ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 151047.� August 15, 2005]
BRAGADO vs. AQUINO
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 15 2005.
G.R. No. 151047 (SPOUSES RUPERTO BRAGADO and ARACELI A. BRAGADO vs. GEMINIANO M. AQUINO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, 4th Judicial Region, Balayan, Batangas, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 4th Judicial Region, Balayan, Batangas, and the 15th Division of the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.)
For our resolution is the motion of petitioners, spouses Ruperto and Araceli Bragado, for the reconsideration of our January 30, 2002 resolution where we dismissed their petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the following: (a) submit a valid certification against forum shopping duly executed by petitioners themselves, (b) properly verify the petition since the verification was based on the "personal knowledge and information" of the counsel for the petitioners (c) give a timely written explanation on why service of copies of the petition on the respondents and the Court of Appeals (CA) was not done personally, and (d) submit a verified statement of material dates of filing of the motion for reconsideration of the assailed CA resolution and of receipt of the denial of the said motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners' counsel apologizes for the oversight. He claims responsibility for the procedural lapses and attributes his omissions to his old age. He also admits that, since he does not maintain an active practice anymore, he is no longer appraised of innovations and changes in procedural rules. He then attached an amended petition which satisfies the requirements which were previously not complied with in the original petition for certiorari.
In his comment on petitioners' motion for reconsideration, private respondent Geminiano M. Aquino contends that subsequent compliance with the requirements for the filing of a petition for certiorari is not a ground for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition, except for compelling reasons. He asserts that, in this case, petitioners failed to show the existence of compelling reasons that would justify the relaxation of the rules.
We rule against the petitioners.
Counsel for petitioners admits that he was not able to comply with the requirements on account of his advanced age and ignorance of the new procedural rules. There was, therefore, negligence on the part of their counsel. Such lapse binds petitioners for the rule is that mistake or negligence of counsel is binding upon the client. [1] cralaw
Petitioners failed to comply with not just one but four requirements each of which is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the petition. Petitioners did not present adequate reason that will deserve our reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition.
The rule is that an initiatory pleading or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court shall be accompanied by a certification against non-forum shopping. [2] cralaw Failure to comply with the requirement cannot be cured by mere amendment, except upon a showing of special circumstances or compelling reasons. Non-compliance constitutes sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. [3] cralaw
Here, no compelling reason that will merit the relaxation of the rules was shown. Hence, the filing of an amended petition will not operate to cure the fatal omission.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court should also be verified. [4] cralaw A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read it and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his own knowledge and belief. [5] cralaw A pleading which lacks proper verification shall be treated as unsigned and will not produce any effect. [6] cralaw
In this case, the petition is not properly verified. Thus, it was deemed as an unsigned pleading which is without legal effect.
While the rule that verification and certificate against forum shopping not signed by the petitioners are defective and constitute grounds for dismissing the petition may be relaxed, petitioners must comply with two conditions: first, they must show justifiable cause for their failure to personally sign the verification and/ or certification, and, second, they must also be able to prove that the outright dismissal of the petition would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. [7] cralaw Here, we find that petitioners failed to prove the presence of these conditions.
Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. [8] cralaw If they are made through other modes, the party concerned must provide a written explanation as to why the service or filing was not done personally. [9] cralaw Otherwise, the paper may be considered as not filed. [10] cralaw
Copies of the petition were furnished to both public and private respondents not through personal service but by registered mail. However, no explanation in writing was given why the service was not made personally. Thus, the petition was correctly regarded as not filed.
Moreover, Section 4, Rule 65 provides that a petition for certiorari may be filed not later than sixty days from notice of judgment or resolution sought to be assailed. To ensure compliance with the 60-day reglamentary period, the petitioner is required to indicate the material dates showing when notice of judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received. [11] cralaw To underscore the mandatory nature of this procedural requirement, the petition may be dismissed for non-compliance therewith. [12] cralaw We explained this rule in Lapid v. Judge Laurea. [13] cralaw Thus:
There are three material dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and third, the date when notice of the denial thereof was received . failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Petitioners failed to state when they filed the motion for reconsideration of the assailed CA resolution as well as the date when they received the resolution denying the said motion. Such omission is sufficient ground for the outright dismissal of their petition.
While litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is a truism that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. [14] cralaw A party who fails to observe very elementary rules of procedure which are mandatory causes his own predicament. [15] cralaw To exculpate him from the compulsory coverage of such rules will undermine the stability of the judicial process as the bench and bar will be confounded by such uncertainties as when to obey and when to ignore the rules. [16] cralaw
One final note.
Counsel for petitioners acknowledges that the predicament of his clients was caused by his unawareness of the new procedural requirements. Ignorantia legis non excusat. Ignorance in this regard encompasses not only substantive but also procedural laws. [17] cralaw
Law practitioners and all lawyers, for that matter, should be fully conversant with the requirements of the institution for the institution of certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. [18] cralaw They are expected to be familiar with the rudiments of law and procedure. [19] cralaw This is concomitant to their duty to keep abreast of legal developments. [20] cralaw Otherwise, they can neither competently perform their obligations to their clients nor effectively assist the courts in the rendition of justice.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners is DENIED with finality.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Heirs of Spouses de la Cruz v. Heirs of Quintos, Sr., 434 Phil. 208 (2002).
[2] cralaw Section 5, Rule 7 and Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court.
[3] cralaw Id.
[4] cralaw Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of court.
[5] cralaw Section 4, Rule 7, Rules of Court.
[6] cralaw Id. in connection with Section 3 thereof.
[7] cralaw PET Plans, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148287, 23 November 2004, 443 SCRA 510.
[8] cralaw Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court.
[9] cralaw MC Engineering, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 412 Phil. 614 (2001).
[10] cralaw Section 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court.
[11] cralaw Section 3, Rule 46, Rules of Court.
[12] cralaw Id.
[13] cralaw 439 Phil. 887 (2002).
[14] cralaw Sajot v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 182 (1999).
[15] cralaw Tan v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 1058 (1998).
[16] cralaw Id.
[17] cralaw Lapid v. Judge Laurea, supra.
[18] cralaw Id.
[19] cralaw Sps. Galen v. Atty. Paguirigan, 428 Phil. 590 (2002).
[20] cralaw Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
