Garcia v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Juan G. Garcia, Jr. and Doroteo C. Gaerlan are stockholders of Garcia Pasion Development Corporation (GPDC), a family corporation. They are defendants in a stockholders' derivative suit filed by GPDC, represented by Ramona G. Ayesa and Marcelo F. Ayesa, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. GPDC is also a stockholder of Kenram Philippines, Inc. and Kenram Industrial Development, Inc. The underlying dispute involved the management and disposition of dividends declared by Kenram Philippines, Inc. and Kenram Industrial Development, Inc. to GPDC. Procedural History: On February 22, 2005, the parties filed a Joint Motion with the RTC seeking an order to have all dividends declared or to be declared by Kenram companies payable to GPDC be delivered to the Branch Clerk of Court, deposited in a court-designated bank account in GPDC's name, and that no withdrawals be made without court approval. The RTC partially granted this, directing dividends be delivered to the Office of the Clerk of Court. A subsequent Joint Motion to Amend this order, requesting the deposit into a specific bank account with withdrawal restrictions, was denied by the RTC on April 7, 2005, citing the Manual for Clerks of Court which mandates deposits be made in the name of the court. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the RTC's Orders of February 22, 2005, and April 7, 2005. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition for failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders, as required by Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration, which also failed to attach certified true copies, was denied. The instant petition before the Supreme Court argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing their certiorari petition on a mere technicality and seeks a liberal application of the rules. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition, affirming the dismissal due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for filing a certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed RTC Orders. Whether the RTC's denial of the motion to have dividends deposited in a GPDC account, instead of the Office of the Clerk of Court, was proper.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal by the Court of Appeals: The Court held that the acceptance of a petition for certiorari is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, requires strict observance of the rules. Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, mandates that the petition be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof. Similarly, Section 3, Rule 46 of the same Rules requires a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the questioned order. The petitioners failed to attach duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed RTC Orders, instead appending machine or xerox copies. This contravened the explicit requirements of the rules, and such failure is a sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court reiterated that liberality in the application of rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable circumstances, which were not present here. The petitioners' failure to comply with the rules, even in their motion for reconsideration, demonstrated an impervious attitude towards procedural requirements. On the propriety of the RTC's denial of the motion to deposit dividends: The Court found no merit in the petitioners' prayer that the Branch Clerk of Court be directed to open an account in the name of GPDC. Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, and the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, clearly prescribe the procedure for the administration of Court Fiduciary Funds. Specifically, deposits shall be made in the name of the Court, and the Clerk of Court shall be the custodian of the passbook. The RTC's denial was consistent with these rules, which mandate that fiduciary funds be deposited in the name of the Court, not in the name of a private corporation.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari must strictly comply with the requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, including the attachment of a certified true copy or duplicate original copy of the assailed order, and failure to do so is a sufficient ground for dismissal.