G.R. No. 128772 - Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128772)

Governing Framework and Material Procedural Requirement

The petition proceeded under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Section 6 of Rule 43. That provision requires that a petition for review shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers, and it must include the required sworn certification against forum shopping. The question in the controversy was the proper interpretation of the clause requiring “certified true copies,” and whether the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the petition outright for the lack of certification for certain annexes submitted by petitioner.

Factual Background: Civil Service Resolutions and the Petition

Cadayona assailed Civil Service Commission resolutions affirming his preventive suspension by filing the petition for review with the Court of Appeals on January 13, 1997. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated February 19, 1997, citing two main grounds. First, it ruled that the certificate of non-forum shopping was not executed by petitioner himself but by his counsel. Second, it held that three annexes—Annexes D, E and F—were merely xerox or plain copies and were not certified true copies.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. In its March 31, 1997 resolution denying reconsideration, the Court of Appeals maintained that the failure to submit certified true copies of Annexes D, E and F was fatal, even assuming that there was substantial compliance with the forum shopping circular. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the annexes were portions of the record referred to in the petition, and that certification was required to expedite a prima facie assessment of the petition’s merit based on authentic documents. It rejected petitioner’s claimed impossibility in securing certification, noting that the original documents were available and that petitioner could have obtained certified true copies from the Civil Service Commission.

Petitioner’s Assigned Errors and Theory of Compliance

In the present petition, petitioner assigned two errors: first, that the Court of Appeals imposed an erroneous requirement that all annexes be certified; and second, that it wrongfully dismissed his petition.

Petitioner argued that Administrative Circular 1-95 required certification only for copies of the award, judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from and material portions of the record referred to in the petition. He maintained that the phrase “certified true copies” did not extend to the remote phrase “other supporting papers,” invoking the so-called doctrine of last antecedent. He asserted that even if some annexes were not properly certified, the Court of Appeals could still have made a prima facie determination based on authentic or certified documents. He also proposed that the Court of Appeals could have directed the transmittal of certified true copies of the entire record rather than dismissing the petition.

Petitioner further claimed excusable failure. He alleged a limited time to obtain certified documents after he received the civil service resolution. He averred that he had to file the petition with the Court of Appeals on January 13, 1997, and that he could engage counsel only on January 5, 1997, which allegedly made it impossible to secure certified copies within the period.

Finally, petitioner urged that the Court liberally construes procedural rules because the dismissal occurred on a technicality.

Respondents’ Position: Statutory Nature of the Right to Appeal

Respondents opposed the petition by insisting that the right to appeal is statutory. Hence, petitioner had to comply with the requirements prescribed by law to properly exercise that right. Respondents also argued that petitioner’s invocation of the doctrine of last antecedent was misleading because “certified true copies” should qualify the nearest phrase, namely the combined clause referring to material portions of the record and other supporting papers.

Ruling of the Court: Reversible Error in Outright Dismissal

The Court granted the petition. It held that the outright dismissal of petitioner’s petition for review was a reversible error and reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. It remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Liberal Construction and Proper Scope of the “Certified True Copies” Requirement

The Court began with Section 6 of Rule 43, which lists the contents and documentary requirements of a petition for review. It acknowledged that the failure to comply with the requirements under Rule 43 could be a sufficient ground for dismissal. It then turned to Section 6 of Rule 1, which directs that the Rules of Court “shall be liberally construed” to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

Against this backdrop, the Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ strict construction that all supporting papers must be certified true copies. The Court compared Rule 43 with Rule 42 (appeals from the RTC to the CA), where only the judgments or final orders of the lower courts need be certified true copies or duplicate originals. It further compared Rule 43 with Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court), where only the judgment, final order or resolution accompanying the petition must be a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy, certified by the clerk of court of the court a quo. The Court also contrasted with Rule 65 (certiorari and prohibition), where petitions must be accompanied by certified true copies of the questioned judgment, while copies of other relevant documents need only accompany the petition.

The Court found no plausible reason for imposing a stricter requirement under Rule 43, since the framers could not have intended such a harsh approach. It reasoned that requiring certification for all supporting papers would impose additional expense and delay because certified copies are not easily procurable and parties must wait for their release. It added that, in any event, the entire record of the case would eventually be elevated to the appellate court. It therefore concluded that it would not promote the objective o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 128772)

The case involved Ricardo C. Cadayona (petitioner) who filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals to annul Resolution Nos. 96-7418 and 96-2569 of the Civil Service Commission, which affirmed his preventive suspension.
The respondents were the Court of Appeals and the Provincial Governor of Leyte.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright, and the petitioner elevated the dismissal to the Supreme Court for correction of alleged legal errors.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioner filed the Petition for Review on January 13, 1997, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 43104.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on February 19, 1997 for defects relating to the certification against forum shopping and the form of certain annexes.
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it on March 31, 1997.
The petitioner assigned two errors before the Supreme Court, challenging the requirement imposed by the Court of Appeals and the dismissal itself.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the dismissal, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Key Factual Allegations

The petition sought annulment of Civil Service Commission resolutions that affirmed the petitioner’s preventive suspension.
The Court of Appeals found that the attached certificate of non-forum shopping was not executed by the petitioner himself but by his counsel.
The Court of Appeals also found that three annexes—Annexes D, E, and F—were only xerox or plain copies and were not certified true copies.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal as a technicality, arguing that his substantial compliance with the governing rules should have been accepted.
The Supreme Court took into account that the petitioner substantially complied because only three out of seven annexes were not certified true copies.
The Supreme Court also considered the petitioner’s claim that the originals of Annexes D, E, and F were in the possession of the respondent, and that his failure to secure certificates was therefore excusable.

Issues Presented

The first issue was whether the Court of Appeals committed an error of law by requiring that all annexes to the Rule 43 petition be in the form of certified true copies.
The second issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Review for the lack of certification of Annexes D, E, and F.
The implicit procedural issue was the proper interpretation of Section 6 of Rule 43, including whether “certified true copies” qualifies only the award, judgment, final order or resolution and specified parts of the record, rather than every annex.
The case also raised whether the petitioner’s alleged inability to obtain certified copies within the time constraints excused the defect.

Statutory and Rule Framework

The Supreme Court anchored the discussion on Section 6 of Rule 43, which required that the petition be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of specified portions of the record and other supporting papers.
The Court emphasized Rule 43 in relation to the rule on liberal construction, noting Section 6 of Rule 1 that the rules “shall be liberally construed” to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition.
The Court compared Rule 43 with Rule 42, highlighting that in Rule 42 only the judgments or final orders of the lower courts must be certified true copies or duplicate originals.
The Court further compared Rule 43 with Rule 45, noting that under Rule 45 only the judgment or final order or resolution accompanying the petition must be in the form of a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy certified by the clerk of court.
The Court added that under Rule 65, petitions must be accompanied by certified true copies of the questioned judgment, and that it is sufficient that copies of all other relevant documents accompany the petition.
The Court treated these comparisons as indicating that a stricter certification requirement for Rule 43 petitions would be inconsistent with the overall structure of the rules.
The Court also referenced the earlier Administrative Circular 1-95 (previously termed as such in the decision), which the Court of Appeals had treated as requiring certified true copies and as justifying the dismissal.

Arguments of the Parties

The petitioner argued that Administrative Circular 1-95 required certification only for the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from and material portions of the record referred to in the petition, and not for all supporting annexes.
The petitioner asserted that under the so-called doctrine of last antecedent, the phrase “certified true copies” qualified the immediately succeeding phrase “such material portions of the record as are referred to t