Ferrer v. Villanueva
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner, Col. Arturo C. Ferrer (Ret.), president and general manager of Odin Security Agency, Inc., was involved in a bidding process for security services at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). Odin Security Agency, Inc. was disqualified from further participation in the bidding by the PICC's Prequalification, Bidding and Awards Committee (PBAC) due to a client survey indicating performance that was not "very satisfactory." Petitioner's request for reconsideration and the names of the informants was denied by the PBAC, citing confidentiality. 2. Procedural History: Following the PBAC's decision, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the PBAC members for violating Republic Act No. 6713. The Ombudsman dismissed this complaint for lack of substantial evidence, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed this petition outright for failure to serve a copy on the private respondents and the agency a quo, and for not attaching all relevant pleadings and documents, specifically mentioning the Joint Counter-Affidavit. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA's dismissal was also denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The sole issue raised is whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to Petitioner's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of proof of service and the attachment of all relevant and pertinent documents, as mandated by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Sections 13 of Rule 13 and Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 46.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 63645 for petitioner’s failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for petitioner’s failure to attach material and relevant documents as required by Section 1, Rule 65 and Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The challenged Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63645 are affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: The Court held that proof of service is a mandatory requirement, not only for motions but also, with more reason, for a petition for certiorari in view of Section 3, Rule 46, which explicitly requires that the petition be filed "together with proof of service thereof." The Court found no question that the petitioner was remiss in complying with this rule. The lack of proof of service was deemed a fatal defect. The Court emphasized that utter disregard of procedural rules cannot be justified by invoking substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction, as technical rules of procedure are designed to ensure the orderly disposition of cases and prevent the clogging of court dockets. On the failure to attach material and relevant documents: The Court further ruled that even if the rule on proof of service were relaxed, the petitioner's failure to attach material and relevant documents to his petition filed with the Court of Appeals was a sufficient ground for dismissal. Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, clearly states that a petition for certiorari shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The failure to comply with these requirements is sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner should have attached documents such as the Joint Counter-Affidavit of the respondents, as without them, the allegations in the petition were considered bare allegations.
Main Doctrine
Failure to comply with mandatory procedural rules, such as providing proof of service and attaching relevant documents to a petition for certiorari, constitutes a fatal defect sufficient to warrant outright dismissal, and such non-compliance cannot be excused by invoking substantial justice or liberal construction of the rules.