ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141948. July 10, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 10, 2000.

G.R. No. 141948 (George K. Young, Grand Floridian Holdings, Inc., General Milling Corporation and GF Equity, Inc. vs. Wilfred Uytengsu Sr. and SCM Bond Holdings, Inc.)

Before this Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners from this Court's Resolution dated April 12, 2000 denying the petition for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the appellate court.

The main petition assails the Court of Appeals' Resolution dated December 6, 1999 which denied due course to their petition for review and dismissed the same on the ground that said petition was accompanied by annexes and supporting documents which are merely photocopies in violation of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Their motion for Reconsideration thereto was likewise denied in the resolution of December 23, 1999 of the Court of Appeals. Hence, the present petition which was denied in this Court's Resolution dated April 12, 2000, considering that the Court of Appeals, applying pertinent rules, did not err in denying their petition.

In the instant motion for Reconsideration, petitioners invoke the ruling in the case of Ricardo Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals and Provincial Governor of Leyte, G.R. No. 128772, February 3, 2000 (En Banc) which stated the basic maxim that rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid or technical sense which would frustrate and not promote substantial justice.

As admitted by petitioners, they filed the petition for review with the Court of Appeals attaching a certified true copy of assailed Resolution of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and photocopies of other pleadings filed before the SEC as well as orders, resolution and supporting documents pertinent thereto. Nonetheless, petitioners submitted certified true copies of the attachments when they filed a motion for reconsideration which motion the Court of Appeals likewise denied in view of the circular (No. 3-96) providing that any subsequent compliance will not warrant reconsideration of the dismissal, except for compelling reasons.

We find merit in petitioner' Motion for Reconsideration.

In the Cadayona case cited by petitioners, the Court En Banc ruled that in line with the guideline set in Section 6, Rule 1, Section 6, Rule 43 is not to be construed as imposing the requirement that all supporting papers accompanying the petition should be certified true copies. The Court had the occasion to compare Rule 43 with Rule 42, 45 and 65 wherein what is required to be a certified true copy is the copy of the questioned judgement, final order or resolution. The court En Banc in the Cadayona case further made the following pronouncements:

Thus, following the ruling in the Cadayona case, the outright dismissal of the petition for review by the Court of Appeals is a reversible error.

WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated December 6, 1999 and January 28, 2000 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED."