TRIAL NOTE 0012 – THREE IMPORTANT DATES IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65; AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.

 

SOURCE: WILLIAM ENDELISEO BARROGA VS.  DATA CENTER COLLEGE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND  IFRED BACTAD (G.R. NO. 174158, 27 JUNE 2011,  DEL CASTILLO, J.) SUBJECTS: CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL; TRANSFER; DIMINUTION OF BENEFITS; LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES. (BRIEF TITLE: BARROGA VS. DATA CENTER COLLEGE)

 

=================================

 

SUBJECT: WHAT ARE THE THREE MATERIAL DATES WHICH SHOULD BE STATED IN THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65?

THE  DATES WHEN THE NOTICE  OF THE JUDGMENT WAS RECEIVED, WHEN A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS FILED AND WHEN THE NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED.[1][26]  THESE DATES SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE PETITION TO ENABLE THE REVIEWING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THE PETITION WAS FILED ON TIME.

The three material dates which should be stated in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are the dates when the notice of the judgment was received, when a motion for reconsideration was filed and when the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration was received.[2][26]  These dates should be reflected in the petition to enable the reviewing court to determine if the petition was filed on time.[3][27]  Indeed, petitioner’s petition before the CA stated only the date of his receipt of the NLRC’s Resolution denying his motion for partial reconsideration.  It failed to state when petitioner received the assailed NLRC Decision and when he filed his partial motion for reconsideration.  However, this omission is not at all fatal because these material dates are reflected in petitioner’s Partial Motion for Reconsideration attached as Annex “N” of the petition.  In Acaylar, Jr. v. Harayo,[4][28] we held that failure to state these two dates in the petition may be excused if the same are evident from the records of the case.  It was further ruled by this Court that the more important material date which must be duly alleged in the petition is the date of receipt of the resolution of denial of the motion for reconsideration. In the case at bar, petitioner has duly complied with this rule.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

SUBJECT:  SUPPOSE YOU FAIL TO ATTACH AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, WHAT SHOUD YOU DO?

SUBMIT IT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE C.A. DISMISSES YOUR PETITION. 

Next, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to attach an affidavit of service.  However, records show that petitioner timely rectified this omission by submitting the required affidavit of service even before the CA dismissed his petition.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

SUBJECT: WHAT IS THE RULE ON WHAT DOCUMENTS TO ATTACH TO A CERTIORARI PETITION UNDER RULE 65?

THE RULES DO NOT SPECIFY THE DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOULD BE APPENDED TO THE PETITION EXCEPT THAT THEY SHOULD BE RELEVANT TO THE JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER OR RESOLUTION BEING ASSAILED.

Thirdly, petitioner’s failure to attach respondent’s motion for reconsideration to the assailed NLRC decision is not sufficient ground for the CA to outrightly dismiss his petition.  The issue that was raised in respondents’ motion for reconsideration is the propriety of the NLRC’s grant of overload honorarium in favor of petitioner.  This particular issue was not at all raised in petitioner’s petition for certiorari with the CA, therefore, there is no need for petitioner to append a copy of this motion to his petition.  Besides, as already mentioned, the denial of respondents’ motion for reconsideration has been assailed by respondents before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94205.  At any rate, the Rules do not specify the documents which should be appended  to the petition except that they should be relevant to the judgment, final order or resolution being assailed.  Petitioner is thus justified in attaching the documents which he believed are sufficient to make out a prima facie case.[5][29]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

SUBJECT: STATE THE JURISPRUDENCE  ON THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE?

The Court has time and again upheld the theory that the rules of procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice.[6][30]  These are mere tools to expedite the decision or resolution of cases, hence, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.[7][31]  The CA thus should not have outrightly dismissed petitioner’s petition based on these procedural lapses.

 

=================================

[1][26] Batugan v. Balindong, G.R. No. 181384,March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 473, 482.

[2][26] Batugan v. Balindong, G.R. No. 181384,March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 473, 482.

[3][27] Technological Institute of the Philippines Teachers and Employees Organization (TIPTEO) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158703, June 26, 2009, 591 SCRA 112, 127.

[4][28] G.R. No. 176995,July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 624, 636.

[5][29] Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission, 487 Phil. 412, 424-425 (2004).

[6][30] Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 623, 629 (2000).

[7][31] Van Melle Phils., Inc. v. Endaya, 458 Phil. 420, 430 (2003).