Vergel de Dios v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Dominador Vergel de Dios initiated ejectment suits against private respondents Valentin Sarmiento and Reynaldo Venturina concerning a two-hectare farmholding leased to Sarmiento, who allegedly abandoned it by selling his rights to Venturina. Petitioner also claimed Venturina cultivated an additional 3.75 hectares without consent or rent. These cases, initially filed in the Regional Trial Court, were referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) due to their agrarian nature. 2. Procedural History: The Provincial Adjudicator ruled in favor of petitioner, finding the leasehold with Sarmiento extinguished and ordering Venturina to vacate. However, the DARAB reversed this decision, finding petitioner's evidence insufficient and giving weight to evidence suggesting Valentin Sarmiento, not Venturina, continued to cultivate the land, and that Venturina was the lawful tenant of the 3.75-hectare lot, having paid rentals accepted by petitioner. The DARAB dismissed the complaints and ordered a formal leasehold contract for Venturina. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then sought an extension to file a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals denied the extension, citing improper remedy and a violation of Circular No. 28-91 regarding forum shopping. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the petition as late. Petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration were also denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks certiorari from this Court, arguing the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying his motion for extension. He contends the Court of Appeals erred in deeming his intended petition as certiorari rather than a petition for review, and in applying the forum shopping certification requirement to a motion for extension. Petitioner asserts that the petition he actually filed on August 23, 1996, was a proper petition for review under Circular No. 1-95, satisfying all its requirements, and that the certification against forum shopping was later attached. He argues the Court of Appeals' procedural missteps were hasty and unwarranted.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for extension to file a petition for review, particularly by prematurely concluding the intent to file a petition for certiorari. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying Circular No. 28-91 regarding the certification against forum shopping to the motion for extension, and whether the subsequent filing of a compliant petition for review cured any defect.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The resolutions dated August 30, 1996, September 18, 1996, and November 15, 1996, of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. Petitioner's petition for review in the Court of Appeals is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Grave Abuse of Discretion by the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for extension. The appellate court was hasty in concluding that petitioner intended to file a petition for certiorari based solely on the language used in the motion for extension. The Court emphasized that the appellate court should have waited for the actual petition to be filed, especially since the motion for extension was filed within the reglementary period for a petition for review. The fact that an extension was sought should have alerted the Court of Appeals to the possibility of a petition for review being the intended filing. As it turned out, the petition actually filed was a petition for review that complied with the requirements of Circular No. 1-95, including a statement of parties, material dates, nature of the action, summary of proceedings, evidence analysis, and attached copies of the assailed decisions and a valid certification against forum shopping. The inclusion of the DARAB as a respondent, which is characteristic of a certiorari petition, was deemed an innocuous feature that should not have detracted from the petition's true nature as a petition for review, citing Tuazon v. Court of Appeals. On the Application of Circular No. 28-91: The Supreme Court further found grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals' application of the certification against forum shopping requirement under Circular No. 28-91 to the motion for extension. The Court clarified that Circular No. 28-91 requires such certification in "every petition filed," and a motion for extension is not the petition itself. While attaching a certification to a motion for extension could be considered compliance even if none was attached to the subsequent petition, the reverse is not true. Therefore, the petitioner's failure to attach a properly executed certification to the motion for extension was not fatal, as the correct certification was attached to the petition when it was filed. The Court reiterated that the petition for review filed by the petitioner met all the necessary requirements.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying a motion for extension to file a petition for review on the grounds that the intended petition was not the proper remedy and for violation of Circular No. 28-91 regarding certification against forum shopping, especially when the actual petition filed was a petition for review that complied with the requirements, and the certification against forum shopping was later attached.