless the Court is
fully satisfied that the non-compliance was not in any way attributable to the
party, despite due diligence on his part, and that there are highly justifiable
and compelling reasons for the Court to make such other disposition as it may
deem just and equitable.
[26] Judge
[27] See Volume I, Section 2.1.2.2c.1 of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.