SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226360. November 9, 2016.]
SPOUSES WILFRED AND RAQUEL ALVAREZ, petitioners, vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 November 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226360 — Spouses Wilfred and Raquel Alvarez, petitioners, vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, respondent.
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for: a) lack of proper Verification, as the attached Verification is only based on the affiant's personal knowledge, and on belief and authentic records; 1 and, b) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing outright the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 142741.
In the assailed Resolution dated December 3, 2015, the CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari because of these infirmities:
1) There is no statement of material dates pertaining to the receipt of the Order dated November 28, 2014 and Resolution dated April 17, 2015 as well as the filing of the motions for reconsideration.
2) There are no clear, legible duplicate original or certified true copies of the assailed Order/Resolutions dated November 28, 2014, April 17, 2015 and August 5, 2015. 2
In the instant Petition, however, petitioners contend that a perusal of their Petition with the CA would reveal that it contained the dates of receipt of the Order and Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4 (RTC). In addition, petitioners claim that they requested certified true copies of the RTC Order and Resolutions but despite repeated follow-up, the RTC failed to issue such certified true copies on time. Lastly, petitioners insist that they were deprived of their right to due process because of the outright dismissal of their Petition for Certiorari.
Petitioners' contentions are untenable. EcTCAD
First, petitioners' allegation — that they stated in their Petition with the CA the material date of receipt of the RTC Order and Resolution — remains to be bare assertion without proof. Such is the case since petitioners did not append to the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari a copy of the Petition for Certiorari they filed with the CA.
Second, rules of procedure are mandatory and may only be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons to prevent injustice, which is incommensurate to the degree of the negligence of the litigant in complying with the rules. 3
In its August 16, 2016 Resolution (denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration), the CA held that while petitioners substantially explained the defects in the Petition for Certiorari, they adamantly refused to correct these infirmities. It stressed that petitioners still did not submit the statement of material dates of receipt of the assailed RTC issuances, and still did not secure clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copies thereof. 4
Hence, for failure on the part of petitioners to rectify the defects in their Petition for Certiorari despite an opportunity to do so, there is indeed no basis for the relaxation of the rules of procedure, and the CA properly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed December 3, 2015 and August 16, 2016 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 142741. SDHTEC
SO ORDERED. (Mendoza, J., on official leave from November 8-15, 2016 per Resolution dated January 26, 2016 in A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC under the 2016 Wellness Program)."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. (5a)
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (6a)
2. Rollo, p. 32.
3. See Purefoods Corporation v. Nagkakaisang Samahang Manggagawa ng Purefoods Rank-and-File, 585 Phil. 461, 470 (2008).
4. Rollo, p. 38.