SECOND DIVISION
TEDDY MOLINA, JULIET
PASCUAL, ISAGANI YAMBOT,
AND LETTY
JIMENEZ-MAGSANOC,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
143156
January 13, 2003
-versus-
HON. COURT OF
APPEALS
AND RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O
N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
This petition for review
seeks the reversal of the resolutions dated September 30, 1999[1]
and May 2, 2000[2]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 54397. Both resolutions
dismissed
herein petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari due to their
failure
to: (a) include certified true copies of the orders dated July 9, 1997
and June 29, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
Branch
21, and other pleadings referred to in the petition; and (b) implead
the
RTC judge as a nominal party.cralaw:red
The facts, as culled
from the parties’ pleadings, are as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 2, 1996, the
Philippine Daily Inquirer published a news item, which reads in part:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PACC coddled
GO,
2 NBI
execs claim
By Teddy
Molina
and Juliet
Pascual
PDI
Northern
Luzon Bureau
x x x
NBI agents reportedly
raided a vacation house in San Fernando, La Union, owned by Raymundo
Armovit,
Go’s lawyer, in September. They missed Go, who left the house hours
before
the agents came.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The source said Go was
also in Vigan in November, during which he attended the wedding
anniversary
of a movie couple.[3]
On May 3, 1996, the
same newspaper reported that: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
NBI exec says Go
tipped off by PACC
By Teddy Molina
and Juliet Pascual
PDI Northern Luzon
Bureau
AN OFFICIAL of the National
Bureau of Investigation in Northern Luzon accused the Presidential
Anti-Crime
Commission of leaking out to Rolito Go a planned raid by NBI agents on
a vacation house in San Fernando, La Union, where the convicted killer
was hiding at the time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The raiders belonging
to the NBI Special Operations Group missed Go but found some of his
personal
belongings near the house’s swimming pool, the source, who asked not to
be identified said.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This happened in September
at the vacation home of Go’s lawyer, Raymundo Armovit, or eight months
before the PACC arrested him on Tuesday in Lubao, Pampanga.cralaw:red
After the La Union raid,
it was hard to track Go because he was moving as if he was receiving
advice,"
the source further claimed."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a consequence, private
respondent Raymundo Armovit filed a complaint for libel against
petitioners,
alleging that they caused to be published reports that maliciously
accused
him of harboring and/or concealing a convicted murderer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a resolution dated
October 31, 1996, the Provincial Prosecutor of Ilocos Sur found
probable
cause and recommended the filing of an Information for libel against
petitioners.[5]
Accordingly, on November 28, 1996, two Informations for libel were
filed
with the RTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 12, 1996,
petitioners sought a review of the resolution dated October 31, 1996 by
the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor. The latter reversed the
findings
of the Provincial Prosecutor and directed the latter to withdraw the
Informations
filed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, the RTC of
Vigan, Ilocos Sur denied the motion to withdraw the indictments on the
ground that there was probable cause for the filing of the
Informations.
Petitioners moved to reconsider the denial, but this motion was
similarly
denied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners then elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals via a special civil action for
certiorari,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 54397.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 30, 1999,
the appellate court resolved the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[7]
The Court of Appeals
found that the copies of the assailed orders of the trial court were
purportedly
certified, but there was no showing whatsoever of the authority of the
person who certified the same. Moreover, the seal of the trial court
could
not be identified on the copies of said orders. Furthermore, the
petition
was not accompanied by all the pleadings and documents pertinent
thereto.cralaw:red
Petitioners then moved
for reconsideration, but this was likewise denied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the instant petition,
grounded on the allegation that:
THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION ON MERE
TECHNICALITIES SUCH AS: 1.) PETITIONERS FAILED TO SHOW THE AUTHORITY OF
THE PERSON WHO CERTIFIED THE COPIES OF THE ATTACHED ORDERS; 2.) THE
SEAL
OF THE TRIAL COURT COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED FROM THE COPIES SUBMITTED;
3)
PETITIONERS DID NOT ATTACH COPIES OF ALL PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS; AND
4.)
THE JUDGE OF THE LOWER COURT WAS NOT IMPLEADED, AND COMPLETELY
DISREGARDING
THE MERITS OF THE PETITION.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Simply stated, the issue
is: Did the Court of Appeals commit a reversible error of law in
dismissing
the petition? We find that it did.cralaw:red
Petitioners contend,
firstly, that they should not be faulted for such technical defects as
the failure to indicate the authority of the certifying officer or the
inscrutable imprint of the trial court’s seal because they did not have
a hand in the preparation of the documents. After all, they only relied
in good faith on the authority and diligence of the court personnel who
prepared and authenticated the subject documents, considering that said
personnel are presumed to know the procedural and technical
requirements
and because of the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed.
According to petitioners, it was too harsh and arbitrary for the Court
of Appeals to fault them for the oversight committed by the trial court
personnel. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second, petitioners
aver that their failure to attach the pleadings and documents relevant
to the petition is immaterial as the Supreme Court, in a long line of
cases,
has given due course to similarly faulty petitions in the interests of
equity and justice and merely directed that the lacking pleadings and
documents
be attached.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lastly, petitioners
claim that they did not err if they only mentioned in the caption of
the
petition the trial court and not the trial court judge. After all, it
is
clear from the enumeration of parties against whom or against which a
petition
for certiorari may be filed, namely, any tribunal, board or officer
exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions in Rule 65, Section 1[9]
of the Rules of Court that they need not implead the officer or the
trial
court judge who committed the grave abuse of discretion, amounting to
want
or excess of jurisdiction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Instead of addressing
the issue and the petitioners’ arguments, private respondent’s
submission
focuses on the merits of the libel case. Thus, we are unable to agree
with
his contentions insofar as they lack direct pertinence to the present
petition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A litigation is a contest
in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court
the
facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and
indecisive
all imperfections of form and technicalities, asks that justice be done
on the merits.[10]
Hence, Rule 1, Section 6[11]
of the Rules of Court mandates that rules of procedure shall be
liberally
interpreted. In the instant case, we agree with petitioners that the
Court
of Appeals erred in stressing too much petitioners’ failure to comply
with
technicalities. We cannot attribute to petitioners the perceived
defects
on the attached copies of the trial court’s orders because petitioners
did not have control over their preparation. Moreover, Rule 131,
Section
3 (ff)[12]
of the Rules of Court lays the presumption in petitioners’ favor that
they
followed the pertinent rules on attaching certified copies of the
orders
subject of their petition below. As private respondent failed to show
evidence
to rebut this presumption, the presumption must stand. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We likewise rule that
in the present case, the alleged failure to attach all pleadings and
documents
is not a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. In appropriate
cases,
the courts may liberally construe procedural rules in order to meet and
advance the cause of substantial justice.[13]
We have held that lapses in the literal observation of a procedural
rule
will be overlooked when they do not involve public policy, when they
arose
from an honest mistake or unforeseen accident, when they have not
prejudiced
the adverse party, nor deprived the court of its authority.[14]
In the instant case, petitioners’ failure to append: (1) herein
respondent’s
Answer to the Petition for Review filed on January 2, 1997; (2)
petitioners’
Memorandum filed on April 28, 1997; and (3) respondent’s Memorandum
filed
on May 16, 1997, all of which were mentioned in the petition for
certiorari
before the appellate court do not touch on public policy, nor do they
deprive
the appellate court of its authority. No right of respondent is
prejudiced
or adversely affected.cralaw:red
Lastly, it is not required
under Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court that the trial judge
himself
be impleaded in a petition for certiorari. The rule clearly states that
a petition for certiorari may be filed against the tribunal, board or
officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.[15]
The inclusion of the tribunal, which issued the decision, as nominal
party,
was substantially complied with. When petitioners mentioned the
Regional
Trial Court, Branch 21 of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, they also referred
necessarily
to the judge who issued the assailed resolutions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 54397, dated September 30, 1999 and May 2, 2000 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is hereby directed to reinstate the
petition
for certiorari filed by petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 54397, with
dispatch.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 51-53. Per Rosario, Jr., J., with Jacinto and Barrios, JJ.,
concurring.
[2]
Id. at 55-56. By Rosario Jr., J., and concurred in by Jacinto and
Barrios,
JJ.
[3]
Records I, p. 9.
[4]
Id. at 10.
[5]
Id. at 34.
[6]
Records I, pp. 1-3 & Records II, pp. 1-3.
[7]
Rollo, p. 53.
[8]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
SEC. 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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315, 321-322 (1910).
[11]
SEC. 6. Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally construed in
order
to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding.
[12]
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. - The following presumptions are
satisfactory
if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x
x x
(ff)
That the law has been obeyed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 633, 640
(1997).
[14]
Case and Nantz v. Jugo, 77 Phil. 517, 522 (1946).
[15]
Supra note 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |
