Facts:

The case at hand involves Nelia Atillo as the petitioner and Buenaventura Bombay as the respondent. The dispute arose from a Lease Agreement entered into in November 1994, whereby Atillo leased a unit in the Alto Commercial Building owned by Bombay in Mayamot, Antipolo, Rizal. The agreement was established for a period of one year commencing on May 1, 1988, and was renewable upon mutual consent. However, Atillo failed to pay her monthly rent starting January 1995, prompting Bombay to issue a written demand on August 15, 1994, for payment and vacation of the premises. In response to the demand, Atillo claimed that the Alto Commercial Building was actually owned by the heirs of Tomas Escaraman and argued that Bombay had no rights to eject her, as a Civil Case (No. 2563) for unlawful detainer was already initiated against him. Subsequently, petitioner entered into a separate lease agreement with Escaraman’s heirs and made rental payments to them.

In the Municipal Trial Court (MTC)

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Nelia Atillo, the petitioner, entered into a lease agreement with Buenaventura Bombay, the respondent and alleged owner of the Alto Commercial Building located in Mayamot, Antipolo, Rizal.
• The lease was set for a one-year period beginning May 1, 1988, and was renewable upon mutual consent.

Default and Demand for Vacation

• Petitioner failed to pay the required monthly rentals starting January 1995.
• In response, respondent issued a written demand on August 15, 1994, requiring Atillo to pay the monthly rental and vacate the premises, which petitioner disregarded.
• Consequently, respondent initiated an ejectment case against petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch I.

Petitioner’s Defense and Counterclaims

• In her Answer, petitioner claimed that the Alto Commercial Building was actually owned by the heirs of Tomas Escaraman.
• She alleged that Tomas Escaraman's heirs had obtained the building through a ten-year lease (locally known as “Kasunduan”) from Nide Marie Bombay.
• Based on this claim, petitioner contended that respondent no longer had any rights over the leased unit and was, in effect, committing illegal detainer.
• Petitioner further asserted that the heirs of Tomas Escaraman had already filed a suit against respondent for unlawful detainer.
• Capitalizing on these developments, petitioner subsequently entered into a new contract of lease with the heirs of Tomas Escaraman, paying rentals directly to them, thus forming the basis of her refusal to vacate the unit as demanded by respondent.

Lower Court Proceedings

• On November 24, 1995, the MTC dismissed the ejectment case against petitioner on the ground that respondent was not the proper party in interest given the alleged “Kasunduan”.
• Respondent escalated the case by appealing to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 72.
• The RTC, on February 24, 1997, reversed the MTC’s decision, ruled in favor of respondent, awarded back rentals, and ordered petitioner to vacate the leased premises.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA)

• Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA challenging the RTC order and the award of back rentals.
• On April 14, 1998, the CA dismissed petitioner’s petition for review due to her failure to attach the complete pleadings and other material portions of the record, in violation of Section 2(d) of Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• On October 16, 1998, the CA further denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, reiterating that the required attachments were mandatory to enable the Court to assess the merits of the petition without having to elevate the original record.

Contentions of the Petitioner

• Petitioner argued that the requirement to attach pleadings and other materials under Section 2(d) of Rule 42 is directory rather than mandatory.
• She maintained that the discretion to select which documents to attach rests with the party and/or counsel.
• Petitioner further claimed that failure to list specific pleadings should not result in the outright dismissal of her petition.
• Additionally, she challenged the award of back rentals by asserting that the amount claimed by respondent was speculative and lacked evidentiary support, noting that she had a credited balance which should have been considered.

Contentions of the Respondent

• The respondent argued that the attachments required under Section 2(d) are essential so that the CA can determine whether the petition has any merit.
• He maintained that petitioner’s failure to attach the complaint, answer, and related position papers rendered her petition devoid of the necessary factual underpinning.

Relief Sought

• Petitioner sought a liberal interpretation of Section 2(d) to allow for discretion in attaching documents.
• She contended that the CA’s dismissal was whimsical, especially when contrasted with similar cases where incomplete attachments did not result in immediate dismissal.
• Petitioner also challenged the legitimacy of the RTC’s award of back rentals.

Issue:

Attachment Requirement under Rule 42

• Whether Section 2(d) of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates the attachment of pleadings and other material portions of the record, is mandatory or merely directory.
• Whether the petitioner’s failure to attach certain pleadings and documents constitutes sufficient grounds for the dismissal of her petition for review.

Sufficiency of the Documentary Support

• Whether the documents attached by the petitioner (namely, the MTC Decision, the RTC Order, and the RTC Writ of Execution) were sufficient to make out her allegations.
• Whether the petitioner’s argument that the omission could be cured by elevating the original record is tenable.

Award of Back Rentals

• Whether the award of back rentals to the respondent by the RTC was properly supported by evidence.
• Whether the appellate court should have reexamined or questioned the factual basis for the award of back rentals in the absence of complete documentary support.

Disparate Treatment of Similar Petitions

• Whether the alleged disparity in the treatment of petitions (as raised by petitioner by comparing with “Sofia Caccan vs. Buenaventura Bombay”) is justified under the Rules of Court.
• Whether the division to which the petitioner’s case was raffled played a role in the strict enforcement of the attachment requirements.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)