ADMINISTRATIVE
CIRCULAR NO. 3-96
TO:
COURT
OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL
COURTS, QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES, THE OMBUDSMAN, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,
THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTION
SERVICE AND MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION ON THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (3), REVISED CIRCULAR NO.
1-88 AND SUPPLEMENTAL RULES THEREFOR.
Paragraph
(3) of
Revised Circular No. 1-88 provides as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"(3) Copies
of judgment or resolution sought to be reviewed. - Petitions filed
with the Supreme Court, whether under Rule 45, Rule 65, R. A. No. 5440
or P. D. No. 1006, shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original or certified true copy of the decision, judgment, resolution
or
order subject thereof, and the requisite number of plain copies
thereof.
The certification shall be accomplished by the proper Clerk of Court or
by proper officer of the court, tribunal, board, commission or office
involved.
Certification by the parties themselves, their counsel or any other
person,
shall not be allowed."The failure to
comply
with or miscomprehension of the aforesaid requirement in petitions to
the
Supreme Court, or in petitions or other initiatory pleadings filed in
other
courts or quasi-judicial agencies which have adopted the same or
similar
provisions has created unnecessary controvercies and resulted in undue
delay in the proceedings therein.
For the
guidance
of all concerned, the following clarifications and supplemental rules
in
complying with the requirement in Paragraph (3) of Revised Circular No.
1-86 are hereby announced for strict compliance:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1] 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. The "certified true copy" thereof shall
be
such other copy furnished to a party at his instance or in his behalf,
duly authenticated by the authorized officers or representatives of the
issuing entity as hereinbefore specified.
[2] The
duplicate
original copy 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 such copy. For this purpose, all
courts,
offices or agencies furnishing such copies which may be used in
accordance
with Paragraph (3) of Revised Circular No. 1-88 shall make arrangement
for and designate the personnel who shall be charged with the
implementation
of this requirement.
[3] The
certified
true copy must further comply with all the regulations therefor of the
issuing entity and it is the authenticated original of such certified
true
copy, and not a mere xerox copy thereof, which shall be utilized as an
annex to the petition or other initiatory pleading.
[4]
Regardless of
whether a duplicate original copy or a certified true copy of the
adjudicatory
document is annexed to the petition or initiatory pleading, the same
must
be an exact and complete copy of the original, and all the pages
thereof
must be clearly legible and printed on white bond or equivalent paper
of
good quality with the same dimensions as the original copy. Either of
the
aforesaid copies shall be annexed to the original copy of the petition
or initiatory pleading filed in court, while plain copies thereof may
be
attached to the other copies of the pleading.
[5] 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
thereof as detailed in the preceeding 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 dilegence 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.cralaw:red
This Circular
shall
be published in two newspapers of general circulation and shall take
effect
on June 1, 1996.
April 17,
1996.
[Sgd.]
ANDRES
R. NARVASAChief
Justice |