June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 199068 : June 13, 2012]
LAUREANA P. BORRES v. SISTER ANGELINA M. FERNANDO
G.R. No. 199068 (Laureana P. Borres v. Sister Angelina M. Fernando) - Acting on the Motion for Reconsideration dated 14 March 2012 filed by petitioner Laureana P. Borres, the Court DENIES it WITH FINALITY since no substantial arguments were raised to warrant the reversal of our denial of the instant Rule 45 Petition. (Resolution dated 01 February 2012)
With respect to the technical defects of the Petition, the Rules of Court inter alia provide that a pleading is verified by an affidavit attesting that the allegations therein are true and correct to the petitioner-affiant's personal knowledge or are based on authentic records. (Rule 7, Sec 4) In contrast, the Verification attached to the instant Petition declaring that every allegation therein is true and correct according to petitioner's own personal knowledge and belief is couched in language that does not conform with the above-cited rule. "Mere belief is insufficient basis and negates the verification which should be on the basis of personal knowledge or authentic records. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and not merely speculative." (Go v. CA, G.R. No. 163745, 24 August 2007, 531 SCRA 158, 165)
Even if we were to extend leniency with respect to this procedural defect in the Verification, the substantial arguments raised by petitioner Borres against the ruling of the appellate court fail to convince. The Court of Appeals was not in error when it dismissed the Rule 65 Petition filed by petitioner Borres for failure to file a motion for reconsideration. Indeed, the general rule is that "before certiorari may be availed of, the petitioner must have filed a motion for the reconsideration of the order or act complained of to enable the tribunal, board, or office concerned to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of the higher court." (PLDT v. Imperial, 524 Phil. 204, 218-219 [2006]) Hence, the failure of petitioner Borres to file a motion for reconsideration of the 14 September 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 145, was a fatal error that amply justified the dismissal Order issued by the Court of Appeals. No sufficient explanation was substantiated to excuse petitioner Borres from resorting to this speedy and adequate remedy and, thus, from the application of the general rule. Hence, the denial of the instant Rule 45 Petition before this Court and the affirmance of the appellate court's questioned Decision are justified. cralaw
No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be entered in due course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court