Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. v. Campos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Aniceto Manojo Campos (Campos) filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract with Damages against Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Campos alleged that he paid the full consideration for two Molasses Sales Agreements but only received partial delivery due to a disagreement over product quality. Procedural History: More than six years after NOPA filed its Answer, NOPA filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging Campos failed to pay the correct docket fees by deliberately estimating the value of unwithdrawn molasses. The RTC denied NOPA's Motion to Dismiss and its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. NOPA then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA dismissed NOPA's Petition for Certiorari on three grounds: (a) failure to state in the Verification that allegations were based on "authentic records" or "personal knowledge" as required by Section 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; (b) failure to append relevant pleadings and documents as required by Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; and (c) failure of NOPA's counsel to indicate his IBP Official Receipt Number. NOPA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, attaching an Amended Petition, which the CA denied. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that there was no substantial compliance with the procedural requirements when petitioner failed to allege in its verification that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records and failed to attach the necessary documents on its pleadings as required by Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari.
Ruling
The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 23 May 2007 and 16 August 2007, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 02651, are AFFIRMED. The Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. against private respondent Aniceto Manojo Campos is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial compliance with verification and documentary requirements: The Court held that the amendment to Section 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, effective May 1, 2000, requires that a pleading be verified by an affidavit stating that the allegations are true and correct of the affiant's "personal knowledge or based on authentic records." The original verification in NOPA's petition, stating "true and correct to my own knowledge and belief," did not comply with this stricter requirement. The Court emphasized that a pleading with a defective verification is treated as an unsigned pleading, which produces no legal effect, unless the court, in its discretion, allows the deficiency to be remedied. The CA, in denying NOPA's motion for reconsideration and amended petition, exercised its discretion, and this exercise was not attended by grave abuse of discretion. The failure to append all relevant pleadings and documents, as mandated by Section 1, Rule 65, further supported the CA's dismissal. On whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. NOPA's petition for certiorari sought to reverse the RTC's denial of its motion to dismiss, which was based on alleged non-payment of proper docket fees. The Court noted that any deficiency in docket fees, if proven, would not inure to the benefit of NOPA, thus, no substantial right of NOPA was prejudiced by the CA's dismissal. The Court reiterated the principle that discretion is a sound, judicial discretion, not a willful or arbitrary one, and the CA's action was within its bounds. Furthermore, even if the procedural lapses were overlooked, the Court found that NOPA's substantive argument regarding the docket fees would still fail. The Court applied the liberal doctrine in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, which allows payment of additional docket fees within a reasonable period, to cases where there is no deliberate intent to defraud the court and a willingness to comply is shown. The alleged omitted amount by Campos was a small percentage of the total claimed, and the circumstances did not indicate a deliberate intent to defraud the court, thus the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss was proper.
Main Doctrine
A pleading required to be verified which lacks a proper verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading, producing no legal effect, subject to the court's discretion to allow the deficiency to be remedied. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing a petition for certiorari that failed to comply with the verification and documentary requirements, especially when no substantial right was prejudiced.