G.R. No. 184542 - Russel vs. Ebasan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184542)

Factual Background

Petitioner filed in the MTCC a complaint for forcible entry against respondents. After hearing, the MTCC rendered judgment on November 23, 2006 ordering respondents to vacate the property and to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Respondents appealed to the RTC. On March 28, 2007, the RTC reversed the MTCC judgment and ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Petitioner received the RTC decision on April 13, 2007 and decided to appeal to the CA by way of petition for review under Rule 42.

Petition to the Court of Appeals and the CA’s Dismissal

On April 20, 2007, within the reglementary period, petitioner filed before the CA a motion for extension of time of fifteen (15) days from the expiry of the period for filing the petition for review. Petitioner attached postal money orders representing the filing and docket fees. Petitioner then filed her petition for review by registered mail on May 15, 2007.

In its June 18, 2007 Resolution, the CA dismissed the petition based on multiple procedural defects. The CA held that the petition was filed out of time in violation of Rule 42, Sec. 1, reasoning that even if the extension were granted, the petition would supposedly have been filed six (6) days late from the requested extension. The CA further ruled that petitioner failed to provide a written explanation for filing by mail instead of personal filing, which the CA characterized as required under Rule 13, Sec. 11. It also found the verification defective due to the absence of a statement that the allegations were based on authentic records, and it ruled that material portions of the record, such as the complaint and answer filed before the MTCC, were not attached in the petition, contrary to Rule 42, Sec. 2(d).

Petitioner received the CA’s June 18, 2007 Resolution only on July 18, 2007. On July 27, 2007, petitioner filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration and an admission of amended petition. She argued that the petition was filed within the extended reglementary period. She explained that her office clerk inadvertently failed to attach the page containing the explanation for resort to registered mail. She also pleaded that the verification defect was merely formal and that she later supplied a corrected verification. She requested liberality to admit the amended petition and attached the certified true copies of the MTCC complaint and answer, along with the corrected verification and the written explanation.

Denial of Motion for Reconsideration

The CA denied petitioner’s motion in its August 26, 2008 Resolution. The CA ruled that the motion for reconsideration was filed only on October 4, 2007, or sixty-three (63) days after the expiry of the reglementary period for filing the motion. Thus, the CA treated petitioner’s filing as untimely. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.

Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed whether the CA erred in (a) computing the reglementary period for filing the petition for review under Rule 42, Sec. 1, (b) treating the motion for reconsideration as filed out of time by considering only the CA’s receipt date rather than the date of mailing, and (c) dismissing the petition for alleged technical deficiencies, including the absence of a written explanation for non-personal filing, a defective verification, and failure to attach certain MTCC pleadings.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court found that the CA’s determination of lateness was erroneous. Petitioner received the RTC decision on April 13, 2007. Under Rule 42, Sec. 1, petitioner had fifteen (15) days from notice to file her petition for review with the CA, which would be April 28, 2007 as the last day. Petitioner sought and filed the extension motion on April 20, 2007 by registered mail, attaching money orders for docket fees. The Court computed the extended deadline and held that fifteen (15) days from April 28, 2007 would be May 13, 2007. However, May 13, 2007 fell on a Sunday, and May 14, 2007 was declared a legal holiday for the national and local elections. Under Rule 22, Sec. 1, when the last day of a period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time does not run until the next working day. For that reason, petitioner’s petition filed on May 15, 2007 was within the extended period.

On the motion for reconsideration, the Court emphasized the rules on computation and manner of filing. Under Rule 52, Sec. 1, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice, with proof of service. Petitioner received the CA’s June 18, 2007 Resolution on July 18, 2007, so she had until August 2, 2007. Petitioner mailed her motion for reconsideration on July 27, 2007, and the Court noted that the fact of mailing was proven by the registry return receipt, an affidavit of service, and the certification of the Office of the Postmaster of Iligan City. The Court invoked Rule 13, Sec. 3, which states that when a pleading is filed by registered mail, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp or registry receipt is considered the date of filing. The Court held it was inconsequential when the CA actually received the motion, because the rule treats the date of mailing as the filing date. Thus, the CA’s calculation based on the October receipt date was legally infirm.

The Court also held that the CA’s dismissal on other technical grounds was improper. As to the CA’s faultfinding for failure to attach a written explanation why filing was not done personally, the Court considered that Iligan City, where petitioner resided and where her counsel’s office was located, and Cagayan de Oro City, where the concerned CA division was stationed, were separated by a considerable distance. The Court found that personal filing would have required substantial time, effort, and expense, making it impracticable. In that context, the Court considered the written explanation under Rule 13 to be superfluous, at least to the extent that it should have justified outright dismissal.

The Court further excused the CA’s treatment of verification as fatal. It explained that the purpose of verification is to ensure an assurance that allegations are made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative. Non-compliance with verification requirements affects only the form of pleadings. The Court held that it was therefore neither jurisdictional nor automatically fatal. Here, the supposed defect was excusable, and petitioner later submitted a corrected verification in her subsequent pleading.

Finally, the Court rejected the dismissal premised on failure to attach copies of the complaint and answer filed before the MTCC. The Court ruled that petitioner substantially complied when she filed an amended petition and submitted the required attachments in the amended pleading, and it directed that the same degree of liberality be applied.

The Court then underscored the guiding procedural principle that rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. It cautioned against strict and rigid application of procedural rules that results in technicalities frustrating substantial justice. The Court found that

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184542)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Alma B. Russel filed a complaint for forcible entry against Teofista Ebasan and Agapito Austria.
The dispute proceeded from the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iligan City to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and thereafter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via Rule 42.
The petition before the Court was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA’s June 18, 2007 and August 26, 2008 Resolutions.
The Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the CA for disposition on the merits.

Underlying Forcible Entry Case

The complaint for forcible entry was filed by petitioner against the respondents.
The MTCC heard the ejectment proceedings and rendered judgment on November 23, 2006 in favor of petitioner.
The MTCC ordered the respondents to vacate the property and to pay attorney’s fees and costs.
Respondents appealed to the RTC due to the adverse MTCC ruling.
The RTC, in a decision dated March 28, 2007, reversed the MTCC ruling and ordered dismissal of the complaint.
Petitioner received the RTC decision on April 13, 2007, prompting her to seek review by the CA.

Timelines for Rule 42 Filing

Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on April 20, 2007, seeking fifteen (15) additional days from the expiry of the reglementary period.
Petitioner attached postal money orders representing the filing and docket fees to her extension motion.
Petitioner filed her petition for review via registered mail on May 15, 2007.
The CA dismissed the petition as allegedly filed out of time, while the Court held that the petition was filed within the extended and computed period.
The Court emphasized that petitioner had fifteen (15) days from notice of the RTC decision under Section 1 of Rule 42.

Content and Grounds in CA Dismissal

The CA dismissed the petition in its June 18, 2007 Resolution, citing multiple procedural defects.
The CA held that the petition violated Section 1 of Rule 42 because it was filed out of time.
The CA also reasoned that even if the extension motion were granted, the petition would still be six (6) days late from the requested extension.
The CA faulted the petition for failing to contain a written explanation for filing by mail instead of personal filing, which the CA regarded as required under Section 11 of Rule 13.
The CA treated the verification and certification as defective for allegedly failing to include a statement ensuring that allegations were based on authentic records, in supposed violation of Section 4 of Rule 7.
The CA further held that material portions of the record referenced in the petition were not attached, specifically the Complaint and Answer filed before the MTCC, in violation of Section 2(d) of Rule 42.
Petitioner received the CA’s June 18, 2007 Resolution on July 18, 2007.

Motion for Reconsideration Before CA

On July 27, 2007, petitioner filed by registered mail a motion for reconsideration and admission of her amended petition.
Petitioner asserted that the petition was filed within the extended reglementary period.
Petitioner explained that an office clerk inadvertently failed to attach the page containing the written explanation for choosing registered mail instead of personal filing.
Petitioner also asked indulgence for the verification, claiming that only the phrase “based on authentic records” was missing and that the defect was formal and non-fatal.
Petitioner prayed for liberality under the rules of procedure and for the admission of the amended petition containing a corrected verification and certified true copies of the complaint and answer from the trial court record.
The CA denied the motion in an August 26, 2008 Resolution.
The CA ruled that the motion for reconsideration was filed only on October 4, 2007, or sixty-three (63) days after the expiry of the reglementary period.
Petitioner challenged the denial through the present Rule 45 petition.

Applicable Rules Cited

The Court relied on Section 1 of Rule 42 for the method of appeal and the fifteen (15)-day period to file a verified petition for review with the CA.
The Court quoted Section 1 of Rule 42 requiring filing and payment of docket fees and deposit for costs, and requiring filing within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed.
The Court applied Section 1 of Rule 22 on computation of time, including exclusion of the day of the triggering event and inclusion of the last day, with suspension when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
The Court referenced Section 3 of Rule 13 on the manner of filing by registered mail, treating the date of mailing as the date of filing.
The Court addressed the CA’s reliance on the supposed requirement under Section 11 of Rule 13 for written explanation when service is not done personally.
The Court treated the verification requirement as a form-related condition rather than a jurisdictional requirement.
The Court considered the CA’s fault that the petition did not attach the Complaint and Answer under Section 2(d) of Rule 42, but held that substantial compliance and later amendment warranted liberality.

Core Issues on Review

The first issue was whether the petition for