Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 186000 : July 19, 2010] FRANCISCO TAPIC, PETITIONER VERSUS JUANA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE GANAO, RESPONDENT. :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 19 July 2010, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 186000 - FRANCISCO TAPIC, petitioner versus JUANA DELA CRUZ VDA. DE GANAO, respondent.

RESOLUTION

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Resolution^[1] dated September 26, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 105057 and its Resolution^[2] dated January 8, 2009, denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.

In its September 26, 2008 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition filed by petitioner Francisco Tapic on the ground that (1) said petition was not accompanied by material portions of the record and pertinent pleadings such as the answer and position paper filed with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, memorandum of appeal filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), and the motion for reconsideration dated September 26, 2006; and (2) the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was defective.^[3]

In its January 8, 2009 Resolution, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Section 7,^[4] Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the ground that petitioner still failed to submit the position paper filed with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator.^[5]

Hence, this petition anchored on a single issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN STRICTLY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT IN DENYING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR REVIEW DUE TO FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO ATTACH A POSITION PAPER WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD, THUS, DENYING THE PETITIONER DUE PROCESS TO FULLY VENTILATE HIS CASE ON THE MERITS.^[6]

Petitioner stated in his petition and reply that no position paper was filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial Adjudication Board.^[7]

In her comment, respondent Juana Dela Cruz Vda. De Ganao agreed that the only subject of the instant petition is the supposed failure of the Court of Appeals to consider that no position paper was filed before the DARAB. But no proof, such as a certification, shows that no position paper was actually filed.^[8] Consequently, we required petitioner to submit a DARAB certification that no position paper was filed in this case.^[9]

In compliance, petitioner submitted the required DARAB certification^[10] which states that no position paper was filed with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator in DARAB Case No. 11884 entitled Juana Dela Cruz Vda. De Ganao v. Francisco Tapic, et al.

Accordingly, we grant the petition.

In denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner still failed to submit the position paper filed with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator. No such pleading was filed. Thus, we reinstate CA-G.R. SP No. 105057.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition, REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Resolutions dated September 26, 2008 and January 8, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 105057, and REINSTATE CA-G.R. SP No. 105057 in the docket of the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 31-32. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a Member of this Court) and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok.

^[2] Id. at 34-35.

^[3] Id. at 31.

^[4] SEC. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

^[5] Rollo, p.34.

^[6] Id. at 21.

^[7] Id. at 22-23, 147.

^[8] Id. at 140-141.

^[9] Id. at 155.

^[10] Id. at 161.