Sps. Lanaria Vs Planta

Spouses Lanaria vs. Planta (Tobillo) 2007 | Chico, J. | Petition for Review PETITIONERS: Sps. Lanaria PETITIONERS: Sps. RESPONDENTS:: Francisco Planta RESPONDENTS Jurisprudence ce has establ established ished that submission submission of a document document DOCTRINE:   Jurispruden DOCTRINE: together with the motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be submitted along with the petition, calls for the relaxation of procedural rules. Only the judgments or orders of the lower courts must be duplicate originals or be duly certified true copies.

ISSUE: WoN the CA should have have allowed allowed the rec receptio eption n of the suppor supporting ting documents - YES Petition n is grante granted. d. Cas Casee is remand remanded ed on RTC Pasig for furth further er RULING:   Petitio proceedings. RATIO: As to Section 2, Rule 42 1. Sectio Section n 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules Rules of Civil Pro Procedur ceduree embodi embodies es the procedure proce dure for appeal appealss from the Decisi Decision on of the RT RTC C in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Said section reads: SEC. 2. Form and Contents. — The petition shall be =led in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the the lowe lowerr co cour urts ts or judg judges es ther thereo eoff eith either er as pe peti titi tion oner erss or

FACTS: 1.   Rosario Planta was the registered owner and possessor of a parcel of land in Iloilo. Respondent is the nephew and heir of Rosario. instituted anofaction unlawful detain detainer er against petitioner sps. 2.   Respondent Lanaria before the MTC Iloilo.for The complaint alleges: petitioner to a.   Rosario Planta allowed the grandparent and parents of petitioner construct their house in the said land with the promise to vacate the land upon demand. petitioners failed to do b.   A formal demand to vacate was made but petitioners so. 3.   MTC Ruling: In favor favor of respondent. Ordered petitio petitioners ners to vacate the land. 4.   RTC Ruling: affirmed MTC ruling. a.   MR: denied. 5.   Petitioners filed a Petition for Review before the CA. Petitioners argued the the lack of cause of action on the part of respondents. Attached to the petition were original and certified true copies of the decisions of both the lower courts. 6.   CA Ruling: outrightly dismissed the case. Reason: Failure to attach plain copies of the pleadings pleadings and other other a.   Reason: material portions of the record such as, Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, Detain er, Answer with Count Counterclai erclaim, m, Part Parties' ies' Position Position Paper, Paper, Memorandum on Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration. b.   Petit Petitioner ionerss filed an MR expl explainin aining g that the failure to attach attach the copies was due to an oversight and asked the CA to allow inclusion of the pleadings. c.   MR: Denied. before re the S SC. C. 7.   Hence, the petition befo

respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate legible  duplicate originals or true copies copi es of the judgment judgmentss   original original order orderss of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and

2. 3.

4.

other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. Non-complianc Non-compliancee with any of the for foregoing egoing rrequisites equisites is a grou ground nd for the dismissal of a petition based on Section 3 of the same Rule. Petitioners' subsequent submission of the following following docu documents ments annex annexed ed to their Motion for Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 Jurisprudenc Jurisprudencee has established that submission of a document together with the motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance wit with h the re requi quire remen mentt that that re relev levant ant or pertin pertinent ent doc docume uments nts be submitted along with the petition, calls for the relaxation of proce procedural dural rules.

5.

6.

This rul ruling ing is in conson consonance ance with the fact tha thatt the Rules do not speci specify fy the the precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records which must be annexed to the petition, apart from the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution. Respo Responden ndentt conte contends nds that petitioner petitionerss violated ane anew w formal and procedu procedural ral requirements for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 4 (d), Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that the Petition for Review Revi ew,, Motio Motion n for Recon Reconsidera sideration, tion, other Material Material Documents, Documents, and Comment submitted to this Court were neither duplicate originals nor duly certified true copies. a. Perusal of the do documents cuments and pleadings submitted by petitioners petitioners to the Court of Appeals in their Motion for Reconsideration reveals that the annex annexed ed pleadi pleadings ngs thereto were not duly certified true copies. b. Evid Evidently ently,,  only the judgments or orders  of the lower courts must courts  must orders of be duplicate originals or be duly certified true copies. c. Moreover Moreover,, the phrases "dupl "duplicate icate originals" and "true copies" of the  judgments or orders of both lower courts, being separated by the disjunctive word "OR" indicate that only the latter are required to be certified correct by the clerk of court. the attached pleadings were not duly duly certified d.   While it is true that the copiess thereof, copie thereof, these, how however ever,,   were not required to be duly certified.

As to Section 13, Rule 13 7. As to respondent's alleg allegation ation that petitioners failed to comply with Section 13 of Rule Rule 13 of the 199 1997 7 Rules of Pro Proced cedure ure1, when the Petition for Review Revi ew filed before before the Court of Appeals did not include include the Affidavit Affidavit of  Service/Proof of Service a. The SC finds there there is substantial compliance compliance of the rule. b. Coun Counsel sel for petit petitioner ionerss attached an explana explanation tion to the the Petition Petition for Review indicating that the filing thereof was done by registered mail citing impracticability due to the distance between Iloilo City

1

Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of  the party served, or the official return of the server, server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made  by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by by the postmaster to the addressee.

8.

where counsel of petitioners holds office and the City of Manila where the Court of Appeals is located. c. The Petiti Petition on for Revie Review w als also o shows shows servic servicee on respo responde ndent' nt's counsel was made personally as evidenced by respondent counsel’s signature thereon which purports to be a written admission of the party served as required under Section 13, Rule 13. The law abho abhors rs technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The primary function of procedural rules is to pursue and not defeat the ends of justice. The circum circumstance stancess of this case presen presentt compe compellin lling g reasons to disre disregard gard petitioners' procedural lapses and to allow them to properly present their case in order to pursue the ends of justice.