Republic of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
FEDERICO D. TOMAS, Petitioner, - versus - ANN G. SANTOS, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 190448
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 26,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This
is a petition[1] for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated July
29, 2009 and November 26, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 109646.
The
case arose from a complaint[2]
for reconveyance of title, declaration of nullity of assignment and deed of
sale, breach of contract, and damages filed by respondent Ann G. Santos (
Del
Nacia and Tomas[3] filed
their respective answers. However, upon
motion[4] of
Santos, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, in its Order[5]
dated August 29, 1997, declared Tomas in default and dismissed his counterclaim
on the ground that his answer lacked a certification of non-forum shopping,
proof of service, and an explanation why personal service was not resorted to
in furnishing a copy of his answer to Santos.
Tomas
filed a motion[6] to lift
order of default and to admit amended answer with counterclaim.[7] The RTC denied this motion in its Order[8]
dated November 6, 1997.
Tomas
filed a motion for reconsideration[9] of
the November 6, 1997 Order. However, the
RTC denied the same.[10]
Trial
ensued, with Tomas testifying as a witness.
Thereafter, the RTC rendered its Decision[11]
dated June 23, 2009 in favor of
Tomas
received a copy of the Decision on July 9, 2009. Aggrieved, Tomas filed a Notice of Appeal[12]
and paid the necessary fee[13]
on July 21, 2009. Tomas furnished copies
of his Notice of Appeal to Del-Nacia and
On
July 22, 2009, Tomas filed his appeal with the Court of Appeals which he denominated
“Petition for Review.”[15] It was entitled Federico D. Tomas v. The Honorable Regional Trial Court – National
Capital Judicial Region – Branch 223,
In a Resolution[16]
dated July 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals dismissed the “Petition for Review”
on the following grounds: (1) it was an inappropriate remedy because it should
have been merely an ordinary appeal; (2) there was no certificate of non-forum
shopping appended to the pleading; and (3) it was not accompanied by copies of
relevant pleadings and other material portions of the records to support its
allegations.
Tomas
moved to reconsider this July 29, 2009 Resolution.[17] In his motion, Tomas argued that the Court of
Appeals should not have dismissed his appeal merely on technical grounds, more
particularly because he timely filed his Notice of Appeal, paid the
corresponding fee, and furnished copies thereof to Del-Nacia and
In
the Resolution[18] dated
November 26, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied Tomas’ motion for
reconsideration, disposing as follows –
While
he has rectified two of the noted defects, petitioner still insists on the
correctness of the instant recourse. We
have already exhaustively discussed why the present recourse is erroneous and
why it should be summarily dismissed. We
no longer find any reason to go into great detail in discussing the matter a
second time around.[19]
Hence,
this petition anchored both on procedural and substantial grounds, i.e. assailing the outright dismissal of
the appeal by the Court of Appeals, as well as the judgment of the RTC on the
merits of the case.
It
bears mentioning that Tomas, except for his testimony before the RTC as a
witness of Del-Nacia, was not able to present his own defense in full, considering
that the RTC declared him in default and dismissed his counterclaim by reason
of procedural infirmities.
With
the RTC deciding against him, Tomas would necessarily resort to an appeal to
the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, Tomas
filed his Notice of Appeal and correspondingly paid the required fees on July
21, 2009, or 12 days from July 9, 2009, the date of his receipt of a copy of
the RTC Decision. The following day,
July 22, 2009, Tomas filed his appellate pleading with the Court of Appeals,
but it was mistakenly entitled “Petition for Review.” Because of this improper title, his appeal
was docketed not as an ordinary appeal but as a special civil action for certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
109646. However, a perusal of the
allegations in his “Petition for Review” would readily show that what was filed
was actually an ordinary appeal from the RTC Decision. There was no allegation whatsoever of grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the RTC, but rather merely a recitation of what Tomas perceived as a reversible
error committed by the RTC based on the issues raised and the discussions made in
his appeal.
It
is true that the Court of Appeals dismissed Tomas’ “Petition for Review” on
three grounds, namely: improper remedy, lack of certification on non-forum
shopping, and failure to append important documents in support of his
allegations. It is, however, observed that the Court of Appeals, after
considering Tomas’ motion for reconsideration of the July 29, 2009 Resolution,
ruled in its November 26, 2009 Resolution that Tomas was able to rectify two of
the defects of his “Petition for Review”; but maintained that the same was still an
inappropriate remedy and, thus, denied the motion. To our mind, if the Court of Appeals accepted
the rectification of these two procedural defects after Tomas moved to
reconsider the July 29, 2009 Resolution, it should have also treated the
“Petition for Review” as an ordinary appeal from the RTC Decision, especially
considering that the required Notice of Appeal and the appellate pleading were
timely filed. The allegations of the
pleading prevail over its title in determining the character of the action
taken. The nature of the issues to be
raised on appeal can be gleaned from appellant’s notice of appeal filed with
the trial court and in appellant’s brief in the appellate court.[20]
The
Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded as
they insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that courts are
not enslaved by technicalities, and they have the prerogative to relax
compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful
of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and
the parties’ right to an opportunity to be heard. This is in line with the time-honored
principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance
to argue their causes and defenses.
Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as bases
of decisions. In that way, the ends of
justice would be served.[21]
Furthermore,
inasmuch as this petition raises both questions of fact and law which the Court
of Appeals may properly take cognizance of under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
we deem it necessary to reinstate Tomas’ appeal, notwithstanding its improper
title. This has assumed a greater
measure of necessity because of the allegation of Tomas that he is legally
married to
WHEREFORE¸ the assailed Resolutions
dated July 29, 2009 and November 26, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 109646 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The appeal of Federico D. Tomas before the
Court of Appeals is REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD 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.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-20.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag, G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009, 576 SCRA 70, 82.
[21] Bank
of the Philippine