FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 224438-40, September 03, 2020
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) AND MID-PASIG LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., PETITIONERS, V. AUGUSTUS ALBERT V. MARTINEZ, CITY GOLF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GEEK'S NEW YORK PIZZERIA, INC., RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated November 4, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated April 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 135972, 136895 and 136896, which reversed the Orders dated February 7, 2014 and May 30, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 155 in SCA Case No. 3861, and the Orders dated April 21, 2014 and July 10, 2014 of the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 67 in SCA Cases Nos. 3867 and 3868, respectively.
At the outset, the Court observes that the MeTC Branch 72 per its Order dated June 18, 2013, already found the Manifestation and Motion filed by plaintiff-appellant to be meritorious and thus gave due course to the Notice of Appeal dated June 4, 2013. To the mind of this Court, the MeTC Order dated June 18, 2013, constitutes sufficient finding as to the timeliness of the appeal taken by plaintiff-appellant, and thus should be accorded due respect.Also, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 67, in its Order dated April 21, 2014 denied respondents City Golf and Geek's, Inc.'s Motion, viz.:9
Moreover, defendant-appellee's insinuations of irregularity in the filing of the Manifestation and Motion and Notice of Appeal are merely based on its own suspicions and conjectures and not supported by the evidence on record. An examination of the records reveals that the subject Manifestation and Motion and Notice of Appeal were sent via registered mail through the Post Office of Mandaluyong City on June 4, 2013, as shown by the date stamped on said Manifestation and Motion. Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of mailing of a motion or pleading, as stamped on the envelop or the registry receipt shall be considered the date of filing thereof. The stamped date is considered the official record of the mailing of the said pleading and is deemed accurate as the same carries the presumption that it has been prepared in the course of the official duties that have been regularly performed. It cannot be therefore be gainsaid that appellant's Notice of Appeal was filed well within the reglementary period.
Now, we go to the issue of whether the appeal of plaintiff-appellant which was given due course by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 72 is dismissible.The respondents subsequently filed their Motions for Reconsideration, Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Supplement to Motion for Partial Reconsideration (With Leave), but these Motions were denied by the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 155 and the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 67, in the Orders dated May 307 2014 and July 10, 2014, respectively.
x x x x
A judicious review of the records readily reveals that the [MeTC] Branch 72, in its Order dated June 18, 2013 found the plaintiff-appellant's Manifestation and Motion meritorious; hence, gave due course to the Notice of Appeal dated June 4, 2013. Suffice it to say, said Order is a clear showing that the plaintiff-appellant's Notice of Appeal was filed within the period mandated by the rules. Notwithstanding, the alleged irregularities enumerated by the defendants-appellees pertaining to the timeliness of the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the fact remains that the court a quo which is clothed with competent jurisdiction to give due course to said appeal has ruled on the regularity of its filing.
WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Petitions for Certiorari are hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated 7 February 2014 and 30 May 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 155, in SCA Case No. 3861, and the Orders dated 21 April 2014 and 10 July 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 67, in SCA Case Nos. 3867 and 3868 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Appeal of respondents Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation is DISMISSED. Both the Regional Trial Courts of Pasig City, Branch 155 and Branch 67 are ENJOINED from proceeding further with the disposition of the aforesaid cases.Petitioner then moved for reconsideration, but was denied by the CA, in the assailed Resolution dated April 14, 2016.
SO ORDERED.11
DID THE HONORABLE [CA] x x x ERR ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN FINDING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN THEY RULED THAT PETITIONER'S APPEAL WAS TIMELY FILED[.]12Petitioner asserts that the CA erred in ruling that both the RTCs of Pasig City, Branch 155 and Branch 67, committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders and in ruling that petitioner's appeal was timely filed. Petitioner insists that the Orders of the said RTCs of Pasig City were issued with sufficient and legal basis, and that the same RTCs found that both the envelop and Manifestation and Motion were stamped with the date June 4, 2013. Petitioner adds that it has discharged its burden of proving that its appeal was in fact timely filed.13cralawred
x x x However, their [petitioner] Notice of Appeal was filed only on 7 June 2013. Ineluctably, the Appeal was filed behind time. While they maintain that their Appeal was sent through registered mail on 4 June 2013 as shown by the date stamped on the envelop, they did not bother to attach the said envelop or certified copy thereof to the pleadings filed before Us. This faux pas blows a hole in the veracity and authenticity thereof. Indeed, their failure to attach such telling document is fatal to their claim.The Court observes that petitioner had already known the fact that it did not attach the envelop before the CA or certified copy thereof, which may prove petitioner's claim that its appeal was sent through registered mail on June 4, 2013. Yet, petitioner still did not bother to attach the same in its pleadings before us. Moreover, we find the need to stress that the stamped or superimposed date on a photocopy of petitioner's Manifestation and Motion with attached Notice of Appeal was a mere photocopy of an alleged registry receipt dated June 4, 2013. Petitioner could have presented the original registry receipts. It would have constituted as the best evidence of the fact of mailing on June 4, 2013 of petitioner's Manifestation and Motion, in the separate cases that involved respondents Martinez, City Golf and Geek's, Inc. Regrettably, petitioner failed to present such original registry receipts. Its continued failure to present the said original receipts can only lead one to recall the well-settled rule that when the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has in its power to produce evidence which from its very nature must overthrow the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice, and support the case of his adversary. Mere photocopy of the registry receipt in this case, militates against petitioner's position as there is no indicium of its authenticity. In fact, a mere photocopy lacks assurance of its genuineness, considering that photocopies can easily be tampered with.20
Au contraire, the court a quo held that [petitioner's] Manifestation and Motion and Notice of Appeal were mailed via registered mail on 4 June 2013[,] as shown by the date stamped on said Manifestation and Motion. Contrarily, the MeTC categorically pronounced that the Manifestation and Motion with attached Notice of Appeal was filed on 7 June 2013. The 18 June 2013 MeTC Order speaks volumes that [petitioner's Notice of Appeal attached to the Manifestation and Motion was filed on 7 June 2013 and received by the MeTC on 13 June 2013[.]19
[T]he Rules of Court itself calls for its liberal construction, with the view of promoting their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard. In numerous cases, the Court has allowed liberal construction of the Rules of Court with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals, when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, As the Court has expounded in Aguam vs. Court of Appeals: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn addition, the Court had ruled that there are recognized exceptions to the strict observance of the Rules, viz.: 1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; 2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; 3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within reasonable time from the time of the default; 4) existence of special or compelling circumstances; 5) merits of the case; 6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; 7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; 8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; 9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant's fault; 10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; 11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; 12) importance of the issues involved; and, 13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by the attendant circumstances.30x x x The court has the discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant's appeal. It is a power conferred on the court, not a duty. The "discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case." Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities." "Lawsuits unlike duels are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.x x x x
In the Ginete case, the Court held:
x x x xLet it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this court has already declared to be final, as we are now constrained to do in the instant case.The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice. (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-35.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, concurring; id. at 40-50.
3 Id. at 51-53.
4 Id. at 42.
5 Id. at 60-72, 73-86, 87-99.
6 Id. at 42-43.
7 Id. at 135-140.
8 Id. at 142.
9 Id. at 44.
10 Id. at 158-241.
11 Id. at 49.
12 Id. at 17.
13 Id.
14Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173375, September 25, 2008.
15Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Silicon Philippines, Inc., 729 Phil. 156, 165 (2014).
16Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14, at 77.
17Rollo, p. 14.
18Atty. Banda v. Ermita, 632 Phil. 501, 533 (2010).
19Rollo, pp. 47-48.
20Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14, at 81.
21Rollo, pp. 21-22.
22 Id. at 14.
23 Id. at 23-24.
24 Rule 50, Section 2.
25 Section 34 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
26Gonzalo Puyat & Sons, Inc. v. Alcaide, 680 Phil. 609, 619 (2012).
27Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14, at 82.
28 816 Phil. 288 (2017).
29 500 Phil. 303 (2005).
30Labao v. Flores, 649 Phil. 213, 222-223 (2010).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary