ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
RARAB vs. GONZALES
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 31 2005.
G. R. No. 165155 (Hon. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Dolores, San Fernando, Pampanga, and Cecilia Maniego, Marciano Natividad, Jose Bautista, Roberto Bernardo, Eliza Pacheco, Pedro Bernardo, Ismael Natividad, et al. vs. Veronica R. Gonzales, Deogracias Reyes, Leonardo Reyes, Isabelita Balatbat, Manuela Reyes, Epifanio Reyes, Gloria Reyes, Mario Reyes, Teresita Balatbat, et al.)
Before us is a Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration dated June 14, 2005 of the Resolution dated October 13, 2004 denying the Motion for Extension to File a Petition for Certiorari and the Resolution dated January 17, 2005 dismissing the Petition for Certiorari. This manifestation and motion was filed by the new counsel of the petitioners whose appearance was duly noted in the Resolution of August 17, 2005 pursuant to the Resolution dated April 27, 2005, which, among others directed Atty. Susan T. Villanueva, Chief, Litigation Division, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Department of Agrarian Reform, to cause entry of appearance of new counsel for petitioners, in lieu of Atty. Babaran who transferred to the Commission on Audit, and file a Motion for Reconsideration to the Resolutions dated October 13, 2004 and January 17, 2005, twenty days from notice.
The denial of the Motion for Extension to file a "Petition for Review on Certiorari" was premised on the fact that "petitioners failed to show that they have not lost the 15 day reglementary period to appeal since the stated date of receipt of the resolution dated August 31, 2004 denying the motion for reconsideration which is August 9, 2004 is questionable as the date of receipt precedes the date of issuance of the resolution." The dismissal of the petition for Certiorari was based on the grounds of late filing due to the aforesaid denial of the motion for extension of time to file a petition and for petitioners' failure to properly verify the petition, submit a valid affidavit of service, the attached affidavit of service having been executed and notarized on October 29, 2004 prior to actual posting on November 4, 2004 and submit a verified statement of the material date of filing of the motion for reconsideration of the assailed judgment
Petitioners through their new counsel now aver that when Atty. Babaran filed the Motion for Extension requesting for an extension of 30 days from September 21, 2004 to October 21, 2004, he was confused as to the period within which to file the petition for certiorari. He must have been erroneously thinking that petitioners had only 15 days and not 60 days within which to file the petition. Hence, assuming that petitioners received the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2004 on even date, said motion for extension for 30 days within which to file the petition dated September 20, 2004 was well within the period of 60 days. Thus, when the petition was filed on November 5, 2004, the same may be considered as having been filed seasonably. Moreover, it was obvious that they were abandoned by their lawyer, so when they filed the petition without a representation, it suffered from the cited infirmities. Petitioners pray that in the interest of substantial justice, the Resolutions dated October 13, 2004 and January 17, 2005 be reconsidered.
In their comment/opposition, respondents argue that notwithstanding that petitioners recognize that there was indeed need for correction for the legal infirmities of the subject petition for certiorari, petitioners insist and pray that the fatally defective petition for certiorari be given due course. Respondents insist that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights and that like all rules they are required to be followed.
Petitioners addressed only the timeliness of filing the motion for extension of time and the petition. While we find the explanation of petitioners that the petition was timely filed to be satisfactory, petitioners did not explain the other cited infirmities and/or attempt to correct the same, to wit, failure to: properly verify the petition and to submit a valid affidavit of service.
However, considering the importance of the issues raised: a) substantially, severance of the existing tenancy/agricultural, leasehold relationship between the petitioners and private respondents over the subject landholdings for alleged non-payment of rentals and the alleged exemption of the subject landholdings from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; and b) procedurally, petitioners' notice of appeal being decreed as without legal effect, petitioners should not be denied this last opportunity to ventilate their cause. Procedural laws are required to be followed as a general rule, but they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his non-compliance with the procedure required. [1] cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Petitioners are required to submit a proper verification and a valid affidavit of service of copy of the petition, 10 days from receipt hereof. Respondents are required to file their Comment on the petition, 30 days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rodil Enterprises, Inc. vs. CA, et al. and Rodil Enterprises, Inc. vs. IDES O'RACCA Building Tenants Association, Inc., 371 SCRA 79, 94 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
