Case Digest (G.R. No. 184542)
Facts:
Alma B. Russel v. Teofista Ebasan and Agapito Austria, G.R. No. 184542, April 23, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Alma B. Russel filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondents Teofista Ebasan and Agapito Austria in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iligan City. The MTCC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner on November 23, 2006, ordering respondents to vacate the subject property and to pay attorney’s fees and costs.
Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTCC in its March 28, 2007 decision and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner received notice of the RTC decision on April 13, 2007. On April 20, 2007 she filed with the Court of Appeals (CA), via registered mail, a motion for an extension of 15 days to file a petition for review and deposited postal money orders representing filing and docket fees; she then filed the petition for review by registered mail to the CA on May 15, 2007.
The CA, in a June 18, 2007 Resolution (penned by Associate Justice Elbinias, with Justices Borja and Lopez concurring), dismissed the petition on procedural grounds: that it was filed out of time under Section 1, Rule 42; that petitioner failed to give a written explanation for filing by mail instead of personal filing as required by Section 11, Rule 13; that the verification lacked the clause “based on authentic records” (Section 4, Rule 7); and that material portions of the record (complaint and answer) were not attached (Section 2(d), Rule 42).
Petitioner received the CA Resolution on July 18, 2007 and on July 27, 2007 filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration and an amended petition that supplied the written explanation, corrected verification, and certified copies of the complaint and answer. The CA denied the motion in its August 26, 2008 Resolution, reasoning that the motion for reconsideration had been filed on...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner’s petition for review to the Court of Appeals timely filed within the reglementary period or within the requested extension?
- Was petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals timely filed?
- Were the procedural defects asserted by the Court of Appeals (failure to attach written explanation for non-personal filing, defective verification, and failure to attach complaint and answer) suffi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)