Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
AURORA B. GO, |
|
G.R. No. 168240 |
|
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
ELMER SUNBANUN,⃰ |
|
|
|
|
GEORGIE S. TAN, |
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
DORIS SUNBANUN and |
|
|
|
|
RICHARD SUNBANUN, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
|
Respondents. |
|
February 9, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
When a procedural rule is amended for the
benefit of litigants for the furtherance of the administration of justice, it
shall be retroactively applied to likewise favor actions then pending, as
equity delights in equality.
For
non-compliance with the formal requirements of a petition, the Court of Appeals
(CA) dismissed the certiorari
petition filed by herein petitioner Aurora Go (
Factual Antecedents
In November
2000, respondents filed a suit for damages against Aurora, her husband Yiu Wai
Sang (Sang), and Yiu-Go Employment Agency (hereinafter collectively referred to
as defendants), docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-25778, before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of
Only
After the respondents concluded
their presentation of evidence,
Before this deposition was taken,
the RTC in its December 1, 2003 Order[8]
already deemed the defendants to have waived their right to present their
evidence and considered the case submitted for resolution since more than a
year had elapsed from the date the RTC granted Aurora’s motion to have her
testimony be taken by deposition. Again, only
On January 26, 2004, the RTC
rendered judgment[10]
finding only
Atty. Ycong
received the notice of denial on May 6, 2004, thus giving his client a day left
to file her appeal. Explaining that
Aurora has been busy campaigning for the local elections as she was running for
the position of town mayor in Calubian, Leyte[19]
and that he and his client have yet to discuss the pros and cons of appealing
the case, Atty. Ycong sought for the relaxation of the procedural rules by
filing an extension of 15 days to file Aurora’s notice of appeal.[20]
Atty. Ycong
thereafter filed the Notice of Appeal on May 11, 2004.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its May 12,
2004 Order, the RTC denied the notice of appeal, viz:
While there are rulings of the Supreme Court
declaring that the period to appeal is not extendible, there are also instances
when it allowed appeals to be perfected despite their filing out of time. x x x
In the instant case, the delay is due to
defendant-Go’s running for an elective post.
Such is no excuse.
In other words, contrary to the belief of this court
that Aurora Go had been and is out of the country, she in fact is in the
Accordingly, the Motion for Extension of Time to
File Notice of Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit and the Notice of Appeal is
hereby declared filed out of time.
SO ORDERED.[21]
Ruling of the Court of
Appeals
Filing
her petition for certiorari with the
CA by way of registered mail on August 13, 2004,[23]
However,
the CA on December 8, 2004, dismissed the petition (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
85897) for being procedurally flawed, viz:
1) The
Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is signed by only one
petitioner without a Special Power of Attorney/Secretary’s Certificate
authorizing her to represent the two (2) other petitioners;
2) The Affidavit of Service
shows that respondents were personally served copies of the petition but lacks
explanation why service of the petition with this Court was not done personally
(Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court);
3) Counsel for petitioners
failed to indicate his PTR and IBP numbers;
4) Certified true [sic] copies
of the assailed decision dated January 26, 2004 attached to the petition is a
mere photocopy of a certified true copy;
5) The following copies of
pleadings and other relevant documents referred to in the petition which would
support the allegations therein are not attached:
a) Complaint; and,
b) Answer.[24]
Invoking
the liberal construction of procedural rules, petitioner Aurora asked for
reconsideration[25] with
the following justifications:
1)
A
certification/verification of one of a number of principal parties is
sufficient compliance. Although her certiorari petition named her, her
spouse, and Yiu-Go Employment Agency, as ‘petitioners,’ her co-defendants were
not held liable in the lower court. It
is only she who is interested in filing the certiorari
petition for her to be able to appeal, hence her lone signature.
2)
Anent the lack of
explanation of why personal service to the CA was not resorted to,
3)
The professional tax
receipt (PTR) and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) receipt numbers were
inadvertently overlooked. However, the
defect was cured when Atty. Ycong included the numbers when he subsequently
filed on October 14, 2004 his Notice of Change of Address[26]
with the CA.
4)
Questioned in the certiorari are the May 12 and June 10,
2004 Orders that denied Aurora’s prayer for an extension of time to file her
notice of appeal. Requiring her to
additionally append to the CA petition the certified true copies of the January
26, 2004 RTC Decision (i.e., the decision
on the merits of the case), the complaint, and the answer was not necessary as
these documents are not relevant and material to the issue to be resolved.
Finding
As to the first
ground, petitioners merely disagree with the deficiency which occasioned the
outright dismissal of their petition without even curing the said defect. Suffice it to say here that the petition
itself contains more than one petitioner.
No less than the Supreme Court pronounced in Loquias vs. Office of the Ombudsman that where there are two or
more plaintiffs or petitioners, a complaint or petition signed by only [sic] of
the parties is defective unless he/she is authorized by his co-parties. x x x
x x x x
The reason why
petitioners’ petition was dismissed based on the second defect was because the
said petition lacks explanation why service of the petition with this
Court was not done personally, not much for having filed the same by registered
mail. In other words, the dismissal was
not due to the fact that the petition was filed by registered mail, but because
of the failure to explain why the personal service was not resorted
to. Then again, petitioners did not even
bother to cure such defect.
Anent the third
ground, counsel for petitioners posits that his failure to indicate in the
petition for certiorari his PTR and IBP numbers was cured by his succeeding
Notice of Change Address filed with this Court.
However, a closer of [sic] examination of the same reveals that the same
was only filed on October 14, 2004 or some two (2) months after the petition
for certiorari was filed on August 13, 2004.
If it was really the intention of counsel for petitioners to cure such
defect, he could have done it immediately after filing the petition. Had it not been due to the filing of the
notice of change of address, We doubt if petitioners would have cured such
defect.
Considering the
foregoing, We deem it unnecessary to discuss the other grounds raised by
petitioners.
x x x x[27]
The Parties’ Respective
Arguments
Believing that her case
should not have
been dismissed for procedural
defects, Aurora assails the December 8, 2004 and April 8,
2005 Resolutions of the CA, reiterating to this Court that she deserves to be
accorded the chance to prove to the CA that the RTC had unfairly denied her
motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal.
On the
other hand, respondents defend the stance of the CA, insisting that perfection
of an appeal is jurisdictional and mandatory; and that the circumstances do not
justify granting
Issue
The sole question to resolve is
whether the formal deficiencies in the petition before the CA may be relaxed in
the interest of justice.
Our Ruling
The signatures/authorizations of Sang and Yiu-Go
Employment Agency in the verification and certification on non-forum shopping
are not necessary.
In filing a certiorari petition, one aggrieved by a
court’s judgment, order or resolution must verify his/her petition and must
also attach a sworn certification of non-forum shopping.[28] In dismissing
Non-submission of certified true copy of the
January 26, 2004 Decision and copies of the Complaint and Answer not fatal.
Another ground cited by the CA was the non-submission of
the certified true copy of the January 26, 2004 Decision as well as the failure
to attach copies of the complaint and answer in
The second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 65 requires the
submission of a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
subject of the petition as well as the submission of copies of all pleadings
and documents relevant to the petition. “The
initial determination of what pleadings, documents or order are relevant and
pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. [Should the CA opine that additional
documents must be submitted together with the petition, it may] (a) dismiss the
petition under the last paragraph of [Section 3,] Rule 46 of the Rules of Court;
(b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings,
documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the
petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required
pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period.”[29] We emphasize that not all pleadings and parts
of case records are required to be attached, but only those which are material
and pertinent that they may provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case for abuse of discretion.[30]
Thus, we agree with the
petitioner that the CA required pleadings
immaterial to the issue presented before it. The questioned subject of certiorari does not touch upon the
substantive merits of the suit for damages against
Failure to indicate PTR and IBP Official Receipt
Numbers not fatal.
The failure of petitioner’s former counsel, Atty. Ycong,
to indicate in the petition before the CA his PTR and IBP numbers for the year
2004 was obviously an oversight. A
perusal of the records of the case would show that counsel had duly paid the
required dues for that year and that his PTR and IBP receipt numbers are indicated
in the pleadings he had filed with the RTC.[31] Although he omitted to indicate the numbers
on Aurora’s CA petition, the same numbers were nevertheless stated on his
Notice of Change of Address, around two months before the appellate court
issued the questioned December 8, 2004 Resolution.
Rules on perfecting appeals must be strictly
complied with; liberal application available only under exceptional
circumstances.
Whenever practicable, personal service and personal filing
of pleadings are always the preferred modes of service. Under Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court,
should one deviate from the general rule, it is mandatory for him/her to submit
a written explanation why the pleading was not personally filed/served. Otherwise, the court has the discretion to
consider the paper as not filed.
Petitioner should be aware that a court, in reasonably exercising
discretionary power to dismiss a petition that violated the rule on written
explanation for resorting to modes other than personal service, also has to
take into account another factor, i.e.,
the prima facie merit of the pleading
sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.[32] For this reason, we do not find any grave
abuse on the part of the CA in exercising its discretion to dismiss
Indeed, judicial notice may be taken that personal
service is impracticable considering the distance between Cebu and
In spite of petitioner’s error, the ‘fresh period
rule’ amendment as held in Neypes v. Court of Appeals will be applied to her
benefit
In Neypes we
held that a litigant is given another fresh period of 15 days to perfect an
appeal after receipt of the order of denial of his/her motion for
reconsideration/new trial before the RTC.
We said:
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules
and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems
it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice
of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order
dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.
Henceforth, this
"fresh period rule" shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals
from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on
petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals;
Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and
Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims
to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the
order denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether
full or partial) or any final order or resolution.[38] (Emphasis supplied.)
“[P]rocedural laws
may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time
of their passage, there being no vested rights in the rules of procedure.”[39] Neypes,
which we rendered in September 2005, has been applied retroactively to a
number of cases[40] wherein
the original period to appeal had already lapsed subsequent to the denial of
the motion for reconsideration.
The denial of
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85897 dated December 8, 2004 and April 8, 2005 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; the Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch
58, dated May 12 and June 10, 2004 that denied Aurora Go’s notice of appeal are
likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 58
is hereby DIRECTED to give due
course to petitioner’s Notice of Appeal dated May 11, 2004.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision 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
⃰ Also spelled as Sunbanon in some parts of the record.
[1] Rollo, pp. 77-79.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] CA rollo, p. 18.
[8] Rollo, p. 85.
[9]
[10]
[11] In said Decision, the RTC ordered Aurora Go to pay the following:
1. P200,000.00 for
moral damages;
2.
P30,000.00 plus P2,000.00 per appearance as
attorney’s fees.
3.
P10,000.00 as litigation expense; and
4.
cost of suit. (
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] CA rollo, p. 3.
[24] Rollo, pp. 130-131; penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap and concurred in by Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Pampio A. Abarintos.
[25]
[26] CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
[27] Rollo, pp. 142-143. Citations omitted. Underscoring in the original.
[28] Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 1.
[29] Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 498 Phil. 809, 820 (2005).
[30] Air
Philippines Corporation v.
[31] CA rollo, pp. 19-24, 27-28, 30-33.
[32] Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Judge Ricafort, 355 Phil. 404, 414 (1998).
[33] 430 Phil 128 (2002).
[34] Heirs of Gaudiano v. Benemerito, G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007, 516 SCRA 416, 420-421 citing Sps. Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals, 400 Phil. 395, 402-403 (2000).
[35] GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Judge Principe, 511 Phil. 176, 186 (2005), citing Philhouse Development Corp. v. Consolidated Orix Leasing & Finance Corp., 408 Phil. 392, 398 (2001) and Balgami v. Court of Appeals, 487 Phil. 102, 114-115 (2004).
[36] Ramos v. Atty. Dajayog, Jr., 428 Phil. 267, 278 (2002).
[37] 506 Phil. 613 (2005).
[38]
[39] Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, 410 Phil. 483, 491 (2001).
[40] Sumiran
v. Damaso, G.R. No. 162518, August 19, 2009, 596 SCRA 450; Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v.
Homena-Valencia, G.R. No. 173942, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 345; First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. v. Bank of
the Philippine