SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244408. June 8, 2020.]
MA. EDQUEENIE CHECA ALTAR, petitioner,vs. UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, REV. FR. FREDERICK C. COMENDADOR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated08 June 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244408 (Ma. Edqueenie Checa Altar v. University of San Agustin, represented by its President, Rev. Fr. Frederick C. Comendador). — The Court NOTES the pleading dated January 8, 2020 of counsel for petitioner Ma. Edqueenie Checa Altar (petitioner), in compliance with the Resolution dated September 16, 2019, submitting the: (a) certified true copies of the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA); (b) affidavit of service of the petition with jurat; (c) proof of service of the petition on the CA and the counsel for respondents University of San Agustin, represented by its President, Rev. Fr. Frederick C. Comendador, (respondents); (d) counsel's MCLE compliance VI, number and contact details; and (e) Postmaster's Certification dated June 14, 2019.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 28, 2018 2 and January 8, 2019 3 Resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 11747 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing her petition for non-submission of the pertinent pleadings, i.e., the parties' position papers and memoranda filed before the labor tribunals.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner's failure to submit the relevant pleadings pertinent to the petition is a sufficient ground for dismissal, pursuant to Section 3, 4 Rule 46, in relation to Section 1, 5 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 6 Records reveal that petitioner could have submitted the required pleadings at the time she filed her motion for reconsideration from the first assailed CA Resolution, but still, failed to do so. 7
SO ORDERED. (Gaerlan, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020. Zalameda, J., designated Additional Member vice Delos Santos, J.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-19.
2.Id. at 23-27. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of this Court) and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
3.Id. at 45-47.
4. See Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
5. See Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
6. See rollo, pp. 24-27.
7. It is settled that petitioner's discretion in choosing the documents to be attached to the petition is however not unbridled. The CA has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion, to see to it that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory. The practical aspect of this duty is to enable the CA to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition. (See Aguilar and Calimbas v. Lightbringers Credit Cooperative, 750 Phil. 195-212 [2015], citing Canton v. City of Cebu (544 Phil. 369-378 (2007); See also Galvez v. CA, 708 Phil. 9-23 [2013], cited in Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative Incorporated v. Energy Regulatory Commission, 780 Phil. 196-228 [2015], where this Court held that there are three guide posts in determining the necessity of attaching pleadings and portions of the record to petitions under Rules 42 and 65 of the 1997 Rules, to wit: x x x 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. (underscoring supplied.) See also rollo, p. 47.