[ G.R. No. 141808. March 13, 2000]

BANAHAW B. SANCHEZ vs. NATIVIDAD CRUZ

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 13 2000.

G.R. No. 141808 (Banahaw B. Sanchez vs. Natividad Cruz, represented by her Attorney-In-Fact, Eduardo Cruz.)

Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated July 2, 1999 dismissing his "Amended Petition for Review," and the Resolution of the same court dated January 25, 2000 denying reconsideration of the July 2, 1999 Resolution.

In a decision dated September 30, 1998, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City ordered petitioner, the defendant in a complaint for ejectment to, among others, vacate the premises and pay back rentals to respondent, the plaintiff therein. The decision of the Marikina MTC was, in essence, affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals in its Resolution of July 2, 1999 dismissed the petition, thus:

Considering that, in violation of Sec. 2, Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Amended Petition for Review is not accompanied by the pleading and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition, and considering further that no written explanation is given, as required under Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as to why the service of the petition to the adverse party was not done personally, said Petition is hereby dismissed. 1 Rollo, p. 30.

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the above resolution. The Court of Appeals, however, denied the motion, stating:

In support of the instant Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner submits copies of the pertinent pleadings and portions of the record of the case, stating that his failure to attach the same to his Petition for Review was due to honest mistake. On the matter of the written explanation required under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner alleges that he was of the assumption that said requirements applies only to pleadings filed before the lower courts. Still no explanation was given by petitioner as to why service of the dismissed Petition for Review on the adverse party was not done personally.

The full text of Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

"Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing.-- Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed."

Elucidating on the foregoing provision of the Rules, the Supreme Court held that where no explanation is offered to justify resort to service of pleading by mail or other modes of service xxx the discretionary power of the court to expunge the pleading becomes mandatory and the disregard thereof constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Supreme Court mandated the strictest compliance with said Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Premises considered, this Court finds no cogent and plausible reason to reconsider its Resolution, dated July 2, 1999. Accordingly, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 2 Id., at 26-27.

Claiming substantial compliance with the technical requirements, petitioner appeals to this Court for a liberal construction of the Rules so that the case may be decided on the merits.

As the CA noted, however, petitioner submitted copies of the pertinent pleadings and documents with his motion for reconsideration but did not offer any explanation to show why personal service of the petition was not made upon respondent. That the motion for reconsideration contained an explanation why the motion, and not the petition, was not served personally cannot be considered substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner, through his motion for reconsideration, had the opportunity to completely remedy the defects in the petition but failed to do so when he omitted to submit the required explanation. For the denial of the motion, therefore, petitioner only has himself to blame.

The rules of procedure were not formulated on a mere whim. The requirements demanded of pleadings were conceived for a salutary purpose. The pertinent pleadings and documents are required to be attached to the petition to aid the court in deciding whether it should dismiss the case outright for lack of merit, or to require pleadings from the parties. An explanation why personal service was not made upon the parties affected is designed "to curb the practice of delaying the receipt of a pleading by a party through the simple expedient of serving the same by mail.3 1 F. REGALADO COMPENDIUM ON REMEDIAL LAW 210 (6th ed., 1997). Ultimately, Both requirements were devised to expedite judicial proceedings. The purpose of these requirements is lost when parties fail to comply therewith. Liberal construction is not a license to negate the rules of procedure or to frustrate the purpose for which they were forged.4 See Eliseo Favila, et al. vs. The Second Division of the National labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 126758, June 16, 1999.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition.

Pardo, J., is on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com