Case Summary (G.R. No. 168240)
Key Dates
November 2000 – Filing of Civil Case No. CEB-25778 for damages against Aurora Go, Yiu Wai Sang, and Yiu-Go Employment Agency
November 21, 2002 – RTC grants motion to take Aurora’s testimony by deposition
December 1, 2003 – RTC deems case submitted for resolution due to defendants’ waiver of evidence
January 26, 2004 – RTC renders judgment against Aurora
April 27, 2004 – RTC denies motion for reconsideration of judgment
May 11, 2004 – Aurora files Notice of Appeal
May 12 and June 10, 2004 – RTC denies motion for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal
August 13, 2004 – Aurora files petition for certiorari with the CA
December 8, 2004 and April 8, 2005 – CA dismisses petition for procedural defects
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondents alleged breach of fire-insurance warranty when Aurora and her co-defendants purportedly used leased premises as a business office. Only Aurora filed an answer and counterclaim denying the allegations. After respondents rested, RTC allowed Aurora’s motion to take her testimony by deposition, but more than a year elapsed before the deposition was taken. Meanwhile, RTC deemed the case submitted and rendered judgment against Aurora, disregarding her deposition. Aurora’s counsel received notice of the adverse judgment late due to a misdirected mailing. Aurora’s timely motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was denied by the RTC, which found campaign activities insufficient to justify delay. Aurora then sought certiorari relief in the CA, which dismissed her petition on grounds of verification defects, lack of service explanation, omitted counsel registration numbers, and non-submission of certain pleadings.
Issue
Whether the CA abused its discretion in dismissing Aurora’s petition for certiorari on purely formal grounds, and whether procedural liberalization, including retroactive application of the “fresh period rule,” warrants giving due course to her notice of appeal.
Applicable Law
– Rule 65, Sec. 1 and Rule 46, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court (certiorari petition requirements)
– Rule 13, Sec. 11 of the Rules of Court (service of pleadings)
– Neypes v. Court of Appeals (2005) “fresh period rule” granting a new 15-day appeal period counted from receipt of denial of a motion for reconsideration
Analysis
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
Only the aggrieved party must verify and certify non-forum shopping. Sang and Yiu-Go Agency were not liable in the judgment and thus their signatures were unnecessary.Submission of Pleadings and Certified Copies
Rule 65 requires only those documents material to the issue. Aurora contested the denial of her extension motions (May 12 and June 10, 2004 Orders), not the merits of the underlying suit. Thus, certified copies of those orders were essential; the complaint and answer were irrelevant. A photocopy of the January 26, 2004 Decision sufficed.PTR and IBP Receipt Numbers
Omission of counsel’s official receipt numbers was a clerical oversight cured by subsequent filings.Mode of Service
While personal service is preferred, registered mail betwe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 168240)
Factual Antecedents
- November 2000: respondents filed Civil Case No. CEB-25778 for damages against Aurora B. Go, her husband Yiu Wai Sang, and Yiu-Go Employment Agency before RTC Cebu, Branch 58
- Respondents alleged that the spouses leased their residential property, used it as a business office in breach of fire-insurance warranties, and thus caused loss
- Only Aurora filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counter-Claim, denying business use, asserting lease termination in July 1996, and lack of knowledge of insurance contracts
- Aurora maintained no increased fire risk whether used as residence or lodging house and sought actual damages for airfare and lost earnings as a Hong Kong court interpreter
Trial Court Proceedings
- October 28, 2002: Aurora moved to have her testimony taken by deposition at the Philippine consulate in Hong Kong; RTC granted the motion on November 21, 2002 over respondents’ objections
- Over one year later, on December 1, 2003, RTC deemed defendants to have waived their right to present evidence and considered the case submitted
- Aurora’s motion for reconsideration of the December 1, 2003 order attributed delay to consular procedures; RTC denied it and rendered judgment on January 26, 2004, finding only Aurora liable
- RTC awarded P200,000 moral damages, P30,000 plus P2,000 per appearance as attorney’s fees, P10,000 litigation expenses, and costs; deposition transcript received March 5, 2004 was disregarded
Post-Judgment Motions and Appeal Notice
- March 16, 2004: Aurora’s counsel learned of the adverse judgment upon respondents’ Motion to Direct Issuance of Entry of Judgment and Writ of Execution; counsel’s updated address was