Zapanta v. Co
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Co King Ki, through his Attorney-in-Fact William Co, filed an Ejectment complaint against petitioners Narciso Zapanta, Edilberto Capulong, Clarita Capulong, Ernesto de Guzman, Marciano Martin, and Lawrence Smith. Respondent claimed ownership of the subject property in Barangay San Francisco, Lubao, Pampanga. The defendants asserted they were qualified farmer beneficiaries and that the property had been foreclosed by the Philippine Veterans Bank as early as August 15, 1983. 2. Procedural History: The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled in favor of the respondent on December 27, 2007, declaring the defendants as illegal occupants and ordering them to vacate. After the defendants' counsel received this decision on February 15, 2008, a motion for reconsideration was filed on February 29, 2008, which was denied on June 5, 2008. The denial was received by the counsel on June 18, 2008. A new counsel filed a Notice of Appeal on June 30, 2008. The PARAD denied this appeal on September 18, 2008, for being filed out of time, opining that the appeal period expired on June 23, 2008. A subsequent motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied, and a Writ of Execution was issued on December 4, 2008. Petitioners, along with Ernesto and Marciano, then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the CA's Resolution dated November 20, 2009, which dismissed their certiorari petition for failing to attach legible duplicate original/certified true copies of the assailed PARAD orders and for not elevating the case to the DARAB. They also assailed the CA's Resolution dated March 22, 2010, denying their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners argue that the CA erred in strictly applying Rule 46 and in ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy, asserting substantial compliance and the inadequacy of appeal due to the threat of execution and demolition. They sought liberal construction of the rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA committed a serious reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari based on a strict application of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the attachment of legible copies. Whether the CA committed a serious reversible error in ruling that petitioners’ remedy was to elevate their case to the DARAB and not through a petition for certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the CA dismissing the petition for certiorari due to defective attachments: The Court found that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to append clearly legible duplicate original/certified true copies of the assailed PARAD Orders, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. While petitioners claimed substantial compliance, the rules require strict adherence to such procedural requirements to ensure the integrity and legibility of the documents presented for review. The purpose of this rule is to enable the appellate court to properly appreciate the records and make a sound judgment. Failure to comply with this mandatory requirement warrants the dismissal of the petition. On the issue of the CA ruling that the proper remedy was an appeal to the DARAB and not certiorari: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling. The petitioners received the PARAD Decision on February 15, 2008. They filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 29, 2008, which was denied, and they received the denial on June 18, 2008. Under the 1994 DARAB New Rules of Procedure, the filing of a motion for reconsideration suspends the period to appeal. The remaining period for appeal, reckoned from the receipt of the denial, was only one day, i.e., until June 19, 2008. However, their new counsel filed the Notice of Appeal on June 30, 2008, which was clearly out of time. Since the appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period due to petitioners' negligence, their remedy of appeal was lost. A special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal that has been lost due to negligence. The purpose of certiorari is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment. Resort to certiorari is precluded when the remedy of appeal is available but was lost due to the party's own fault. The Court reiterated that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but are essential for the orderly administration of justice and should be conscientiously observed.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal that was lost due to the petitioner's own negligence or failure to comply with procedural rules, particularly the timeliness of filing.