Republic of the Philippines v. Carmel Development, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Carmel Development, Inc. (Carmel) filed a complaint for recovery of possession against the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and the Caloocan City School Board. Carmel sought to recover a parcel of land allegedly occupied by the Pangarap Elementary School and Pangarap High School, which were established by the DECS. Procedural History: The DECS and the School Board were declared in default by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City for failing to file an answer within the reglementary period. However, the RTC later lifted the order of default and allowed the DECS to file an answer, finding substantial compliance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 regarding forum shopping. The DECS's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The DECS then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to annul the RTC's orders. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting the DECS to file the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: The DECS filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The DECS assails the CA's dismissal of its petition, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of not attaching certified true copies of the assailed orders, in not ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia, and in ruling that Carmel complied with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The DECS contends that Carmel's certification against forum shopping, signed by its counsel instead of the principal party, is a fatal defect.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was not accompanied by certified true copies of the assailed orders but only duplicate originals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that grave abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court when it denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss notwithstanding the fact that private respondent's pleading shows litis pendentia. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that private respondent has complied with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the complaint filed by Carmel Development, Inc. without prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Propriety of Dismissal of the Petition): The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari solely on the ground that it was accompanied by duplicate originals instead of certified true copies of the assailed orders. The Court clarified that original actions for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals are governed by Rule 46, which requires a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy. Rule 65 supplements Rule 46. While the Order dated August 17, 1998, did not strictly meet the requirements of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 3-96 for duplicate originals, there was substantial compliance, especially since the primary assailed order was dated June 15, 1998, which was duly signed. A liberal construction of the Rules was invoked to achieve substantial justice. On the second issue (Litis Pendentia): The Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia without a proper hearing. The Court emphasized that Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court allow for the presentation of evidence during the hearing of a motion to dismiss. The charge of forum shopping or litis pendentia requires proof, and the Department of Education should have been given an opportunity to present its evidence. The Court held that the hasty denial of the motion to dismiss without a hearing constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the third issue (Compliance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94): The Supreme Court found that Carmel Development, Inc. failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 (now Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court) regarding the certification against forum shopping. The certification was executed by Carmel's counsel, Juan Victor R. Llamas, and not by the party or a principal officer. The Court distinguished this from cases where an in-house counsel, who is in the best position to know the status of pending cases, executed the certification. The Court held that a certification by a retained counsel does not constitute substantial compliance and is a fatal defect, leading to the dismissal of the case without prejudice.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals is governed by Rule 46, which applies to original actions for certiorari, and is supplemented by Rule 65. The failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed orders, instead of duplicate originals, is not a sufficient ground for dismissal if there is substantial compliance. Furthermore, a motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia or forum shopping requires a hearing to allow parties to present proof, and a hasty denial without such opportunity constitutes grave abuse of discretion. A certification against forum shopping executed by a retained counsel, not the party himself, is a fatal defect and not a mere substantial compliance, unless the counsel is an in-house counsel with direct knowledge of all pending cases.