Spouses Cordero vs. Octaviano

Rules of procedure may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice where a party substantially complies with the requirements; a pleading filed by registered mail is deemed filed on the date of mailing.

Leonila M. Octaviano is the registered owner of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-184403. Spouses Mariano and Raquel Cordero were the occupants of the subject premises and the defendants in the ejectment complaint. The dispute reached the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 after the CA dismissed the Corderos' petition for review under Rule 42. The procedural rules at issue govern the statement of material dates and the attachment of lower court judgments or final orders in a petition for review.

Leonila M. Octaviano, registered owner of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-184403, filed in 2011 an ejectment complaint against Spouses Mariano and Raquel Cordero before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, docketed as Civil Case No. C-538. On May 22, 2013, the MCTC ruled in favor of Octaviano and ordered the Corderos to vacate the premises. The Corderos appealed to the Regional Trial Court. On December 7, 2016, the RTC affirmed the MCTC's findings. The Corderos moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on June 22, 2017 for lack of merit.

The Corderos then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 11086. On December 19, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition because the Corderos failed to state the material date showing when the December 7, 2016 RTC Decision was received, in violation of Section 2(b), Rule 42, and failed to append a clearly legible duplicate original or true copy of the assailed December 7, 2016 Decision and other pertinent portions of the records, in violation of Section 2(d), Rule 42. The dismissal was pursuant to Section 3, Rule 42.

The Corderos sought reconsideration, claiming inadvertent failure to state the date of receipt of the RTC Decision and invoking substantial compliance. They asserted that the petition indicated the date of receipt of the June 22, 2017 RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration, which was sufficient to determine timeliness; that the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016 was attached as Annex "C"; and that the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017 and the MCTC Decision dated May 22, 2013 were also appended, with additional records later submitted. On June 29, 2018, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was filed one day late, stating that the Corderos received a copy of the December 19, 2017 CA Resolution on January 17, 2018 and had until February 1, 2018 to file the motion, but filed it on February 2, 2018. The Corderos maintained that the motion was timely filed on February 1, 2018, as evidenced by the affidavit of the clerk who caused the mailing, the registry receipt, and the postmaster's certification.

• Material Dates: Petitioners argued that failure to state the date of receipt of the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016 was inadvertent and not fatal; the petition indicated the date of receipt of the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017 denying their motion for reconsideration, which was sufficient to determine the timeliness of the petition.
• Attachments/Records: Petitioners maintained that the CA overlooked the copy of the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016 attached as Annex "C"; the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017 and the MCTC Decision dated May 22, 2013 were also appended, and additional records such as the complaint, answer, memoranda, and motion for reconsideration were subsequently submitted.
• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioners argued that their motion for reconsideration was timely filed on February 1, 2018 as evidenced by the affidavit of the clerk who caused the mailing, the registry receipt, and the postmaster's certification.
• Liberal Application of Rules: Petitioners maintained that a rigid application of technicalities cannot prevail at the expense of a just resolution of the case.

• Material Dates: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for review for failure to state the material date of receipt of the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016, despite the petition alleging the date of receipt of the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017 denying the motion for reconsideration.
• Attachments/Records: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for review for failure to append material records, despite the attachment of the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017, the MCTC Decision dated May 22, 2013, and the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016, and the subsequent submission of additional records.
• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the CA erred in denying the motion for reconsideration as one day late, when the motion was filed by registered mail on February 1, 2018, the date of mailing being the date of filing.
• Liberal Application of Rules: Whether strict adherence to the rules of procedure must yield to the search for truth and substantial justice under the circumstances.

• Material Dates: No. The CA erred in dismissing the petition; the Corderos substantially complied with the material-date requirement because they alleged the date of receipt of the RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration, which was sufficient to determine timeliness.
• Attachments/Records: No. The required judgments and orders were attached to the petition, and the subsequent submission of additional records justified relaxation of the rules.
• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Yes. The motion for reconsideration was timely filed; under Section 3, Rule 13, the date of mailing by registered mail is considered the date of filing.
• Liberal Application of Rules: Yes. Rules of procedure are tools designed to facilitate justice and may be relaxed to prevent grave injustice and to allow resolution on the merits.

• Material Dates: The rationale for requiring a complete statement of material dates is to determine whether the petition is timely filed; the petition must show when notice of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution was received, when the motion for reconsideration was filed, and when notice of its denial was received. The Court may relax strict observance to advance substantial justice. In Security Bank Corporation vs. Aerospace University, the CA denied due course for failure to state the dates when the assailed order was received and the motion for reconsideration was filed, but the Court held that the more material date for purposes of appeal to the CA is the date of receipt of the trial court's order denying the motion for reconsideration; the case was remanded for resolution on the merits. This doctrine was reiterated in Acaylar, Jr. vs. Harayo, Barroga vs. Data Center College of the Philippines, Barra vs. Civil Service Commission, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. vs. Macatlang, Capin-Cadiz vs. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc., and Victoriano vs. Dominguez. Here, the Corderos stated in the petition for review that they received the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017 denying their motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2017 and timely filed the petition on July 26, 2017, within the 15-day reglementary period. They are thus deemed to have substantially complied, and the failure to indicate the date of receipt of other orders and resolutions may be dispensed with in the interest of justice.
• Attachments/Records: Section 2(d), Rule 42 requires that the petition for review before the CA be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC, the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. A perusal of the petition for review reveals that copies of the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017, the MCTC Decision dated May 22, 2013, and the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016 were attached as Annexes "A," "B," and "C." Thus, the Corderos complied with the requirement of attaching copies of the judgments and orders of the trial courts. These attachments were sufficient to enable the CA to pass upon the assigned errors and resolve the appeal even without the pleadings and other portions of the records; the assailed decisions substantially summarized the contents of the omitted records. The CA could also rely on the principle that factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight, or direct the submission of additional documents or elevation of the original records. The Corderos appended pertinent pleadings and documents in their motion for reconsideration. Subsequent and substantial compliance may call for relaxation of the rules, and the CA failed to do so.
• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: It is undisputed that the Corderos received on January 17, 2018 a copy of the CA Resolution dated December 19, 2017 and had 15 days from notice, or until February 1, 2018, to file a motion for reconsideration. The CA denied the motion because it was filed on February 2, 2018, or one day late. However, the affidavit of the clerk who caused the mailing, the registry receipt, and the postmaster's certification all established that the Corderos filed the motion through registered mail on February 1, 2018, not February 2, 2018. Under Section 3, Rule 13, the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing when a pleading is filed by registered mail; it does not matter when the court actually receives the mailed pleading. The motion was therefore filed within the prescribed period.
• Liberal Application of Rules: The CA's outright dismissal of the petition for review constituted a gross error and contravened the Corderos' right to be heard on appeal. The ends of justice are better served if the case is determined on the merits, after full opportunity is given to all parties for ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on procedural imperfections. It is far better to dispose of the case on the merits, which is a primordial end, rather than on a technicality that may result in injustice.

• Liberal application of rules of procedure / substantial compliance — Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Courts may relax strict adherence to procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice, especially where a party substantially complies with the requirements and where strict application would result in grave injustice. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine to excuse the failure to state the date of receipt of the RTC Decision, to accept the attached judgments and orders as sufficient compliance, and to treat the subsequent submission of records as substantial compliance.
• Material dates in petitions for review — The purpose of requiring a complete statement of material dates is to determine whether the petition is timely filed. The petition must show when notice of the assailed judgment, order, or resolution was received, when the motion for reconsideration was filed, and when notice of its denial was received. The more material date for purposes of appeal to the CA is the date of receipt of the trial court's order denying the motion for reconsideration. Failure to state other dates is not fatal if that date is alleged.
• Attachments under Section 2(d), Rule 42 — A petition for review must be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC, the requisite number of plain copies, and the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations. Substantial compliance may be found where the attached judgments and orders sufficiently enable the CA to resolve the appeal, and subsequent submission of omitted records may justify relaxation.
• Filing by registered mail — Under Section 3, Rule 13, when a pleading is filed by registered mail, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp or registry receipt is considered the date of filing. The date the court actually receives the mailed pleading is immaterial.
• Factual findings of lower courts — Factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight. The CA may rely on this principle in resolving the appeal even without the complete records.

• "There are times when strict adherence to the rules of procedure must yield to the search for truth and the demands of substantial justice." — This opening statement frames the Court's disposition and its willingness to relax procedural rules in this case.
• "The rationale for requiring a complete statement of material dates is to determine whether the petition is timely filed." — This passage states the purpose of the material-date requirement and supports the Court's finding of substantial compliance.
• "[t]he more material date for purposes of appeal to the Court of Appeals is the date of receipt of the trial court's order denying the motion for reconsideration" — This formulation, relied upon from prior jurisprudence, is the controlling rule that saved the Corderos' petition from dismissal for failure to state other material dates.
• "Applying Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of mailing shall be considered as the date of filing when a pleading is filed by registered mail. It does not matter when the court actually receives the mailed pleading." — This passage resolves the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration and establishes that the Corderos filed it on February 1, 2018.

• Security Bank Corporation vs. Aerospace University, 500 Phil. 51 (2005) — Controlling precedent for the rule that the more material date for purposes of appeal to the CA is the date of receipt of the trial court's order denying the motion for reconsideration; the Court relied on it to find substantial compliance.
• Acaylar, Jr. vs. Harayo, 582 Phil. 600 (2008) — Reiterated that failure to state material dates is not fatal where the date of receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration is alleged.
• Barroga vs. Data Center College of the Philippines, 667 Phil. 808 (2011) — Followed the same doctrine, holding that omission of other material dates is not fatal when the date of receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration is alleged.
• Barra vs. Civil Service Commission, 706 Phil. 523 (2013) — Applied the substantial-compliance doctrine where the dates were evident from the records.
• Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. vs. Macatlang, 735 Phil. 71 (2014) — Cited to support relaxation where the petition alleged the date of receipt of the NLRC Resolution and the appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
• Capin-Cadiz vs. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc., 781 Phil. 610 (2016) — Cited for the rule that failure to state the date of receipt of the NLRC decision is not fatal where the date of receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration is alleged.
• Victoriano vs. Dominguez, G.R. No. 214794, July 23, 2018, 872 SCRA 479 — Cited for substantial compliance where the petition specified the date of receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration and was filed by registered mail within the 15-day period.
• Mendoza vs. David, 484 Phil. 128 (2004) — Cited for the rule that subsequent submission of required pleadings and documents may be considered substantial compliance justifying relaxation of the rules.
• Jaro vs. Court of Appeals, 427 Phil. 532 (2002) — Cited for the principle that subsequent and substantial compliance may call for relaxation of the rules of procedure.
• Russel vs. Ebasan, 633 Phil. 384 (2010) — Cited for the rule that the date of mailing is the date of filing when a pleading is filed by registered mail.
• Heirs of Villagracia vs. Equitable Banking Corp., 573 Phil. 212 (2008) — Cited for the principle that it is better to dispose of a case on the merits than on a technicality that may result in injustice.

• Section 2(b), Rule 42, Rules of Court — Requires the petition for review to state the material date showing when the assailed judgment or final order was received. The CA invoked this provision in dismissing the petition; the Supreme Court found substantial compliance because the petition alleged the date of receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, which was sufficient to determine timeliness.
• Section 2(d), Rule 42, Rules of Court — 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, certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC, the requisite number of plain copies, and the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations. The Court found compliance because the RTC Order, MCTC Decision, and RTC Decision were attached, and the subsequent submission of additional records justified relaxation.
• Section 3, Rule 42, Rules of Court — Authorizes dismissal of the petition for review for non-compliance with the requirements. The CA relied on this provision; the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal because the defects did not warrant outright dismissal under the circumstances.
• Section 3, Rule 13, Rules of Court — Provides that when a pleading is filed by registered mail, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp or registry receipt is considered the date of filing. The Court applied this provision to hold that the motion for reconsideration was timely filed on February 1, 2018.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court. The Corderos used this mode to challenge the CA's dismissal of their petition for review.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson); Caguioa, J.; Reyes, J. Jr.; and Lazaro-Javier, J., concurred.