Suib v. Ebbah
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hadja Rawiya Suib's deceased husband owned a 12.6220-hectare land. In March 1990, Suib filed a qualified theft case against respondent Emong Ebbah for alleged illegal harvesting of coconuts. Ebbah claimed he was instituted as a tenant by Suib's husband since 1963, which Suib denied, stating her husband acquired the property only in 1981. Procedural History: The qualified theft case was dismissed by the RTC on the ground of res judicata, as Suib had previously filed a similar case against Ebbah which was also dismissed by the MTC. Ebbah then filed a case for Immediate Reinstatement and Damages before the PARAB, which dismissed his claim for lack of merit due to the absence of a tenancy relationship. On appeal, the DARAB reversed the PARAB, finding that the requisites for a tenancy relation were present and ordered Suib to respect Ebbah's tenancy. Suib appealed the DARAB decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Review under Rule 43. The Petition: The CA, in a Resolution dated May 10, 2006, required Suib to submit several documents, including a legible copy of the DARAB decision. Suib filed several supplements but was only able to attach the DARAB decision after almost two months. The CA, in a Resolution dated October 9, 2007, dismissed Suib's petition for failure to submit the DARAB decision as required. Suib's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated February 26, 2008. Suib then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's dismissal for grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail a final judgment of the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Suib's appeal for failure to timely submit the DARAB Decision, and whether Suib's appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. The Court also treated the petition for certiorari as a petition for review under Rule 45, but ultimately found the dismissal of the appeal to be procedurally correct.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that Suib availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail a final judgment of the Court of Appeals. A petition for certiorari is an original action based on grave abuse of discretion and lies only when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Since an appeal was available, certiorari was not the proper recourse. However, in the interest of substantial justice and liberality, the Court treated the petition as a petition for review under Rule 45, as it was filed within the reglementary period and raised errors of judgment. On the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals: The Court affirmed the dismissal of Suib's appeal by the Court of Appeals. The CA required Suib to submit a legible copy of the DARAB Decision, a mandatory requirement under Section 7, Rule 43 in relation to Section 1(g), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. Suib failed to submit this document within a reasonable period, submitting it almost two months after filing the petition. The Court emphasized that these rules are mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to comply is a sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court also noted that the appeal was filed eight years after the DARAB decision was received, which was well beyond the 15-day reglementary period for appeals under Rule 43, Section 4, further indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in accordance with law.
Main Doctrine
The failure to attach mandatory documents required by the Rules of Court, such as the appealed decision, to a petition for review is a sufficient ground for dismissal, as these rules are mandatory and jurisdictional. Furthermore, the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law, and procedural rules are required to be followed.