Atillo v. Bombay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nelia Atillo entered into a Lease Agreement with respondent Buenaventura Bombay for a commercial building. Petitioner failed to pay rentals starting January 1995. Respondent sent a written demand for petitioner to pay and vacate, which petitioner failed to heed. Petitioner claimed the building was owned by the heirs of Tomas Escaraman and that respondent was no longer the owner. Petitioner then entered into a new lease agreement with the heirs of Escaraman and paid rentals to them. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the ejectment case filed by respondent, ruling that respondent was not the proper party in interest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, ruling in favor of respondent and ordering petitioner to vacate and pay back rentals. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA dismissed petitioner's petition for review on the ground that she failed to attach the pleadings and other material portions of the record as required by Section 2(d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, reiterating that the requirement was mandatory and that petitioner's refusal to submit the missing documents was unjustified. Hence, the present petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground of failure to attach pleadings and other material portions of the record. Whether Section 2(d), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is directory or mandatory regarding the attachment of pleadings and other material portions of the record. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in awarding back rentals to the respondent.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the mandatory nature of Section 2(d), Rule 42: The Court held that Section 2(d) of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, which requires the attachment of "pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition," is mandatory. While the petitioner initially exercises discretion in selecting relevant documents, the Court of Appeals ultimately determines their sufficiency. Section 3 of Rule 42 explicitly states that failure to comply with the requisites regarding the documents accompanying the petition is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court emphasized that the purpose of these annexes is to enable the appellate court to determine, without necessarily elevating the original record, whether the petition has prima facie merit or is patently without merit. The Court found that petitioner did not even come close to substantially complying with the requirements, as the documents attached were insufficient to support her claims regarding the award of back rentals and the dispute over ownership and lease rights. The Court noted that petitioner's obstinate refusal to submit the missing documents, even in her motion for reconsideration, distinguished her case from those where leniency was granted due to substantial compliance or subsequent submission of evidence. On the issue of whether Section 2(d), Rule 42 is directory or mandatory: The Court reiterated that Section 3 of Rule 42 clearly states that failure to comply with the requirements regarding the documents that should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. While the phrase "as would support the allegations of the petition" suggests some discretion, this discretion is not unbridled. The CA has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion to ensure that the submission of documents is not merely perfunctory and that the petition has prima facie merit. In this case, the insufficiency of the supporting documents, coupled with the petitioner's unjustified refusal to comply, justified the dismissal. The Court distinguished this case from Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz where there was substantial compliance and an effort to substantiate allegations, warranting leniency. Here, the petitioner remained obstinate and insisted on her counsel's discretion, leaving no room for leniency. On the issue of the award of back rentals: The Court found that the dismissal of the petition by the CA rendered the issue of back rentals moot, as the CA did not rule on the merits of the case due to the procedural defect. The Court reiterated that the petitioner failed to provide the necessary supporting documents to substantiate her claims regarding the back rentals, such as the lease agreement, letters evidencing alleged credit, and other vital documentary evidence. Without these, her allegations remained bare assertions, and the CA had no factual basis to rule on the merits of the award. Therefore, the CA's dismissal was justified based on the procedural infirmity, and the substantive issue of back rentals could not be addressed.
Main Doctrine
The failure to attach the required pleadings and other material portions of the record to a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, which are necessary to support the allegations of the petition, is a ground for dismissal, as such requirement is mandatory and not merely directory, especially when the petitioner obstinately refuses to comply even after being given an opportunity to do so.