Lawyerly

GR No. 179640

2015-03-18

PERALTA, J.

When the CA dismisses a petition outright and the petitioner files a motion for the reconsideration of such dismissal, appending thereto the requisite pleadings, documents or order/resolution, this would constitute substantial compliance with the Revised Rules of Court.[13] Thus, in the present case, there was substantial compliance when in their Motion for Reconsideration, they attached a secretary certificate giving Joemarie's authority to sign on behalf of the corporation. Petitioners also included the necessary attachment.[14]

GR No. 168240

2011-02-09

AURORA B. GO v. ELMER SUNBANUN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 65 requires the submission of a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition as well as the submission of copies of all pleadings and documents relevant to the petition. "The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or order are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. [Should the CA opine that additional documents must be submitted together with the petition, it may] (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of [Section 3,] Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period."[29] We emphasize that not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached, but only those which are material and pertinent that they may provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case for abuse of discretion.[30]

GR No. 173931

2009-04-02

ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA

TINGA, J.

Moreover, the full adjudication of the merits of an appeal is, in our jurisdiction, a matter of judicial policy,[46] and cases materially or substantially similar to the one at bar should invite the Court's attention to the merits if only to preclude the inequity that would result from the outright denial of the appeal.

GR No. 161070

2008-04-14

JOHN HILARIO Y SIBAL v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. If, upon its initial review of the petition, the CA is of the view that additional pleadings, documents or order should have been submitted and appended to the petition, the following are its options: (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period.[11]

GR NO. 159422

2008-03-28

CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Ordinarily, the Court would remand the case to the CA for proper disposition of the petition on the merits.[44] The particular surrounding facts and circumstances in the present case, however, prevent the Court from doing so. In the meantime that the

GR NO. 159919

2007-08-08

COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Ordinarily, the case should be remanded to the CA for proper disposition of the petition for certiorari on the merits;[31] but that would further delay the case. Considering that the lone issue raised can be readily resolved in this instance, the Court deems it more practical and in the greater interest of justice not to remand the case to the CA but, instead, to resolve this case once and for all.[32]

GR NO. 161304

2007-07-27

SPS. ARTURO CONDES AND NORA CONDES v. CA

NACHURA, J.

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. The rule does not specify the precise documents, pleadings, or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. These documents and pleadings are generally the ones needed by the reviewing courts to decide whether to give due course to the petition.[18] The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner.[19] Thereafter, the CA will review the petition and determine whether additional pleadings, documents or orders should have been attached thereto.

GR NO. 157851

2007-06-29

ATTY. ANDREA UY v. ARLENE VILLANUEVA

NACHURA, J.

The Court's ruling in the case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines[40] is most instructive, to wit:It is evident, therefore, that aside from the assailed decision, order or resolution, not every pleading or document mentioned in the petition is required to be submitted only those that are pertinent and relevant to the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. If, upon its initial review of the petition, the CA is of the view that additional pleadings, documents or order should have been submitted and appended to the petition, the following are its options: (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period.

GR NO. 172401

2006-10-30

CARLOS G. AZUL v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The seriousness of petitioner's infraction demanded the setting aside of strict rules of procedure as to allow the determination on the merits of whether he was lawfully dismissed. As held by this Court, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases, because they must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[9]

GR NO. 164816

2006-09-27

MA. ELLAINE D. PANAGA v. CA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

SEC. 13. Proof of service. - Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the 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[10] of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. (Emphasis, italics, and underscoring supplied) The procedural flaw notwithstanding, especially considering that this is a labor case and the decision of the NLRC differs from that of the Labor Arbiter, the ends of substantial justice would be better served by relaxing the application of technical rules of procedure.[11]

GR NO. 150819

2006-07-27

MARIO SUAN v. CA

TINGA, J.

In the recent and very similar case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[13] we held that aside from the assailed decision, order or resolution, not every pleading or document mentioned in the petition is required to be submitted, but only those that are pertinent and relevant to the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner.

GR No. 142937

2005-11-15

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. MARITA A. ANGARA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In similar cases,[35] the Court ordinarily remands the case to the CA for proper disposition on the merits. However, in the present case, considering the issues raised and the fact that the records of the case are before us, the Court deems it more appropriate and practical to resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further delay.[36]

	GR No. 179640 2015-03-18	HACIENDA CATAYWA v. ROSARIO LOREZO PERALTA, J.
When the CA dismisses a petition outright and the petitioner files a motion for the reconsideration of such dismissal, appending thereto the requisite pleadings, documents or order/resolution, this would constitute substantial compliance with the Revised Rules of Court.[13] Thus, in the present case, there was substantial compliance when in their Motion for Reconsideration, they attached a secretary certificate giving Joemarie's authority to sign on behalf of the corporation. Petitioners also included the necessary attachment.[14]
	GR No. 168240 2011-02-09	AURORA B. GO v. ELMER SUNBANUN DEL CASTILLO, J.
The second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 65 requires the submission of a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition as well as the submission of copies of all pleadings and documents relevant to the petition. "The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or order are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. [Should the CA opine that additional documents must be submitted together with the petition, it may] (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of [Section 3,] Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period."[29] We emphasize that not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached, but only those which are material and pertinent that they may provide the basis for a determination of a prima facie case for abuse of discretion.[30]
	GR No. 173931 2009-04-02	ALICIA D. TAGARO v. ESTER A. GARCIA TINGA, J.
Moreover, the full adjudication of the merits of an appeal is, in our jurisdiction, a matter of judicial policy,[46] and cases materially or substantially similar to the one at bar should invite the Court's attention to the merits if only to preclude the inequity that would result from the outright denial of the appeal.
	GR No. 161070 2008-04-14	JOHN HILARIO Y SIBAL v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. If, upon its initial review of the petition, the CA is of the view that additional pleadings, documents or order should have been submitted and appended to the petition, the following are its options: (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period.[11]
	GR NO. 159422 2008-03-28	CHINESE YMCA OF MANILA DOWNTOWN v. REGISTER OF DEEDS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Ordinarily, the Court would remand the case to the CA for proper disposition of the petition on the merits.[44] The particular surrounding facts and circumstances in the present case, however, prevent the Court from doing so. In the meantime that the
	GR NO. 159919 2007-08-08	COMPOSITE ENTERPRISES v. EMILIO M. CAPAROSO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Ordinarily, the case should be remanded to the CA for proper disposition of the petition for certiorari on the merits;[31] but that would further delay the case. Considering that the lone issue raised can be readily resolved in this instance, the Court deems it more practical and in the greater interest of justice not to remand the case to the CA but, instead, to resolve this case once and for all.[32]
	GR NO. 161304 2007-07-27	SPS. ARTURO CONDES AND NORA CONDES v. CA NACHURA, J.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. The rule does not specify the precise documents, pleadings, or parts of the records that should be appended to the petition other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being assailed. These documents and pleadings are generally the ones needed by the reviewing courts to decide whether to give due course to the petition.[18] The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner.[19] Thereafter, the CA will review the petition and determine whether additional pleadings, documents or orders should have been attached thereto.
	GR NO. 157851 2007-06-29	ATTY. ANDREA UY v. ARLENE VILLANUEVA NACHURA, J.
The Court's ruling in the case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines[40] is most instructive, to wit:It is evident, therefore, that aside from the assailed decision, order or resolution, not every pleading or document mentioned in the petition is required to be submitted only those that are pertinent and relevant to the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner. If, upon its initial review of the petition, the CA is of the view that additional pleadings, documents or order should have been submitted and appended to the petition, the following are its options: (a) dismiss the petition under the last paragraph of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; (b) order the petitioner to submit the required additional pleadings, documents, or order within a specific period of time; or (c) order the petitioner to file an amended petition appending thereto the required pleadings, documents or order within a fixed period.
	GR NO. 172401 2006-10-30	CARLOS G. AZUL v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The seriousness of petitioner's infraction demanded the setting aside of strict rules of procedure as to allow the determination on the merits of whether he was lawfully dismissed. As held by this Court, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice, particularly in labor cases, because they must be decided according to justice and equity and the substantial merits of the controversy.[9]
	GR NO. 164816 2006-09-27	MA. ELLAINE D. PANAGA v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
SEC. 13. Proof of service. - Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the 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[10] of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. (Emphasis, italics, and underscoring supplied) The procedural flaw notwithstanding, especially considering that this is a labor case and the decision of the NLRC differs from that of the Labor Arbiter, the ends of substantial justice would be better served by relaxing the application of technical rules of procedure.[11]
	GR NO. 150819 2006-07-27	MARIO SUAN v. CA TINGA, J.
In the recent and very similar case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,[13] we held that aside from the assailed decision, order or resolution, not every pleading or document mentioned in the petition is required to be submitted, but only those that are pertinent and relevant to the judgment, order or resolution subject of the petition. The initial determination of what pleadings, documents or orders are relevant and pertinent to the petition rests on the petitioner.
	GR No. 142937 2005-11-15	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. MARITA A. ANGARA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In similar cases,[35] the Court ordinarily remands the case to the CA for proper disposition on the merits. However, in the present case, considering the issues raised and the fact that the records of the case are before us, the Court deems it more appropriate and practical to resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further delay.[36]

JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES