FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243593. March 13, 2019.]
PO2 EUGENE LUMBIS AND PO2 BOBBY G. RELOS, petitioners,vs. VINCENT B. ISRAEL, MANUEL ANTON BELLUDO AND MAR PAULO REDONDO ESGUERRA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243593 — PO2 Eugene Lumbis and PO2 Bobby G. Relos, petitioners, v. Vincent B. Israel, Manuel Anton Belludo and Mar Paulo Redondo Esguerra, respondents.
This Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari based on the following grounds: (1) the affidavit of service attached to the Petition for Review on Certiorari was notarized on January 7, 2019 or prior to the actual date of posting of copies of said petition for the Court of Appeals (CA) and adverse party on January 8, 2019; and (2) failure of petitioners to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing its Resolutions dated May 30, 2018 and October 16, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 155890. On the contrary, the CA's Resolutions are in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence.
The CA did not commit any reversible error in denying due course to and in dismissing the Petition for Review (Under Rule 43) dated May 23, 2018 for petitioners' failure to include thereto a certificate of non-forum shopping, an affidavit of service, and material portions of the records such as the Counter-Affidavits and Position Papers mentioned in the assailed Decision of the Ombudsman.
"The requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory. Failure to comply with this requirement cannot be excused by the fact that the plaintiff is not guilty of forum shopping." 1 Petitioners' attempt to cure this fatal flaw by attaching a belated Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping dated July 5, 2018 to their Motion for Reconsideration was too late. Non-compliance with the required filing of the certification against or any defect therein is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rules of Court on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons." 2 In this case, neither of these exceptions exist.
On the other hand, the Affidavit of Service should be filed together with the Petition for Review (Under Rule 43). Here, petitioners failed to comply with this requirement as the Affidavit of Service they submitted referred to the service of the Compliance dated May 23, 2018 and not to the service of the Petition for Review (Under Rule 43). Failure to comply with this requirement is also sufficient ground for the dismissal of their petition. 3
Lastly, the CA ruled correctly that the failure to include material portions of the record such as the counter-affidavits and position papers is a ground for dismissal. 4 A petition for review shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers. 5 This requirement is intended to immediately enable the CA to determine whether to give due course to the appeal or not by having all the material necessary to make such determination before it. 6
Petitioners' assertion that they were unfamiliar with the procedural requirements is not an excuse to allow the relaxation of the rules. As police officers, they ought to be well-aware that the complexities of their administrative case required legal representation. Their decision to forego with the services of a legal counsel cannot justify their failure to comply with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed May 30, 2018 and October 16, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155890.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Melo v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 2014, 213 (1999).
2.Fernandez v. Villegas, 741 Phil. 689, 698 (2014).
3. Sec. 6 in relation to Sec. 7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
4.Id.
5.Maniebo v. Court of Appeals, 642 Phil. 25, 37 (2010).
6.Id.