Spouses Maraño v. Pryce Gases, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 244233. June 3, 2019.]

SPOUSES JUVY MARAÑO AND MARIA LUISA G. MARAÑO, petitioners, vs.PRYCE GASES, INCORPORATED, respondent.

NOTICE

 

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 3, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 244233 (Spouses Juvy Maraño and Maria Luisa G. Maraño v. Pryce Gases, Incorporated)

This is an appeal by certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the January 31, 2018 1 and October 1, 2018 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 09098, which dismissed the petition filed by Spouses Juvy Maraño and Maria Luisa G. Maraño (petitioners) for the following grounds: (1) failure to raise any specific issues; (2) failure to allege any specific error of fact or law or both allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC); and (3) failure to aver reasons or arguments, in violation of Section 2 (c), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

The petition is denied because it suffers from several procedural defects.

First, the petition was filed out of time.

Based on the records, petitioners received the notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2018 and thus, had until November 10, 2018 to file their petition. Since petitioners filed a motion for extension, they had until December 10, 2018 to file. Unfortunately, the petition was posted only on December 14, 2018, beyond the reglementary period within which to file.

Second, the petition lacked an affidavit of service notarized after the actual date of posting of copies of the petition upon the parties. In Mojar, et al. v. Agro Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc., et al., 3 the Court clarified that failure to append the proof of service to a petition is a fatal defect. The Court discussed in this wise:

There is no question that petitioner herein was remiss in complying with the foregoing Rule. In Cruz v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that with respect to motions, proof of service is a mandatory requirement. We find no cogent reason why this dictum should not apply and with more reason to a petition for certiorari, in view of Section 3, Rule 46 which requires that the petition shall be filed "together with proof of service thereof." We agree with the Court of Appeals that the lack of proof of service is a fatal defect. The utter disregard of the Rule cannot be justified by harking to substantial justice and the policy of liberal construction of the Rules. Technical rules of procedure are not meant to frustrate the ends of justice. Rather, they serve to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus effectively prevent the clogging of our court dockets. 4 (Emphases in the original)

An affidavit of service does not work merely as proof that service has been made on the other party. 5 Rather, its purpose is to ensure that the requirement of due process is upheld and the administration of justice is orderly maintained. 6

Third, no CD was filed together with the petition or e-mail sent within 24 hours from the filing of the same.

Paragraph 1 of the "Proposed Guidelines on Submission and Processing of Soft Copies of Supreme Court-Bound Papers Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule" (Guidelines) for the implementation of A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC (Re: Proposed Rules on E-Filing) and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC (Re: Proposed Rule for the Efficient Use of Paper), requires the submission of soft copies of all Supreme Court-bound papers, including its annexes through compact disc or by e-mail:

(1) Soft copies of all Supreme Court-bound papers and their annexes must be submitted simultaneously with the hard copy if by compact disc (CD) or within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing of the hard copy if by e-mail. It must be understood, however, that the paper shall be deemed to have been filed on the date and time of filing of the hard copy and not the soft copy. 7

Fourth, the petition lacked a verified declaration attached to the CD or e-mail that the petition was complete in compliance with Par. 7 of the same Guidelines, which reads:

(7) The filer shall also attach to the CD or the e-mail a verified declaration that the pleading and annexes submitted electronically are complete and true copies of the printed document and annexes filed with the Supreme Court. 8

Finally, the CA was correct in denying the petition for violation of Sec. 2 (c), Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The right to appeal is merely a statutory privilege. 9 It can be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 10 These requirements are not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. 11

In appealing a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction before the CA, the appellant must comply with the procedure laid down in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. 12 In the case at bench, the petition was denied for failure to comply with Sec. 2 (c), Rule 42, which states that:

Sec. 2. Form and contents. —

xxx xxx xxx

(c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal. 13

In the case at bar, the petition filed before the CA was correctly denied on account of the following grounds: (1) failure to raise any specific issues; (2) failure to allege any specific errors of fact or law or both allegedly committed by the RTC; and (3) failure to aver reasons or arguments.

The Court is mindful that rules of procedure, in the most compelling cases, must be relaxed. 14 However, in this case, petitioners committed multiple violations of the rules, not only before this Court, but also in the CA. Thus, the Court finds no reason to suspend the rules.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 31, 2018 and the October 1, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 09098 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."Carandang, J.,on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 154-156; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.

2.Id. at 165-167.

3. 689 Phil. 589 (2012), citing Col. Ferrer (Ret.) v. Atty. Villanueva, et al., 557 Phil. 643 (2007).

4.Id. at 598, citing supra at 647-648.

5.Id., citing Ang Bian Huan Sons Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 547 Phil. 588, 596 (2007).

6.Id.

7. Guidelines on Submission and Processing of Soft Copies of Supreme Court-Bound Papers Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule, September 10, 2013.

8. Par. 7. Guidelines on Submission and Processing of Soft Copies of Supreme Court-Bound Papers Pursuant to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule, September 10, 2013.

9.Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).

10. Id.

11. Id. at 454.

12. RULES OF COURT, Rule 42.

13. RULES OF COURT, Rule 42, Sec. 2 (c).

14. Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, supra note 11.