Lawyerly

GR No. 167710

2009-06-05

PERALTA, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[41] and Wee v. Galvez,[42] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States; thus, the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the Rules. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked, as the parties' case was meritorious. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging and Development Corporation,[44] the Court also found, among other reasons, that the extreme difficulty to secure all the required signatures and the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case constitute compelling reasons for allowing the petition.

GR No. 159127

2008-03-03

RAMON GERARDO B. SAN LUIS v. vs. PABLITO M. ROJAS in his capacity as Presiding Judge

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[15], we held:The proper recourse of an aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, if the error, subject of the recourse, is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. As enunciated by the Court in Fortich vs. Corona:

GR No. 157573

2008-02-11

Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As to respondent's subsequent submission of the complaint and answer as well as other material portions of the records of the case, the Court has ruled in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[19] Jaro v. Court of Appeals[20] and Donato v. Court of Appeals,[21] that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. The Court's pronouncement in Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] is worth echoing: "Cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served."[23] Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.[24]

GR NO. 167003

2006-10-23

PANFILO A. ABAIGAR v. JESUS A. ABAIGAR

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

Thus, in Donato v. Court of Appeals[7] where the therein petitioner was, at the time of he filing of the petition, in the United States where he was residing, the Rule on certification against forum shopping was relaxed. The petition for review filed before the CA contains a certification against forum shopping but said certification was signed by petitioner's counsel. In submitting the certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by himself in his motion for reconsideration, petitioner has aptly drawn the Court's attention to the physical impossibility of filing the petition for review within the 15-day reglementary period to appeal considering that he is a resident of 1125 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia, U.S.A. were he to personally accomplish and sign the certification.

GR NO. 166279

2006-06-30

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. ALADDIN TRANSIT CORP.

CARPIO MORALES, J.

While cases should, to serve the ends of justice, be determined on the merits, after full opportunity is afforded all parties to ventilate their cause and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections, this only holds true if parties endeavor to satisfactorily explain the lapse and subsequently comply with the requirements.[38]

GR NO. 147989

2006-02-20

ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals[39] and Wee v. Galvez[40] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States, thus the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. In Orbeta v. Sendiong[41] the Court found that the annulment of judgment filed by the parties was meritorious thus the certification signed by the daughter of petitioner who had a general power of attorney in her favor was deemed sufficient. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals[42] the Court also upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked as the parties' case was meritorious.

GR NO. 164876

2006-01-23

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LEONILA P. CELADA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on three technical grounds, namely: (a) lack of affidavit of service; (b) failure of counsel to indicate his Roll of Attorneys' number; and (c) failure to attach material portions of the records. However, the lack of affidavit of service is not deemed fatal where the petition filed below is accompanied by the original registry receipts showing that the petition and its annexes were served upon the parties.[16] On the other hand, the failure of counsel to indicate his Roll of Attorneys' number would not affect respondent's substantive rights, such that petitioner's counsel could have been directed to comply with the latter requirement rather than dismiss the petition on purely technical grounds. As for petitioner's failure to attach material portions of the records, we held in Donato v. Court of Appeals[17] that:[T]he failure of the petitioner to x x x append to his petition copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the records as would support the petition, does not justify the outright dismissal of the petition. It must be emphasized that the RIRCA (Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) gives the appellate court a certain leeway to require parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in the interest of substantial justice. Under Section 3, paragraph d of Rule 3 of the RIRCA, the CA may require the parties to complete the annexes as the court deems necessary, and if the petition is given due course, the CA may require the elevation of a complete record of the case as provided for under Section 3(d)(5) of Rule 6 of the RIRCA x x x.[18] An examination of the records and pleadings filed before the Court of Appeals reveals that there was substantial compliance with procedural requirements. Moreover, we have held time and again that cases should, as much as possible, be determined on the merits after the parties have been given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfection.[19] After all, technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily devised to help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may be construed liberally in order to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice.[20]

GR NO. 165821

2005-06-21

HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the same vein, the appellate court erred in the outright dismissal of the petition for failure of petitioners to avail of the proper remedy of appeal under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, the ends of justice would be better served if substantial issues would be squarely addressed, especially so, where either side stands to lose a family home. Courts must see to it that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to be deprived of life, honor or property on mere technicalities.[22]

GR NO. 144755

2005-06-08

SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is simply to prohibit and penalize the evils of forumshopping.[29] The fact that the rules on forumshopping require strict compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[30]

GR No. 147575

2004-10-22

TERESITA B. MENDOZA v. BETH DAVID

CARPIO, J.

In Donato v. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on two grounds: (a) the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner's counsel and not by petitioner himself;[13] and (b) only a certified copy of the questioned decision was annexed to the petition leaving out copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record to support the allegations of the petition. This Court reversed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the case since in petitioner's motion for reconsideration, he submitted a certificate of non-forum shopping signed by him and attached copies of the pleadings and material portions of the records. This Court considered the subsequent filing of the certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by petitioner himself as substantial compliance which justifies relaxation of the rule. As regards the failure to attach the necessary pleadings and material portions of the records, this Court held:In like manner, the failure of the petitioner to comply with Section 3, paragraph b, Rule 6 of the RIRCA, that is, to append to his petition copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the records as would support the petition, does not justify the outright dismissal of the petition. It must be emphasized that the RIRCA gives the appellate court a certain leeway to require parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in the interest of substantial justice. Under Section 3, paragraph d of Rule 3 of the RIRCA, the CA may require the parties to complete the annexes as the court deems necessary, and if the petition is given due course, the CA may require the elevation of a complete record of the case as provided for under Section 3(d)(5) of Rule 6 of the RIRCA. At any rate, petitioner attached copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the records below with his motion for reconsideration. In Jaro vs. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz and Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. xxx (Emphasis supplied)

	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals[41] and Wee v. Galvez,[42] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States; thus, the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the Rules. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked, as the parties' case was meritorious. In Torres v. Specialized Packaging and Development Corporation,[44] the Court also found, among other reasons, that the extreme difficulty to secure all the required signatures and the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case constitute compelling reasons for allowing the petition.
	GR No. 159127 2008-03-03	RAMON GERARDO B. SAN LUIS v. vs. PABLITO M. ROJAS in his capacity as Presiding Judge AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals[15], we held:The proper recourse of an aggrieved party from a decision of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, if the error, subject of the recourse, is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. As enunciated by the Court in Fortich vs. Corona:
	GR No. 157573 2008-02-11	Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to respondent's subsequent submission of the complaint and answer as well as other material portions of the records of the case, the Court has ruled in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,[19] Jaro v. Court of Appeals[20] and Donato v. Court of Appeals,[21] that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. The Court's pronouncement in Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] is worth echoing: "Cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served."[23] Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.[24]
	GR NO. 167003 2006-10-23	PANFILO A. ABAIGAR v. JESUS A. ABAIGAR CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Thus, in Donato v. Court of Appeals[7] where the therein petitioner was, at the time of he filing of the petition, in the United States where he was residing, the Rule on certification against forum shopping was relaxed. The petition for review filed before the CA contains a certification against forum shopping but said certification was signed by petitioner's counsel. In submitting the certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by himself in his motion for reconsideration, petitioner has aptly drawn the Court's attention to the physical impossibility of filing the petition for review within the 15-day reglementary period to appeal considering that he is a resident of 1125 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia, U.S.A. were he to personally accomplish and sign the certification.
	GR NO. 166279 2006-06-30	PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. ALADDIN TRANSIT CORP. CARPIO MORALES, J.
While cases should, to serve the ends of justice, be determined on the merits, after full opportunity is afforded all parties to ventilate their cause and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections, this only holds true if parties endeavor to satisfactorily explain the lapse and subsequently comply with the requirements.[38]
	GR NO. 147989 2006-02-20	ROLANDO CLAVECILLA v. TERESITO QUITAIN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals[39] and Wee v. Galvez[40] the Court noted that the petitioners were already in the United States, thus the signing of the certification by their authorized representatives was deemed sufficient compliance with the rules. In Orbeta v. Sendiong[41] the Court found that the annulment of judgment filed by the parties was meritorious thus the certification signed by the daughter of petitioner who had a general power of attorney in her favor was deemed sufficient. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals[42] the Court also upheld substantial justice and ruled that the failure of the parties to sign the certification may be overlooked as the parties' case was meritorious.
	GR NO. 164876 2006-01-23	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LEONILA P. CELADA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on three technical grounds, namely: (a) lack of affidavit of service; (b) failure of counsel to indicate his Roll of Attorneys' number; and (c) failure to attach material portions of the records. However, the lack of affidavit of service is not deemed fatal where the petition filed below is accompanied by the original registry receipts showing that the petition and its annexes were served upon the parties.[16] On the other hand, the failure of counsel to indicate his Roll of Attorneys' number would not affect respondent's substantive rights, such that petitioner's counsel could have been directed to comply with the latter requirement rather than dismiss the petition on purely technical grounds. As for petitioner's failure to attach material portions of the records, we held in Donato v. Court of Appeals[17] that:[T]he failure of the petitioner to x x x append to his petition copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the records as would support the petition, does not justify the outright dismissal of the petition. It must be emphasized that the RIRCA (Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) gives the appellate court a certain leeway to require parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in the interest of substantial justice. Under Section 3, paragraph d of Rule 3 of the RIRCA, the CA may require the parties to complete the annexes as the court deems necessary, and if the petition is given due course, the CA may require the elevation of a complete record of the case as provided for under Section 3(d)(5) of Rule 6 of the RIRCA x x x.[18] An examination of the records and pleadings filed before the Court of Appeals reveals that there was substantial compliance with procedural requirements. Moreover, we have held time and again that cases should, as much as possible, be determined on the merits after the parties have been given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfection.[19] After all, technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily devised to help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may be construed liberally in order to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice.[20]
	GR NO. 165821 2005-06-21	HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the same vein, the appellate court erred in the outright dismissal of the petition for failure of petitioners to avail of the proper remedy of appeal under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, the ends of justice would be better served if substantial issues would be squarely addressed, especially so, where either side stands to lose a family home. Courts must see to it that a party litigant is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to be deprived of life, honor or property on mere technicalities.[22]
	GR NO. 144755 2005-06-08	SPS. ELISEO F. ESTARES AND ROSENDA P. ESTARES v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is simply to prohibit and penalize the evils of forumshopping.[29] The fact that the rules on forumshopping require strict compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature that it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[30]
	GR No. 147575 2004-10-22	TERESITA B. MENDOZA v. BETH DAVID CARPIO, J.
In Donato v. Court of Appeals,[12] the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on two grounds: (a) the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner's counsel and not by petitioner himself;[13] and (b) only a certified copy of the questioned decision was annexed to the petition leaving out copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record to support the allegations of the petition. This Court reversed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the case since in petitioner's motion for reconsideration, he submitted a certificate of non-forum shopping signed by him and attached copies of the pleadings and material portions of the records. This Court considered the subsequent filing of the certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by petitioner himself as substantial compliance which justifies relaxation of the rule. As regards the failure to attach the necessary pleadings and material portions of the records, this Court held:In like manner, the failure of the petitioner to comply with Section 3, paragraph b, Rule 6 of the RIRCA, that is, to append to his petition copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the records as would support the petition, does not justify the outright dismissal of the petition. It must be emphasized that the RIRCA gives the appellate court a certain leeway to require parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in the interest of substantial justice. Under Section 3, paragraph d of Rule 3 of the RIRCA, the CA may require the parties to complete the annexes as the court deems necessary, and if the petition is given due course, the CA may require the elevation of a complete record of the case as provided for under Section 3(d)(5) of Rule 6 of the RIRCA. At any rate, petitioner attached copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the records below with his motion for reconsideration. In Jaro vs. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz and Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. xxx (Emphasis supplied)

ANTONIO T. DONATO v. CA