G.R. No. 214794 - Victoriano vs. Dominguez

On January 29, 2003, the Spouses Narciso and Josephine Victoriano purchased a house and lot located at Nakagang, Sabangan, Mountain Province from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in Bontoc, Mountain Province.
Victoriano, an employee of the Bureau of Fire Protection at Nakagang, was involved in the sale which was processed by Benedicto Vasquez, the branch manager of PNB.
Two deeds of sale were executed:

The January Deed of Sale recorded a purchase price of Php 150,000.00.
Shortly after, on February 12, 2003, a second Deed of Sale was executed reflecting a higher purchase price of Php 850,000.00.

Both deeds included a proviso that the buyer would shoulder the payment of taxes.
The January Deed of Sale was submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for taxation purposes.

On December 4, 2006, respondent Juniper Dominguez filed criminal and administrative complaints before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB MOLEO) against the Spouses Victoriano and Vasquez.
Dominguez charged:

The charges centered on the alleged falsification of public documents and defrauding the government by executing two deeds of sale with different stated purchase prices to evade proper taxation.

On May 19, 2011, OMB MOLEO issued a Joint Resolution dismissing the complaint after noting that the February Deed of Sale (bearing the higher price) had been submitted to the BIR, evidenced by its BIR stamp.
Dominguez, dissatisfied with the dismissal, filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
On November 14, 2011, OMB MOLEO reversed its earlier ruling through a Joint Order:

It concluded that executing two deeds of sale was a deliberate attempt to evade the proper payment of taxes.
Victoriano was found guilty of dishonesty and consequently dismissed from government service.
Additionally, an Information for Falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code was ordered to be filed against the Spouses Victoriano and Vasquez.

A new piece of evidence (the original February Deed of Sale) was tendered.
Subsequent motions were denied in orders dated April 27, 2012, and December 26, 2012.

Dissatisfied with the adverse ruling from the OMB MOLEO, Victoriano filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On November 29, 2013, the CA dismissed the petition outright based on technical defects, which included:

An incomplete statement of material dates.
Lack of explanation for not resorting to personal service as required.
A defective Verification that did not clearly state that the allegations were based on personal knowledge and authentic records.
An insufficient Certification on non-forum shopping.
Non-compliance with specific notarial practice rules regarding identification.
The counsel’s IBP number particulars were either missing or not updated.

A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Victoriano was subsequently denied by the CA in its Resolution dated October 3, 2014.
Victoriano then elevated the matter by filing the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

The dismissal of his petition on mere technical grounds is unjust.
He substantially complied with the Rules of Court by indicating the receipt of the assailed OMB MOLEO ruling (October 7, 2013) and by filing his petition within the required 15-day period.
The other alleged defects in his petition can be excused in the interest of substantial justice, thereby warranting an opportunity to argue on the merits.

The dismissal of Victoriano from service was proper.
Victoriano knowingly submitted a fraudulent deed of sale to evade his tax obligations, and as such, the petition should be denied.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Victoriano’s petition for review solely on technical grounds.

Does the failure to present a complete and detailed statement of material dates render the petition fatal, even if the critical date of receipt of the assailed ruling is evident?
Is the absence of an affidavit explaining why personal service was not effected sufficient grounds for dismissal?
Should the failure to include in the Verification the phrase “and based on authentic records” be considered a defect that justifies outright dismissal?
Does the insufficient Certification on non-forum shopping, which did not explicitly state that no similar action was pending elsewhere, warrant dismissal?
Is the absence of properly identified notarial compliance, specifically the competent evidence of identity, fatal to the petition?
Can the counsel’s omission concerning the IBP number be excused if promptly rectified?