ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143164. July 10, 2000]

PHIL. TELEGRAPH & TEL. CORP. vs. GOLDEN HOUSE CARGO MOVER, INC., et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

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

G.R. No. 143164. (Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation vs. Golden House Cargo Mover, Inc. et al.)

Petitioner Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation was ordered to pay respondent Golden House Cargo Mover, Inc. P944,354.41, representing unpaid cargo forwarding charges, and about P711,000.00 for damages in a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 131, Caloocan City. A copy of the decision was served on February 2, 1999 on Richard de la Cruz, a security guard of the condominium building in which petitioner's counsel holds office.

Alleging however, that the decision was actually received by him only on February 8, 1999, petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on February 23, 1999. As the trial court ruled that the motion was filed out of time (Order of May 3, 1999), petitioner filed a notice of appeal on May 11, 1999. This was disallowed by the trial court which held that "there is no perfected appeal within the reglementary period." (Order of May 19, 1999) Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but its motion was also denied. (Order of October 11, 1999) The trial court held, among others things, that service of its decision on the security guard was sufficient considering that the latter received mail for petitioner's counsel on the other occasion. On October 19, 1999, it issued a writ of execution.

On October 26, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Court of Appeals, assailing the orders of May 19, and October 11, 1999 and the writ of execution, dated October 19, 1999, issued by the trial court. Then, on November 12, 1999, petitioner filed a Manifestation submitting certified true copies of the assailed orders.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that the orders attached to it were not duplicate originals, while the other annexes "which are material portions of the petition" are mere photocopies not duly certified by the proper authority. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration, but its motion was denied. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

First. Petitioner contends that it attached duplicate original copies of the assailed orders of the trial court to its petition in the Court of Appeals. This is not so. The copies attached to the petitioner's petition are plain unsigned copies which are merely stamped "Original Signed."

Rule 46, �3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:

Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. . . .

It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as re referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his daily authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.

����������� . . . .

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This requirement was taken from Revised Circular No. 1-88(3). Administrative Circular No. 3-96 clarifying the same, provides that "the 'duplicate original copy' shall be understood to be that copy of the decision, judgment, resolution, or order which is intended for and furnished to a party in the case or proceeding in the court or adjudicative body which rendered and issued the same" and "must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the authenticity and completeness of the copy." (Pars. (1) and (2))

Second. Petitioner, however, contends that any defect in the copies should be attributed to the trial court which had served it (petitioner) with "useless scraps of paper." It claims that it should be given credit for subsequently submitting certified copies of the assailed orders.

This contention is without merit. As provided for in Par. (5) of Administrative Circular No. 3-96.

It shall be the duty and responsibility of the party using the documents required by Paragraph (3) of Circular No. 1-88 to verify and ensure compliance with all the requirements therefor as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. Failure to do so shall result in the rejection of such annexes and the dismissal of the case. Subsequent compliance shall not warrant any reconsideration unless the court is fully satisfied that the non-compliance was not in any way attributable to the party, despite due diligence on his part, and that there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make such other disposition as it may deem just and equitable.

In this case, considering that petitioner was able to submit certified true copies of the assailed orders, there is no reason why it could not have done so when it first filed its petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the fact that petitioner later submitted such certified true copies means that it was aware of the defect in the copies appended to its petition. This was admitted by petitioner in its Manifestation, dated November 11, 1999, stating that it was submitting certified true copies "for the purpose of insuring compliance with the applicable rules in the event that the duplicate original copies of said orders and writ attached to the Petition are deemed insufficient." What was said in one case is appropriate in this case:

While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, this does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. Justice eschews anarchy.

(Galang v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 683, 687 (1991))

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE