SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243107. January 7, 2019.]
MA. ROSARIO D. ALBARICO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BALAYAN, BATANGAS, BRANCH 9 AND 11, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 January 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243107 (Ma. Rosario D. Albarico v. People of the Philippines, Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas, Branch 9 and 11, and the Department of Justice)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition 1 for failure of petitioner Ma. Rosario D. Albarico (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) gravely abused its discretion in refusing to give due course to her petition for certiorari, 2 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 153495, for petitioner's failure to comply with its directives to show competent evidence of identity and to submit proof of service of a copy of the certiorari petition to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). 3
No grave abuse of discretion can be imputed on the CA in finding that petitioner failed to substantially comply with its directives considering: (a) her failure to execute a new Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping with duly accomplished jurat indicating competent evidence of identity, and merely reattaching a photocopy of the one she had earlier attached 4 to her certiorari petition, which was found to be not compliant with the Notarial Rules; 5 and (b) her belated submission of the proof of service to the OSG through private courier LBC Express — without proffering any reason or justification for her non-compliance with the earlier directives of the CA. 6
In order to prove service by a private courier or ordinary mail, a party must attach an affidavit of the person who mailed the pleading, and must show compliance with Section 7, 7 Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Service by ordinary mail or private courier is allowed only in instances where no registry service exists either in the locality of the sender or the addressee. 8 Notably, the undated Affidavit of Service 9 attached to the certiorari petition did not indicate that the OSG was served with a copy of the petition, or proffer an acceptable reason why petitioner resorted to "private registered mail" instead of registered mail. In particular, petitioner failed to indicate that no registry service was available in Las Piñas City where she resides and where the mail matters were sent, or in Makati City where the OSG is located.
While the Court has liberally applied the rules in a number of cases based on reasonable grounds, petitioner's bare invocation in this case of substantial justice does not justify the rules' relaxation. 10 Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 11
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-32.
2.Id. at 150-182.
3. See id. at 48.
4.Id. at 64.
5. See id. at 47 and 53.
6. See id. at 53.
7. Section 7. Service by mail. — Service by registered mail shall be made by depositing the copy in the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or his counsel at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known, with postage fully pre-paid, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. If no registry service is available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, service may be done by ordinary mail. (Emphasis supplied).
8. See Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, G.R. No. 200469, January 15, 2018.
9.Rollo, p. 65.
10. See Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA, 789 Phil. 577, 583 (2016).
11. See Philippine Savings Bank v. Papa, supra note 20.