Lazaro v. Altre Castillo, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Issuance of Writ of Demolition against petitioner and others with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20532. Procedural History: Petitioner and co-defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for non-compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Private respondent filed an opposition and attached the required certification. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, directing defendants to file their answer. A subsequent order treated petitioner's Reply as a motion for reconsideration and denied it, clarifying the reglementary period to plead. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari, questioning the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss despite the subsequent submission of the certification of non-forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of non-compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94, despite the subsequent submission of the required certification. Whether the belated submission of the certification of non-forum shopping constitutes substantial compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to file his responsive pleading in Civil Case No. Q-94-20532 within ten (10) days from notice of this resolution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss: The Court reiterated that Administrative Circular No. 04-94, requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, is mandatory. However, it has been held that substantial compliance therewith is sufficient. The Circular was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate an orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure, which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible. The fact that the Circular requires strict compliance merely underscores its mandatory nature, meaning it cannot be dispensed with or its requirements altogether disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances. On the issue of substantial compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94: In this case, the private respondent, in his motion to dismiss the petition, pointed out that the filing of the required certification was done with dispatch by his counsel upon realization of the existence of said circular, admitting his unawareness of the Circular at the time he filed his complaint. The Court considered the proximity of the filing of the complaint to the effectivity date of the Circular as a justifiable circumstance. Therefore, the belated filing of the certification was deemed a substantial compliance. The Court ruled pro hac vice that this special circumstance could sustain the action of the respondent Judge, but cautioned that this should not be taken as a precedent. The mere submission of a certification under Administrative Circular No. 04-94 after the filing of a motion to dismiss on the ground of non-compliance does not ipso facto operate as a substantial compliance; otherwise, the Circular would lose its value or efficacy.
Main Doctrine
While Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring a certification of non-forum shopping is mandatory, substantial compliance is sufficient. The proximity of the filing of the complaint to the effectivity of the circular may be considered a justifiable circumstance for belated filing, but this should not be taken as a precedent.