Public Estates Authority vs. Caoibes, Jr.

Procedural rules on the service and filing of pleadings must be liberally construed; a written explanation for service by registered mail that substantially complies with Section 11, Rule 13, and the filing of a non-contentious motion without strict proof of service under Section 13, Rule 13, do not justify treating the pleading as not filed.

The Public Estates Authority was a defendant in Civil Case No. LP-97-0034 pending before Branch 253 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, presided over by respondent Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., while the private respondent Marta D. Madriaga was the plaintiff in that case. The service and filing of pleadings in the case were governed by the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, whose Rule 13, Sections 11 and 13, prescribed the preferred modes of service and filing and the proof required for service by registered mail.

The Public Estates Authority was a defendant in Civil Case No. LP-97-0034 pending before Branch 253 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, presided over by respondent Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. The private respondent, Marta D. Madriaga, was the plaintiff in that case, having filed the complaint that was later amended.

PEA, through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss in the civil case. The motion was served by registered mail and carried the explanation that service by mail was resorted to "there being no pressing need to resort to personal service." On October 2, 1997, the respondent court issued an Order considering the Motion to Dismiss as not filed, on the ground of non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that a resort to modes of service other than personal service be accompanied by a written explanation why service was not done personally.

PEA moved for reconsideration of the October 2, 1997 Order on October 23, 1997. In the meantime, the complaint in Civil Case No. LP-97-0034 was amended in view of the death of one of the defendants. PEA then filed a Manifestation and Motion dated November 28, 1997, praying that its Answer previously filed be treated as its Answer to the Amended Complaint.

On December 5, 1997, the respondent court issued a second Order denying the Manifestation and Motion for failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which prescribes the proof required when service is made by registered mail. PEA's Motion for Reconsideration of the October 2, 1997 Order was subsequently denied by the respondent judge on February 13, 1998, the court reasoning further that the Motion to Dismiss had failed to comply with Section 13, Rule 13. These twin orders of the trial court treating PEA's pleadings as not filed precipitated the present petition.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Non-Compliance with Rule 13, Sections 11 and 13: Petitioner argued that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in considering as not filed the Motion to Dismiss and the Manifestation and Motion, both filed through registered mail, allegedly for failure to comply with Rule 13, Sections 11 and 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Failure to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner argued that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in unjustifiably failing to resolve with dispatch its Motion for Reconsideration of the October 2, 1997 Order.

• Non-Compliance with Rule 13, Sections 11 and 13: Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in considering as not filed the Motion to Dismiss and the Manifestation and Motion filed through registered mail, allegedly for failure to comply with Rule 13, Sections 11 and 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Failure to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in unjustifiably failing to resolve with dispatch petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the October 2, 1997 Order.

• Non-Compliance with Rule 13, Sections 11 and 13: No. The Motion to Dismiss and the Manifestation and Motion should not have been considered as not filed; the written explanation, though not strictly compliant with Section 11, Rule 13, was acceptable because petitioner had not ignored the rule, and the Manifestation and Motion, being non-contentious, did not require strict proof of service under Section 13, Rule 13.
• Failure to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration: The petition was granted and the challenged Orders set aside; the Court did not separately discuss the alleged delay, the setting aside of the October 2, 1997 Order having disposed of the matter.

• Non-Compliance with Rule 13, Sections 11 and 13: Section 6, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court directs that the Rules be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Mindful of this rule, the Court found the explanation in PEA's Motion to Dismiss — that service by mail was resorted to because there was no pressing need for personal service — although not strictly in compliance with Section 11, Rule 13, to be acceptable, considering that PEA apparently did not ignore the rule. Rules of procedure being designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their rigid application resulting in technicalities that tend to delay or frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided, as held in Casa Filipina Realty Corporation vs. Office of the President. As to the failure to comply with the proof-of-service requirement under Section 13, Rule 13, the Court noted that PEA's Manifestation and Motion dated November 28, 1997 was not a contentious motion, so no right of the adverse party would be affected by its admission. The filing of the pleading was not even necessary, since the Answer previously filed by PEA could serve as the Answer to the private respondent's Amended Complaint even without a motion to admit it, as provided in Section 3, Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Failure to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration: The Court granted the petition and set aside the questioned Orders of October 2 and December 5, 1997, without separately addressing the alleged failure to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration with dispatch. The reversal of the October 2, 1997 Order rendered the matter academic.

• Liberal Construction of Rules of Procedure — Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The Court applied this principle to excuse PEA's technical lapses, holding that rigid application of the rules resulting in technicalities that tend to delay or frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided.
• Substantial Compliance with the Written-Explanation Requirement — Section 11, Rule 13 requires that a resort to modes of service other than personal service be accompanied by a written explanation why service or filing was not done personally, and a violation may be cause to consider the paper as not filed. The Court held that PEA's explanation — that service by mail was resorted to because there was no pressing need for personal service — although not strictly compliant, was acceptable because PEA had not ignored the rule.
• Non-Contentious Motions and Proof of Service — Section 13, Rule 13 prescribes the proof of service when service is made by registered mail. The Court held that PEA's Manifestation and Motion was not a contentious motion, so no right of the adverse party would be affected by its admission, and strict compliance with the proof-of-service requirement was not demanded.
• Answer to Amended Complaint — Under Section 3, Rule 11 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, an answer previously filed may serve as the answer to an amended complaint even without a motion to admit it. The Court thus held that PEA's Manifestation and Motion was not even necessary.

• "Rules of procedure being designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their rigid application resulting in technicalities that tend to delay or frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided." — This passage states the ratio decidendi, articulating the liberal-construction principle that controlled the disposition of the petition.
• "the court finds the explanation in subject Motion to Dismiss of petitioner, although not strictly in compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, to nonetheless be acceptable considering that petitioner apparently did not ignore the rule." — This passage applies the substantial-compliance standard to the written-explanation requirement under Section 11, Rule 13.
• "it is worthy to note that petitioner's Manifestation and Motion dated November 28, 1997 is not a contentious motion and therefore, no right of the adverse party would be affected by the admission thereof." — This passage defines the Court's treatment of non-contentious motions, excusing strict compliance with the proof-of-service requirement.
• "The filing of said pleading was not even necessary since the Answer previously filed by petitioner could serve as the Answer to private respondent's Amended Complaint even if no motion to admit such Answer was filed with the trial court, as provided in Section 3, Rule 11 of the Revised Rules of Court." — This passage states the rule on answers to amended complaints, underscoring that the trial court's denial of the Manifestation and Motion served no purpose.

• Casa Filipina Realty Corporation vs. Office of the President, 241 SCRA 165 [1995] — Cited by the Court in support of the principle that the rigid application of procedural rules, resulting in technicalities that delay or frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided.

• Section 6, Rule 1, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that the Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. The Court invoked this as the controlling principle for excusing PEA's procedural lapses.
• Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that, whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers be done personally, and that a resort to other modes be accompanied by a written explanation why service or filing was not done personally, with a violation possibly resulting in the paper being considered as not filed. The Court held that PEA's explanation substantially complied with this requirement.
• Section 13, Rule 13, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that, if service is made by registered mail, proof be made by affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office, with the registry return card filed immediately upon receipt or, in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster. The Court excused strict compliance because the Manifestation and Motion was non-contentious.
• Section 3, Rule 11, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs the answer to an amended complaint. The Court noted that PEA's previously filed Answer could serve as its Answer to the Amended Complaint even without a motion to admit.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.