SECOND DIVISION
AQUILINA
ESTRELLA,
SIMPLICIO ESTRELLA
AND NOLASCO ESTRELLA,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
134460
November 27, 2003
-versus-
NILA ESPIRIDION,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before us is a Petition
for Review on
Certiorari
which should properly be a petition for
certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It assails the Court of Appeals'
Resolution
dated February 17, 1998[1]
denying due course and dismissing the Petition for Review on Certiorari,[2]
filed by herein petitioners Aquilina, Simplicio and Nolasco, all
surnamed
Estrella; and of the Resolution dated April 17, 1998, denying
petitioners'
motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual background
of herein petition is as follows:
The case
commenced
on March 20, 1992 upon the filing with the Regional Trial Court (Branch
6), Malolos, Bulacan of a complaint for recovery of possession[3]
by Nila C. Espiridion (respondent for brevity) against Aquilina,
Simplicio
and Nolasco, all surnamed Estrella (petitioners for brevity).
Respondent
claims that she bought a parcel of land which is now covered by TCT No.
T-236166 in her name. At the time she bought the land, petitioner
Aquilina's
house was already standing on a portion thereof but she tolerated
Aquilina's
stay on her property on condition that once she needs the land,
Aquilina
shall immediately vacate the premises. Subsequently, however,
petitioners
Simplicio and Nolasco also built their houses on the land of respondent
without the latter's knowledge and consent. Respondent demanded that
the
petitioners vacate the portion of her land being occupied by them but
despite
said demands, the petitioners refused to vacate the subject premises.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand,
petitioners
contend in their Answer[4]
dated April 6, 1992, that petitioner Aquilina is the bona fide tenant
of
the subject property which she is tilling with the help of her
co-petitioners
by virtue of a lease contract dated June 15, 1976 with the former owner
of the land, Deogracias Mendoza; and that the case is within the
jurisdiction
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial on the
merits,
the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision[5]
dated September 3, 1997 in favor of respondent with said court ordering
herein petitioners and any and all persons claiming any right under
them
to vacate the premises in question and to pay the costs of suit.
On September 30,
1997,
the counsel originally representing herein petitioners filed her Motion
to Withdraw Appearance[6]
which the trial court granted in its Order dated October 1, 1997.[7]
On the same date (October 1), Atty. Aquilino Inocencio of the Bureau of
Agrarian Legal Assistance filed an undated Notice of Appeal/Motion to
Enter
Appearance[8]
in behalf of petitioners, stating that the former counsel for
petitioners
received a copy of the Decision on September 19, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 2, 1997, the
trial court issued an Order, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
The undated
"Notice
of Appeal/Motion to Enter Appearance" filed by defendants' new counsel
Atty. Aquilino M. Inocencio, are NOTED. II
The undated Notice
of
Appeal filed by defendants' new counsel Atty. Aquilino M. Inocencio is
not in accord with Section 5 Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure,
as amended, in that it failed to x x
x
specify the court to which the appeal is being taken
x
x x and accordingly, the same is DENIED DUE COURSE.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Counsel for petitioners
received a copy of the said Order on October 16, 1997, as shown by the
registry return card.[10]
He filed a Manifestation/Compliance[11]
on October 20, 1997, praying for the reconsideration of the Order dated
October 2, 1997 and manifesting that they are appealing the Decision of
the lower court to the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 41 of
the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The lower court merely "NOTED" said
Manifestation/Compliance
in its Order dated October 21, 1997.[12]
Thus, on November 27, 1997, petitioners filed a petition for review on
certiorari[13]
with the Court, docketed as G.R. No. UDK-12459 which we referred to the
Court of Appeals for appropriate action per our Resolution dated
January
12, 1998.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The referred petition
is docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46671. Petitioners claim that the lower
court
was too strict in denying their notice of appeal for failure to specify
the court to which appeal is being taken, despite the fact that said
notice
was filed within the reglementary period to appeal. They argued that
since
the Notice of Appeal was filed on October 1, 1997 or just three months
after the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure only took effect on July 1,
1997,
they should be given some leniency in complying with the new rules.
Thus,
they sought the nullification of the lower court's order denying due
course
to their notice of appeal.cralaw:red
On February 17, 1998,
the Court of Appeals issued the assailed Resolution[15]
denying due course and dismissing the petition for review on certiorari
on the ground that said pleading did not contain an explanation why
service
of the petition upon respondent was not done personally as required
under
Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners'
Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied per Resolution dated
April
17, 1998[16]
wherein the appellate court ruled that the motion again contained
formal
and substantial infirmities and the allegations therein failed to show
that petitioners have a meritorious case which would warrant it to
uphold
their defective Notice of Appeal from the decision of the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the present petition
anchored on the following grounds:
I.
THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS WAS TOO STRICT IN DENYING DUE COURSE AND DISMISSING OUR
PETITION
AS WELL AS OUR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR BEING INSUFFICIENT IN
FORM
AND SUBSTANCE AND AT THE SAME TIME ERRED IN RESOLVING THAT THE
PETITIONERS
HAVE NO MERITORIOUS CASE WHICH WOULD WARRANT TO UPHOLD OUR DEFECTIVE
NOTICE
OF APPEAL IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II.
THE HONORABLE
REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE BEING AGRARIAN IN NATURE.
Anent the first
ground, petitioners asseverate that the Court of Appeals erred in
strictly
applying Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure[17]
and in subsequently denying the motion for reconsideration because such
stringent application of technicalities would be tantamount to a denial
of substantial justice. Petitioners implore this Court to resolve the
case
on its merits.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the second ground,
petitioners posit that it is the DAR and not the Regional Trial Court
which
has jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of possession as they
are tenants of the subject parcel of land.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find cogent reasons
for a relaxation of the application of the rules of procedure in this
case.
At the outset, we call to mind our pronouncement in Solar Team
Entertainment,
Inc. vs. Hon. Helen Bautista Ricafort, et al.,[18]
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure took effect only on 1 July 1997, while the
questioned "Answer (with Counterclaims)" was filed only on 8 August
1997,
or on the 39th day following the effectivity of the 1997
Rules. Hence, private respondents' counsel may not have been fully
aware of the requirements and ramifications of Section 11, Rule 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
It has been
several
months since the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. In the
interim,
this Court has generally accommodated parties and counsel who failed to
comply with the requirement of a written explanation whenever personal
service or filing was not practicable, guided, in the exercise of our
discretion,
by the primary objective of Section 11, the importance of the subject
matter
of the case, the issues involved and the prima facie merit of the
challenged
pleading. However, as we have in the past, for the guidance of the
Bench
and Bar, strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated
one
month from promulgation of this Decision.[19]
(Emphasis
supplied.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, the rule
requiring
a written explanation whenever personal service or filing was not
practicable,
should be strictly complied with beginning September 5, 1998. In other
words, the courts are allowed to be lenient to parties in case of
non-compliance
before said date. Herein petition for review on certiorari was filed in
the Court of Appeals on November 27, 1997, only four months from the
date
of effectivity of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure and nine months before September 5, 1998.
Consequently, petitioners should be accorded the same latitude of
leniency.
The Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition for lack of
the required written explanation. However, in fairness to the appellate
court, it cannot be said that said court committed grave abuse of
discretion
in issuing herein assailed Resolution dated February 17, 1998 for the
simple
reason that the Solar Team ruling was promulgated only after the
appellate
court had issued the resolution in question. At any rate, under the
peculiar
circumstance of the case, justice and equity constrain us to correct
the
error and to apply our mandate expressed in the Solar Team case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, In the higher
interest of orderly administration of justice and to spare the parties
from further delay in the final resolution of CA-G.R. SP No. 46671 as
well
as Civil Case No. 169-M-92, we move on to resolve the issue of whether
or not petitioners' appeal should have been given due course by the
trial
court despite the failure of petitioners to specify in their notice of
appeal the appellate court to which they intended to bring their
appeal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 5, Rule 41 of
the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provides:
Sec. 5.
Notice
of appeal. — The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the
appeal,
specify the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from,
specify
the court to which the appeal is being taken, and state the material
dates
showing the timeliness of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There exists no doubt
that
the notice of appeal must specify the court to which the appeal is
being
taken. However, considering that the notice of appeal was filed by
petitioners
on October 1, 1997 or just three months from July 1, 1997, the date of
effectivity of said Rule, we apply the same policy of leniency as
earlier
enunciated in the Solar Team case.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, the appeal should
have been given due course for a proper review of the findings of the
trial
court in Civil Case No. 169-M-92 by the Court of Appeals.cralaw:red
As to the second issue
posed by petitioners, i.e., whether or not Civil Case No. 169-M-92
comes
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR pursuant to Section 50 of Republic
Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), the same should
be
ventilated and threshed out in the appeal proper.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Court
GRANTS the petition. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated
February
17, 1998 and April 17, 1998, dismissing the petition for review on
certiorari
and denying the motion for reconsideration, respectively, are SET
ASIDE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the higher interest
of orderly and speedy administration of justice, another judgment is
entered
REVERSING the Orders dated October 2 and 21, 1997 of the Regional Trial
Court (Branch 6), Malolos, Bulacan, denying due course to petitioners'
notice of appeal. Said Regional Trial Court is DIRECTED to forthwith
GIVE
DUE COURSE to the appeal of its decision in Civil Case No. 169-M-92 to
the Court of Appeals. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing, Callejo,
Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Justices Salome A. Montoya
(retired)
and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, concurring.
[2]
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 46671. Said petition should be a petition
for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[3]
Docketed as Civil Case No. 169-M-92.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Records, pp. 8–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Penned by Judge Felipe C. Magat.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Records, p. 533.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., p. 535.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., p. 538.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 542.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Records, p. 543.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 545–546.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., p. 549.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
CA Rollo, pp. 7–24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., p. 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rollo, p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id., p. 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. — Whenever
practicable,
the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done
personally.
Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to
other
modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or
filing
was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to
consider
the paper as not filed.
[18]
293 SCRA 661 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., p. 670.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Supra, note 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |