SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 204567, August 04, 2021
EMILIANO D. JOVEN, AND CICERO V. GARCIA Petitioners, v. SPOUSES RAUL L. TULIO AND CRISTINA PANGANIBAN TULIO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GAERLAN, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Resolutions dated July 24, 20122 and November 13, 20123 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 125036.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Declaring defendants to be in lawful possession and custody of the leased premises, effective June 3, 2000;
2. Ordering defendants to reimburse plaintiffs one-half (1/2) of the value of the improvements at the time of the termination of the lease, made/introduced on the leased property, to be determined by an independent appraiser of property chosen by both parties;
3. Ordering defendants to refund to the plaintiffs the advance unused rentals on the leased premises in the amount of P2,250,000.00; and
4. DISMISSING the counter-claim for lack of merit.
5. NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED with modification.
1. Declaring the defendants to be in lawful possession and custody of the leased premises effective June 03, 2000.
2. Ordering the defendants to refund to the plaintiffs the unused rental on the leased property in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
3. The building and permanent improvements existing at the time of termination of the Contract of Lease shall form part of the leased property and shall become the property of the defendants free and clear of any and all liens, encumbrances, charges or claims of whatever nature, without obligation on the part of the defendants to pay or refund their value or costs to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall execute, sign and deliver any and all documents necessary to evidence transfer of ownership of the building and improvements to the defendants;
4. Dismissing the counterclaim of the defendants for lack of merit.
5. No costs.
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of May 30, 2005 is reconsidered.
1. Declaring forcible entry in the repossession of the defendants on the leased property;
2. Ordering the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs one-half (1/2) of the value of the building or P12 Million Pesos;
3. Ordering the defendants to refund P2,250,000.00 to the plaintiffs as advance rentals, as well as the P300,000.00 for VAT on the 15th year of the Contract of Lease;
4. Dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for lack of merit.
5. No costs.
SO ORDERED.11
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by defendants-appellees Spouses Raul L. Tulio and Cristina Panganiban-Tulio is PARTLY GRANTED.
Par. 1, page 7 of the dispositive portion of the Judgment (Order) dated October 6, 2011 is modified, thus:
(1) Declaring the defendants to be in lawful possession and custody of the leased premises effective June 3, 2000;
Par. 2 thereof is modified, thus:
(2) The building and permanent improvements existing at the time of the termination of the Contract of Lease to form part of the leased property and shall become the property of the defendants-appellees free and clear of any and all encumbrances, charges or claims of whatever nature, without obligation on the part of the defendants-appellees to pay or refund their value or costs to the plaintiffs-appellants. The plaintiffs-appellants upon finality of this Order, shall execute, sign and deliver any and all documents necessary to evidence transfer of ownership of the improvements to the defendants-appellees.
Par. 3 thereof is modified, thus:Ordering the defendants-appellees to refund to plaintiffs-appellants the sum of P250,000.00, representing the excess of the amount paid to them by the latter, after applying the amount of P2,000,000.00 as payment for the rentals of the leased premises from November 1, 1999 to June 2, 2000.
The dismissal of defendants-appellees counter-claim stands, as well as the non-pronouncement of costs.
Upon finality of this Order, the complete records of this case are ordered remanded to the court of origin for execution of judgment.
SO ORDERED.13 (Emphasis in the original)
1) There is an affidavit of service with properly accomplished jurat but the Notary Public before whom it was subscribed and sworn to FAILED to indicate his notarial commission number, the province or city where he was commissioned and his office address pursuant to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; 2) The Verification and Certification against forum shopping is DEFECTIVE because it was signed by only one of the petitioners and the Notary Public before whom it was subscribed and sworn to FAILED to indicate his notarial commission number, the province or city where he was commissioned and his office address pursuant to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and 3) No copies of documents and pleadings filed before the RTC Br. 43, San Fernando City and MTCC, BR. 1 of City of San Fernando, Pampanga were attached to the petition to support the allegations therein.15
WHEREFORE, on account thereof, this petition is hereby DISMISSED outright.
SO ORDERED.16
The Court has often stressed that rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. They were conceived and promulgated to effectively aid the court in the dispensation of justice. Courts are not slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, courts have always been, as they ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around. Thus, if the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its operation. (Citation omitted)
For the guidance of the bench and bar, the Court restates in capsule form the jurisprudential pronouncements already reflected above respecting non-compliance with the requirements on, or submission of defective, verification and certification against forum shopping:
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and noncompliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping. 2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby. 3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct. 4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons." 5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule. 6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.30
I, EMILIANO D. JOVEN, of legal age, Filipino and resident of Unit II, Blk. 3, Queensland Townhouse, Dolores, City of San Fernando, Pampanga, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby, depose and state:
1. That I am one of the petitioners in the above entitled petition. That I have caused the preparation of the said PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI and that I have read and understood its contents and the same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records;
2. I certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal or agency, and that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other court, tribunal or agency; should I thereafter learn that a similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court. Wherein the aforesaid petition has been filed.
3. I am executing this Verification/Certification in compliance with the 1997 Rules [of] Civil Procedure, SC Circular No. 04-94 and Revised Circular 28-91.31
First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition.
Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached to the petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is attached.
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.38
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 8-35.
2 Id. at 90-91; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Agnes Reyes-Carpio.
3 Id. at 103-108.
4 The scope of this period is being contested by petitioners, arguing that the same ends on October 31, 2000, not June 30, 2000.
5Rollo, p. 47.
6 Id. at 44-54; rendered by Acting Executive Judge Domingo C. San Jose, Jr.
7 Id. at 53-54.
8 Id. at 36-43; rendered by Presiding Judge Carmelita S. Gutierrez-Fruelda.
9 Id. at 42-43.
10 Id. at 55-62.
11 Id. at 61-62.
12 Id. at 63-66; rendered by Acting Judge Esperanza S. Paglinawan-Rozario.
13 Id. at 66.
14 Id. at 67-88.
15 Id. at 90-91.
16 Id. at 91.
17 Id. at 92-99.
18 Id. at 21-22.
19Philippine Public School Teachers Association v. Heirs of Carolina P. Iligan, 528 Phil. 1197, 1212 (2006).
20Spouses Dadizon v. Court of Appeals, 617 Phil. 139, 152 (2009).
21Pet Plans Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 486 Phil. 112, 120 (2004).
22Spouses Cordero v. Octaviano, G.R. No. 241385, July 7, 2020.
23Mascariñas v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 228138, August 27, 2020.
24 516 Phil. 541, 552 (2006).
25Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. v. Inting, 822 Phil. 314, 357 (2017).
26Swedish Match Philippines, Inc v. Treasurer of the City of Manila, 713 Phil. 240, 248 (2013).
27Republic v. Coalbrine International Philippines, Inc., 631 Phil. 487,495-496 (2010).
28Mediserv, Inc v. Court of Appeals, 631 Phil. 282, 290 (2010).
29 594 Phil. 246 (2008).
30 Id. at 261-262.
31Rollo, p. 87.
32Heirs of Juan Dinglasan v. Ayala Corporation, G.R. No. 204378, August 5, 2019.
33Cordillera Global Network v. Paje, G.R. No. 215988, April 10, 2019.
34Zarsona Medical Clinic v. Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, 745 Phil. 298, 306 (2014).
35Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig, 664 Phil. 529, 541(2011).
36Rollo, p. 100.
37 529 Phil. 718 (2006).
38 Id. at 728.
39 708 Phil. 9, 10 (2013).
40 Id. at 22.
41Republic v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 252, 260 (1998).
42Aguam v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 587, 594 (2000).
43Digitel Employees Union v. Digital Telecoms Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 217529, July 3, 2019.cralawredlibrary