Canton vs. City of Cebu

A petition for review under Rule 42 must be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts and the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition, and failure to comply with this requirement, coupled with an unjustified refusal to submit the required documents upon directive of the appellate court, warrants the outright dismissal of the petition.

Employees of the Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP), assisted by the Squatters Prevention Encroachment Elimination Division (SPEED) of the Office of the City Mayor of Cebu City, removed a barbed wire fence from a disputed area identified as part of the South Cebu Reclamation Project, citing the lack of a necessary construction permit. Petitioners claimed ownership of the property, asserting it was located outside the reclamation project, and supported their claim with tax declarations.

• The Disputed Area: MCDP identified the area as part of the South Cebu Reclamation Project. On June 24, 1998, MCDP and SPEED removed a barbed wire fence for lacking a construction permit.
• The Forcible Entry Case: Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 926 for forcible entry against MCDP and the City of Cebu, claiming unlawful entry and fence demolition. Petitioners asserted the property was in San Roque, Talisay, outside the reclamation project, presenting tax declarations as proof of ownership. Respondents countered that the area is foreshore land reclaimed by them, and petitioners had no right of ownership or possession.
• Lower Court Rulings: The MTC ruled in favor of petitioners, prioritizing prior physical possession over ownership. The RTC reversed the MTC, declaring the area as foreshore land belonging to the State and finding no forcible entry.
• Procedural Deficiency: Petitioners received the RTC decision on January 7, 2002, and filed a Rule 42 petition with the CA on January 16, 2002. The CA dismissed the petition outright for failure to attach copies of the complaint, answer, position papers, and appeal memoranda from the lower courts. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but still refused to attach the missing pleadings, arguing they were unnecessary.

• Improper Dismissal: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in outright dismissing the petition because Section 2, Rule 42 does not explicitly enumerate the "complaint, answer, parties' position papers filed with the Municipal Trial Court, and parties' appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court" as required attachments.
• Arbitrary Requirement: Petitioners maintained that requiring unspecified pleadings reduces practice before the Court of Appeals to a guessing game regarding what will satisfactorily support the petition.
• Unnecessary Attachments: Petitioners insisted the missing pleadings were not indispensable to support the allegations, given the clear statements in the courts' decisions and the parties' position papers.
• Harsh Application of Rules: Petitioners characterized the Court of Appeals' ruling as overly harsh, applying technicality over substance.

• Propriety of Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in outright dismissing the petition for review for failure to attach copies of the complaint, answer, position papers, and appeal memoranda from the lower courts pursuant to Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

• Propriety of Dismissal: The outright dismissal was affirmed. Section 2, Rule 42 requires the petition to be accompanied by "pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition." Petitioners' discretion in choosing documents to attach is not unbridled; the Court of Appeals has the duty to check this discretion to determine prima facie merit. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be strictly complied with. Petitioners' unjustified refusal to submit the required documents upon the Court of Appeals' directive warranted dismissal.

• Right to Appeal is a Statutory Privilege — The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. A party who seeks to appeal must comply with the requirements; otherwise, the privilege is forfeited. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.
• Duty of the Court of Appeals to Check Discretion in Attachments — While the petitioner knows best what pleadings support their petition, their discretion in choosing documents to attach is not unbridled. The Court of Appeals has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition. Unjustified refusal to comply with the attachment requirement justifies dismissal.

• "The right to appeal is not a natural right. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law."
• "Petitioner’s discretion in choosing the documents to be attached to the petition is however not unbridled. The [Court of Appeals] has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion, to see to it that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory."

• Atillo v. Bombay, 404 Phil. 179 (2001) — Followed. Held that the Court of Appeals has the duty to check the petitioner's discretion in choosing supporting documents, and unjustified refusal to comply with attachment requirements justifies dismissal.
• Cusi-Hernandez v. Sps. Diaz, 390 Phil. 1245 (2000) — Cited. Rules of procedure must be used to facilitate, not frustrate, justice.
• Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 95 (1998) — Cited. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege.
• Limpot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 44642, 170 SCRA 367 (1989) — Cited. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying.

• Section 2, Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires the petition for review to be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts and the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. Applied to require petitioners to attach the missing pleadings to allow the Court of Appeals to verify the allegations of error and admissions.
• Section 3, Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that failure to comply with the requirements regarding the contents of and documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. Applied to justify the outright dismissal of the petition.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.