Case Summary (G.R. No. 181182)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Rule 42, Rules of Court (appeals from RTC to CA):
– Section 1: Time limits; payment of docket fees to the CA; extension rules
– Section 2: Form, contents, verification, certification against forum-shopping, required annexes
– Section 3: Non-compliance as ground for dismissal
• Rule 7, Section 4, Rules of Court (verification requirements)
• Rule 1, Section 6, Rules of Court (liberal construction principle)
Factual Background
• October 20, 2005: Boardwalk filed an amended complaint for replevin in MeTC Manila, Branch 27, over the Toyota FX.
• May 30, 2005 (sic): MeTC rendered judgment for Boardwalk, ordering possession of the vehicle. Villareal’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
• Villareal appealed to RTC Manila, Branch 18.
RTC Proceedings and Decision
• RTC reversed the MeTC decision: held Villareal entitled to possession or value of the vehicle; dismissed both complaint and counterclaim.
• Boardwalk’s motion for reconsideration before the RTC was denied via Order dated December 14, 2006 (received January 19, 2007).
Attempts to Appeal to the Court of Appeals
• February 5, 2007: Boardwalk filed with the RTC a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review and paid docket fees to the RTC clerk (wrong court). On the same date it filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC rejected as wrong mode.
• March 7, 2007: Petition for Review was mailed to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Resolutions
• April 25, 2007: Dismissed the petition outright for multiple procedural lapses:
– Payment of docket fees and filing of extension motion with RTC instead of CA, rendering no valid motion for extension;
– Late filing of petition beyond the 15-day period;
– Request for 30-day extension contrary to the 15-day maximum under Rule 42;
– Defective verification and absence of board resolution or secretary’s certificate authorizing the representative;
– Failure to attach required pleadings and record portions.
• December 21, 2007: Denied motion for reconsideration, ruling that even if technical defects were cured, the petition was already filed beyond the extended period and remained unperfected.
Issues Presented
Whether, under the liberal-construction mandate, the Supreme Court should overlook Boardwalk’s procedural defects in order to decide the petition on its merits.
Petitioner's Arguments
• Litigations should be resolved on merits, not technicalities.
• Errors in filing and payment were counsel’s clerical mistakes.
• Subsequent payment to the CA, submission of a board resolution and annexes cured the defects.
• Verification and certification against forum-shopping were formal, not jurisdictional.
Respondent’s Arguments
• Procedural errors were inexcusable and fatal.
• Boardwalk raised purely factual issues, not reviewable at this stage.
Supreme Court Analysis and Holding
- Appeal as statutory privilege: The right to appeal must be exercised strictly in accordance with Rule 42.
- Mandatory and jurisdictional requirements under Rule 42:
a. Timely filing of the petition within 15 days of notice of denial of motion for reconsideration.
b. Payment of docket and other lawful fees to the CA clerk within that period.
c. Request for an extension may cover only an additional 15 days, absent a “most compelling reason” for a further 15 days.
d. Proper verification, certification against forum-shopping, and evidence of corporate authorization are indispensable.
e. Required annexes (duplicate copies of decisions, pleadings,
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 181182)
Factual Antecedents
- Petitioner Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. (“Boardwalk”) is a duly organized Philippine corporation engaged in selling ready-to-wear merchandise.
- Respondent Elvira A. Villareal was one of Boardwalk’s distributors of ready-to-wear merchandise.
- On October 20, 2005, Boardwalk filed an Amended Complaint for replevin before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 27 (Civil Case No. 160116), seeking recovery of a 1995 Toyota Tamaraw FX allegedly subject to a defaulted car loan.
Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court
- On May 30, 2005, the MeTC rendered judgment in favor of Boardwalk, adjudging the corporation’s right to possession of the motor vehicle and ordering Villareal to pay costs.
- Villareal’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the MeTC.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- Villareal appealed to the Manila Regional Trial Court (Branch 18).
- The RTC reversed the MeTC decision, holding that Villareal had the right to possession of, or the value of, the subject vehicle; it directed Boardwalk either to deliver the vehicle or pay its value, and dismissed both the complaint and counterclaim.
- Boardwalk’s motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision was denied by order dated December 14, 2006, received January 19, 2007.
Procedural Posture before the Court of Appeals
- On February 5, 2007, Boardwalk filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review with the RTC, paying docket and other legal fees to the RTC clerk, and simultaneously filed a Notice of Appeal which the RTC denied as the wrong mode of appeal.
- On March 7, 2007, Boardwalk mailed its Petition for Review to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Rulings of the Court of Appeals
- April 25, 2007 Resolution:
- Dismissed the Petition outright for procedural lapses:
- Boardwalk erroneously filed and paid extension fees with the RTC instead of the CA, rendering its Motion for Extension ineffective and the petition untimely under Rule 42, Section 1 (15-day period).
- The requested 30-day extension exc
- Dismissed the Petition outright for procedural lapses: