ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 139811.
FRANCISCO B. ANIAG, JR., PETITIONER, v. HON. PEDRO M. AREOLA, PAIRING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, AND EMILIO SUNTAY III, RESPONDENTS
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the
Third Division of this Court dated
G.R. No. 139811 (Francisco B. Aniag, Jr., Petitioner, v. Hon. Pedro M. Areola, Pairing Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 84, Quezon City, and EMILIO SUNTAY III, Respondents.)
This petition for review
[1]
cralaw
assails the Resolutions
[2]
cralaw
dated
The Court finds merit in the petition. The records show that while the original petition for certiorari failed to clearly state the material dates, petitioner indicated in the body of the petition the requisite dates. At any rate, petitioner filed an amended petition for certiorari where he conformed with the material data rule.
The records also show that the motion for reconsideration of the
Based on the records, it appears that the amended petition for certiorari
was accompanied by an affidavit of service dated
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not require the attachment to the petition for certiorari of true copies of pertinent pleadings and documents. This provision merely requires copies, whether original or photocopies, of pleadings to accompany the petition for certiorari. However, Section 1 of Rule 65 states that a certified true copy of the assailed judgment, order or resolution should be attached to the petition.
Even assuming the petition for certiorari had several procedural infirmities, the Court of Appeals should have disposed of the case on the merits, instead of dismissing it on technicalities.
The Court has consistently held that rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing fair trials and expediting justice. [3] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court REMANDS the instant case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals is ordered to resolve this case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring.
[3] cralaw Posadas-Moya & Associates Construction Co., Inc. v. em>Greenfield Dev't. Corp., 451 Phil. 647 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
