Russel vs.

Ebasan & Austria

G.R. No. 184542

April 23, 2010

FACTS: The petition stems from a complaint for forcible entry filed by petitioner Russel
against respondents Ebasan and Austria. The MTCC of Iligan City heard the ejectment
proceedings and rendered judgment on in favor of petitioner. The trial court ordered
respondents to vacate the property involved and to pay attorneys fees and costs.Prejudiced by
the ruling, respondents appealed to the RTC. The RTC, in its March 28, 2007 Decision, reversed
the ruling of the MTCC and ordered the dismissal of the complaint.

Petitioner received her copy of the RTC decision on April 13, 2007. Inclined to appeal the
adverse ruling to the CA, petitioner, on April 20, 2007, filed a motion for an extension of 15
days from the expiry of the reglementary period for the filing of a petition for review. Petitioner
attached to her motion postal money orders representing the filing and docket fees. She
consequently filed via registered mail her petition for review with the appellate court on May 15,
2007.

In the assailed June 18, 2007 Resolution, the CA dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:

1. The petition is filed out of time, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 42. Even if petitioners Motion
for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review were granted, the Petition would have still been
filed 6 days late from the requested extension of time.

2. There is no Written Explanation why the Petition was filed by mail instead of the preferred
mode of personal filing, as is required under Sec. 11, Rule 13.

3. The Verification and Certification page is defective, since there is no statement and
therefore no assurance that the allegations in the Petition are based on authentic records, in
violation of Sec. 4, Rule 7.

4. Pertinent documents such as the Complaint and Answer filed before the MTCC, which are
material portions of the record referred to in the Petition are not attached, in violation of Sec.
2(d), Rule 42.

Petitioner received her copy of the June 18, 2007 Resolution on July 18, 2007. On July 27,
2007, petitioner filed by registered mail her MR and admission of her amended petition. She
pointed out in her motion that the petition was filed within the extended reglementary period.
She also explained that her office clerk inadvertently failed to attach the page containing the
explanation why filing by registered mail was resorted to. Petitioner also begged the appellate
courts indulgence to accept the verification because only the phrase based on authentic
records was missing in the same. She claimed that this was merely a formal requisite which
does not affect the validity or efficacy of the pleading. She then pleaded for liberality in the
application of the rules of procedure and for the consequent admission of her amended petition
containing the written explanation, the corrected verification, and the certified true copies of the
complaint and the answer filed before the trial court.

The appellate court, however, in the assailed August 26, 2008 Resolution, denied petitioners
motion. It ruled that the MR was filed only on October 4, 2007, or 63 days after the expiry of the
reglementary period for the filing thereof. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to this
Court via the instant petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in dismissing petitioners appeal.

HELD: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The instant case
is REMANDED to the CA for disposition on the merits.

YES; Petitioners petition for review (under Rule 42) and MR before the appellate court were
filed well within the reglementary period for the filing thereof.

It must be noted that petitioner received her copy of the RTC decision on April 13, 2007.
Following the ROC, she had 15 days or until April 28, 2007 to file her petition for review
before the CA. Section 1 of Rule 42 provides:

Sec. 1. How appeal taken; time for filing.A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the
Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified
petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court
the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and
furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The
petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be
reviewed or of the denial of petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time
after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other
lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court
of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the
petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason
and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

On April 20, 2007, petitioner filed before the CA, via registered mail, her motion for
extension of time to file the petition for review. She pleaded in her motion that she be granted an
additional 15 days, counted from the expiry of the reglementary period. Petitioner likewise
attached to her motion postal money orders representing the docket fees.
Fifteen days from April 28, 2007 would be May 13, 2007. This was, however, a Sunday. May 14,
2007, the following day, was a legal holidaythe holding of the national and local elections.
Section 1 of Rule 22 states:

Sec. 1. How to compute time.In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by
these Rules, or by order of the court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act or event
from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a
Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next
working day.

Therefore, when petitioner filed her petition for review with the appellate court on May 15,
2007, the same was well within the extended period for the filing thereof.

Petitioners MR was likewise filed on time. She received a copy of the June 18, 2007 CA
Resolution on July 18, 2007. Under Section 1 of Rule 52, she had 15 days from notice, or until
August 2, 2007, to file an MR. Petitioner filed by registered mail her MR on July 27, 2007. The
fact of mailing on the said date is proven by the registry return receipt, the affidavit of
service, and the certification of the Office of the Postmaster of Iligan City. Section 3, Rule
13 of the ROC provides that if a pleading is filed by registered mail, then
the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing. It does not matter
when the court actually receives the mailed pleading. Thus, in this case, as the pleading was filed
by registered mail on July 27, 2007, within the reglementary period, it is inconsequential that
the CA actually received the motion in October of that year.

As to the CAs dismissal of the petition for review on the ground that petitioner failed to attach a
written explanation for non-personal filing, the Court finds the same improper. Iligan City,
where petitioner resides and where her counsel holds office, and Cagayan de Oro City, where the
concerned division of the CA is stationed, are separated by a considerable distance. The CA, in
the exercise of its discretion, should have realized that it was indeed impracticable for petitioner
to personally file the petition for review in Cagayan De Oro City. Given the obvious time, effort
and expense that would have been spent in the personal filing of the pleadings in this case, the
written explanation why service had not been done personally, as required by Section 11 of Rule
13, may be considered as superfluous.

Relative to the defective verification, the Court excuses the same. The purpose of the verification
is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith, or are
true and correct and not merely speculative. The requirement is simply a condition affecting the
form of pleadings and non-compliance therewith is neither jurisdictional nor does it render the
pleading fatally defective. Here, the perceived defect is excusable and does not justify a dismissal
of the petition. In any case, petitioner, in her subsequent pleading, submitted a corrected
verification. The same degree of liberality should apply to petitioners failure to attach a copy of
the complaint and answer filed before the MTCC in her petition for review. After all, petitioner
substantially complied with the requirement when she filed her amended petition.
In sum, the Court finds that the CA erred in dismissing petitioners appeal. The appellate court
should have been more prudent in computing the reglementary period for the filing of petitions.
The CA could have been more liberal in the application of the Rules considering that, in this
case, the MTCC and the RTC arrived at conflicting rulings, necessitating a thorough review of
the merits of the case. This is in keeping with the principle that rules of procedure are mere
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid application of rules
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice
must always be avoided. It is a far better and wiser course of action for the Court to excuse a
technical lapse and afford the parties a conscientious review of the case in order to attain
the ends of justice, rather than dispose of it on a technicality and cause grave injustice to the
parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases which actually results in more
delay, if not in an outright miscarriage of justice