Mathaeus v. Medequiso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil suit, Civil Case No. 5579, filed before the Tagbilaran Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1. The MTCC rendered a decision on January 12, 2007, ordering the petitioner, Uwe Mathaeus, to pay the respondents, Spouses Eric and Genevieve Medequiso, the sum of P30,000.00, along with legal interest, attorney's fees, and costs. Procedural History: Petitioner Mathaeus appealed the MTCC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, Branch 48, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 7269. On September 30, 2008, the RTC affirmed the MTCC's judgment. A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was subsequently denied by the RTC in an April 13, 2009 Order. Aggrieved, the petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 04236. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the CA's September 14, 2009 Resolution, which dismissed his Petition for Review, and the CA's April 6, 2011 Resolution, which denied his Motion for Reconsideration. The CA dismissed the petition because the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping were sworn before a clerk of court, which the CA found to be outside the scope of a clerk of court's official functions for such documents. The petitioner argues that the clerk of court could validly notarize the verification as it was a continuation of existing proceedings, that his initial procedural missteps should be viewed with liberality due to his status as a non-lawyer foreigner, and that the case should be reopened for a full trial, citing the advent of small claims procedures. The instant petition before the Supreme Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A PROPER VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 42 THAT WARRANTS A DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. WHETHER OR NOT A STRICT ADHERENCE TO SECTION 6 OF THE REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE IS TO BE RESORTED [TO] TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE ANSWER OF THE PETITIONER WAS NOT EXPUNGED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE MTCC CASE; AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PECULIARITY OF THE MTCC CASE AND THE ADVENT OF A.M. 08-9-7-SC (RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES) ENTITLES A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES TO GIVE THE PETITIONER HIS DAY IN COURT AND ALLOW HIM TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE DURING A FULL BLOWN TRIAL.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's Petition for Review.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper verification and certification: The Court reiterated its ruling that Clerks of Court, while notaries public ex-officio, can only notarize documents or administer oaths when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. The Court clarified that notarizing a Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping in a Petition for Review is not part of a clerk of court's daily official functions. Such a responsibility can be handled by commissioned notaries public, and allowing clerks of court to do so could lead to abuse and distract from their essential duties. The Court found no compelling reasons or circumstances to relax the rules in favor of the petitioner, thus upholding the CA's dismissal of the Petition for Review. On strict adherence to the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and liberal interpretation: The Court noted that the petitioner had a series of procedural lapses. At the MTCC level, he failed to file a verified Answer and did not furnish a copy to the respondents, leading to the expungement of his pleading and an adverse judgment. At the CA level, he committed another mistake by having his Petition for Review notarized by the RTC Clerk of Court. The Court emphasized that at this stage, the petitioner and his counsel are expected to be more circumspect. Under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a verified petition for review and a certification on non-forum shopping are mandatory requirements. Section 3 of the same Rule provides that failure to comply with these requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court has consistently held that defects in the certification against forum-shopping are generally not curable, unlike verification, unless there are grounds for substantial compliance or compelling reasons. In this case, the Court found no such compelling reasons to relax the rules, thus affirming the CA's dismissal.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court, acting as a notary public ex-officio, can only notarize documents or administer oaths when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. A verification and certification on non-forum shopping in a Petition for Review filed with the Court of Appeals is not within the scope of such official functions.