THIRD DIVISION
|
ALMA B. RUSSEL, Petitioner, - versus - TEOFISTA EBASAN and
AGAPITO Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 184542
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: April 23,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, questioning the June 18, 2007[1]
and the August 26, 2008[2]
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 01675.
The
petition stems from a complaint for forcible entry filed by petitioner Alma B.
Russel against respondents Teofista Ebasan and Agapito
Prejudiced
by the ruling, respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC,
in its March 28, 2007 Decision,[5]
reversed the ruling of the MTCC and ordered the dismissal of the complaint.
Petitioner
received her copy of the RTC decision on April 13, 2007.[6]
Inclined to appeal the adverse ruling to the CA, petitioner, on April 20, 2007,
filed a motion for an extension of 15 days from the expiry of the reglementary
period for the filing of a petition for review. Petitioner attached to her
motion postal money orders representing the filing and docket fees.[7]
She consequently filed via registered
mail her petition for review with the appellate court on May 15, 2007.[8]
In
the assailed June 18, 2007 Resolution,[9]
the CA dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:
1. The petition is filed out of time, in
violation of Sec. 1, Rule 42. Even if petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time
to File Petition for Review were granted, the Petition would have still been
filed six (6) days late from the requested extension of time.
2. There is no Written Explanation why the
Petition was filed by mail instead of the preferred mode of personal filing, as
is required under Sec. 11, Rule 13.
3. The Verification and Certification page is
defective, since there is no statement and therefore no assurance that the
allegations in the Petition are based on authentic records, in violation of
Sec. 4, Rule 7.
4. Pertinent documents such as the Complaint and
Answer filed before the MTCC, which are material portions of the record
referred to in the Petition are not attached, in violation of Sec. 2(d), Rule
42.[10]
Petitioner received her copy of the
June 18, 2007 Resolution on July 18, 2007.[11]
On July 27, 2007, petitioner filed by registered mail her motion for
reconsideration and admission of her amended petition. She pointed out in her
motion that the petition was filed within the extended reglementary period. She
also explained that her office clerk inadvertently failed to attach the page
containing the explanation why filing by registered mail was resorted to.
Petitioner also begged the appellate court’s indulgence to accept the
verification because only the phrase “based on authentic records” was missing
in the same. She claimed that this was merely a formal requisite which does not
affect the validity or efficacy of the pleading. She then pleaded for
liberality in the application of the rules of procedure and for the consequent
admission of her amended petition containing the written explanation, the
corrected verification, and the certified true copies of the complaint and the
answer filed before the trial court.[12]
The appellate court, however, in the
assailed August 26, 2008 Resolution,[13]
denied petitioner’s motion. It ruled that the motion for reconsideration was
filed only on October 4, 2007, or 63 days after the expiry of the reglementary
period for the filing thereof.
Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the
matter to this Court via the instant
petition for review on certiorari.
The Court grants the petition and
remands the case to the appellate court for disposition on the merits.
Petitioner’s petition for review
(under Rule 42) and motion for reconsideration before the appellate court were
filed well within the reglementary period for the filing thereof.
It must be noted that petitioner received
her copy of the RTC decision on April 13, 2007. Following the Rules of Court,
she had 15 days or until April 28, 2007 to file her petition for review before
the CA. Section 1 of Rule 42 provides:
Sec. 1. How
appeal taken; time for filing.—A party desiring to appeal from a decision
of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals,
paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and
other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and
furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the
petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s
motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon
proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful
fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary
period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15)
days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension
shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed
fifteen (15) days.
On April 20, 2007, petitioner filed
before the CA, via registered mail,
her motion for extension of time to file the petition for review. She pleaded
in her motion that she be granted an additional 15 days, counted from the expiry
of the reglementary period. Petitioner likewise attached to her motion postal
money orders representing the docket fees.
Fifteen days from April 28, 2007
would be May 13, 2007. This was, however, a Sunday. May 14, 2007, the following
day, was a legal holiday—the holding of the national and local elections.
Section 1 of Rule 22 states:
Sec. 1. How
to compute time.—In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by
these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of
the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to
be excluded and the date of performance included. If the last day of the
period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in
the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working
day.
Therefore, when petitioner filed her
petition for review with the appellate court on May 15, 2007, the same was well
within the extended period for the filing thereof.
Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was likewise filed on time. She received a copy of the June 18, 2007 CA
Resolution on July 18, 2007. Under Section 1 of Rule 52, she had 15 days from
notice, or until August 2, 2007, to file a motion for reconsideration.[14] Petitioner filed by registered mail her
motion for reconsideration on July 27, 2007. The fact of mailing on the said
date is proven by the registry return receipt,[15]
the affidavit of service,[16]
and the certification of the Office of the Postmaster of Iligan City.[17] Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court[18]
provides that if a pleading is filed by registered mail, then the date of
mailing shall be considered as the date of filing. It does not matter when the court actually
receives the mailed pleading. Thus, in this case, as the pleading was filed by
registered mail on July 27, 2007, within the reglementary period, it is
inconsequential that the CA actually received the motion in October of that
year.
As
to the CA’s dismissal of the petition for review on the ground that petitioner
failed to attach a written explanation for non-personal filing, the Court finds
the same improper.
Relative
to the defective verification, the Court excuses the same. The purpose of the
verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition
have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely
speculative. The requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of
pleadings and non-compliance therewith is neither jurisdictional nor does it
render the pleading fatally defective.[20]
Here, the perceived defect is excusable and does not justify a dismissal of the
petition. In any case, petitioner, in her subsequent pleading, submitted a
corrected verification. The same degree of liberality should apply to
petitioner’s failure to attach a copy of the complaint and answer filed before
the MTCC in her petition for review. After all, petitioner substantially
complied with the requirement when she filed her amended petition.
In
sum, the Court finds that the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal. The
appellate court should have been more prudent in computing the reglementary
period for the filing of petitions. The CA could have been more liberal in the
application of the Rules considering that, in this case, the MTCC and the RTC
arrived at conflicting rulings, necessitating a thorough review of the merits
of the case. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are
mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules which
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice must always be avoided. It
is a far better and wiser course of action for the Court to excuse a technical
lapse and afford the parties a conscientious review of the case in order to
attain the ends of justice, rather than
dispose of it on a technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties,
giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases which actually results in
more delay, if not in an outright miscarriage of justice.[21]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The instant case is REMANDED
to the Court of Appeals for disposition on the merits.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been 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] Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 101-102.
[2]
[3] Rollo, pp. 44-56.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Supra note 1.
[10]
[11] CA rollo, p. 103.
[12]
[13] Supra note 2.
[14] Section 1 of Rule 52 reads in full:
Sec. 1. Period for filing.—A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party.
[15] Rollo, p. 70.
[16] CA rollo, p. 111.
[17] Rollo, p. 74.
[18] Section 3 of Rule 13 reads in full:
Sec. 3. Manner of filing.—The filing of pleadings, appearances, motions, notices, orders, judgments and all other papers shall be made by presenting the original copies thereof, plainly indicated as such, personally to the clerk of court or by sending them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk of court shall endorse on the pleading the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions, pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits, as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the record of the case.
[19] Sheker v. Estate of Alice O. Sheker, G.R. No. 157912, December 13, 2007, 540 SCRA 111, 122.
[20] Guy
v.
[21] Tanenglian v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 173415, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 348, 368.