EN BANC
[UDK 17567. June 14, 2022-2021.]
JOHNSON Y. LI a.k.a. JOHNSON IMMANUEL LIBRE, *petitioner,vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JUNE 14, 2022, which reads as follows:
"UDK 17567 — JOHNSON Y. LI a.k.a. JOHNSON IMMANUEL LIBRE, petitioner, versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
RESOLUTION
After a careful review of the instant case, the Court dismisses the Petition 1 for failure of petitioner Johnson Y. Li (petitioner) to show that respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) acted with grave abuse of discretion and for failure to comply with the requirements under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court (Rules).
As noted by the Court's Judicial Records Office, petitioner failed to comply with the following procedural requirements:
1. The Petition lacks statement of material dates;
2. The Petition lacks proof of service;
3. The Petition lacks certified true copies of the Assailed Judgment and Resolution;
4. The additional Attestation in the Verification is not stated;
5. The Petition lacks Affidavit of Service. 2
Further, petitioner failed to allege the ultimate facts, issues involved, grounds relied upon and the relevant dates in his Petition. Likewise, the attached assailed Resolution 3 of the COMELEC En Banc is not a certified true copy. Under Section 5, Rule 64 of the Rules, the form and contents of a petition are as follows:
Section 5. Form and contents of petition. — The petition shall be verified and filed in eighteen (18) legible copies. The petition shall name the aggrieved party as petitioner and shall join as respondents the Commission concerned and the person or persons interested in sustaining the judgment, final order or resolution a quo. The petition shall state the facts with certainty, present clearly the issues involved, set forth the grounds and brief arguments relied upon for review, and pray for judgment annulling or modifying the questioned judgment, final order or resolution. Findings of fact of the Commission supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.
The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant and pertinent thereto. The requisite number of copies of the petition shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original copy of said petition.
The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on the Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely payment of docket and other lawful fees.
The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (Emphasis supplied)
The Rules are clear that failure to comply with any of these requirements is a sufficient ground to dismiss the Petition. Absent any justifiable cause for the noncompliance with the procedural rules, the Petition must fail.
Time and again, the Court has ruled on the importance of procedural rules in the adjudication of disputes. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. 4 Technical rules serve a purpose. They are not made to discourage litigants from pursuing their case nor are they fabricated out of thin air. Every section in the Rules and every issuance of this Court with respect to procedural rules are promulgated with the objective of a more efficient judicial system. 5
Nevertheless, the Court has recognized that in a few instances, the strict application of the procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice. In Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 6 the Court has enumerated the reasons that provide justification for the courts to relax the rigid application of the rules of procedure, to wit: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the fact that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. 7
However, none of these reasons are attendant in the case at hand. Thus, on this ground alone, the Petition may already be dismissed. But, even if the procedural infirmities are overlooked, the Petition still lacks substantial merit.
The Petition does not contain any assignment of errors nor state the grounds and brief arguments relied upon for review. The Petition merely states that petitioner suffered grave injustice due to the COMELEC's act of denying his request for reconsideration. There was no explanation as to how petitioner suffered grave injustice. Petitioner failed to demonstrate how the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. CTIEac
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The 'Motion to Seek a Waiver of Legal Fees Payment Due to Financial Burdens and Inability to Pay Legal Fees' dated April 5, 2022 filed by the petitioner is NOTED." Lazaro-Javier, J., on official leave. Inting and Kho, Jr., JJ., no part. (70)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also Johnson Yuquimpo Li and Johnson Immanuel Y. Li, Jr. in some parts or the rollo.
1. Rollo, pp. 82-94.
2. Id. at 1.
3. Id. at 30-33. Minute Resolution No. 21-1242, In the Matter of the Various Letters Requesting Reconsideration for COMELEC to Accept and Receive Certificates of Candidacies (COCs) and/or Certificates of Nominations/Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance (CON-CANs) of Aspirants and Political Parties, October 27, 2021.
4. Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al., 275 Phil. 894, 898 (1991).
5. Malixi, et al. v. Baltazar, 821 Phil. 423, 436 (2017).
6. 452 Phil. 665 (2003).
7. Id. at 674.