FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 203124, June 22, 2015
PROVINCE OF LEYTE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY MR. RODOLFO BADIABLE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE ICO-PROVINCIAL TREASURER, PROVINCE OF LEYTE, Petitioner, v. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction over person of respondent, how acquired. — The court shall acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service on him of its order or resolution indicating its initial action on the petition or by his voluntary submission to such jurisdiction. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)Thus, in petitions for certiorari filed before the CA, the latter acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent upon: (a) the service of the order or resolution indicating the CA's initial action on the petition to the respondent; or (b) the voluntary submission of the respondent to the CA's jurisdiction. In the case at bar, records reveal that the CA served its Resolution22 dated November 4, 2009 indicating its initial action on the Province of Leyte's certiorari petition before it, i.e., directing EDC to file a comment to the petition, among others. In fact, the EDC complied with such directive by filing its comment23 dated December 14, 2009 to such petition. Hence, the CA had already acquired jurisdiction over both parties to the instant case.
SEC. 13. Proof of Service. - Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Relying on Aramburo v. CA,25 the CA held that while the Province of Leyte presented the registry receipt, it failed to include the registry return card; hence, there was no valid proof of service to EDC, which must then result in the dismissal of the Province of Leyte's petition.26chanrobleslaw
SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of non-compliance with requirements. - The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.Admittedly, the Rules require that the petition filed before the CA should include proof of service to the other party. Essentially, the purpose of this rule is to apprise such party of the pendency of an action in the CA. Thus, if such party had already been notified of the same and had even participated in the proceedings, such purpose would have already been served.
In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto x x x
x x x x
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Courts should not be unduly strict in cases involving procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. Since litigation is not a game of technicalities, every litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his case, free from the constraints of technicalities. Procedural rules are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, and even the Rules of Court expressly mandates that "it shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.28Verily, the demands of justice require the CA to resolve the issues before it, considering that what is at stake here are taxes, albeit locally imposed in this case, which are the nation's lifeblood through which government agencies continue to operate and with which the State discharges its functions for the welfare of its constituents.29 Thus, it is far better and more prudent for the Court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a substantive review of the case in order to attain the ends of justice than to dismiss the same on mere technicalities.30chanrobleslaw
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 77-97.
2 Id. at 53-55. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles concurring.
3 Id. at 71-74. Penned by Executive Justice Pampio A. Abarintos with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
4 Id. at 144.
5 CA rollo, pp. 146-147. Penned by Judge Santos T. Gil.
6 See rollo, p. 80.
7 Id. at 145.
8 Id. at 144-149.
9 Id. at 147.
10 See id. at 145-146.
11 Id. at 157-158.
12 See Motion for Reconsideration dated June 17, 2008; id. at 159-164.
13 Id. at 169-171. Penned by Presiding Judge Alphinor C. Serrano.
14 See id. at 171.
15 Id. at 10-31.
16 Id. at 53-55.
17 See id. at 54.
18 See Manifestation dated November 2, 2011; id. at 56-62.
19 Id. at 71-74.
20 Id. 77-97.
21 See Reicon Realty Builders Corporation v. Diamond Dragon Realty and Management, Inc., G.R. No. 204796, February 4, 2015; citations omitted.
22 See dorsal portion; CA rollo, p. 220.
23 Id. at 35-51.
24 See id. at 53-55.
25 In this case, the Court instructed that if service is made through registered mail, sufficient proof of service consists of: (a) the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place, and manner of service; (b) the registry receipt issued by the mailing office; and (c) the registry return card or, in lieu thereof, the letter unclaimed together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. See 189 Phil. 125, 131-132 (1980).
26 See rollo, p. 54. See also id. at 72-73.
27 G.R. No. 205250, March 18, 2013, 693 SCRA 563.
28 Id. at 566.
29 See Visayas Geothermal Power Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 197525, June 4, 2014, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Petron Corporation, G.R. No. 185568, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 735, 764.
30 See Barra v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 27.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary