SARAH BELO BANTILAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, DAVAO CITY, AND TERESITA BELO, DANILO C. …

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari^[1] under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the October 18, 2013 Order^[2]
of Branch 16, 11th Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court of Davao City
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration with motion for
inhibition in Civil Case No. 34,011-11, entitled “Sarah Belo Bantilan -versus- Vicente C. Belo, et al.”

A perusal, however, of the instant petition reveals the following defects and infirmities:

1. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration (of the RTC Order denying the motion for inhibition) which is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari;
2. Incomplete statement of material dates in contravention of
   Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The petition does not state
   when a motion for reconsideration was filed, when said motion was
   denied, and when the denial of the motion for reconsideration was
   received. There is also no allegation that the instant petition falls
   among the recognized exceptions where a motion for reconsideration is
   not required before resorting to a special civil action for certiorari;

3. Failure to state the complete and actual addresses of all the
   petitioners and respondents as required under Section 3, Rule 46 of the
   Rules of Court;

4. Improper verification. The verification is based on
   petitioner’s as it is based on “my own personal knowledge and belief
   only” but the allegations in the petition are based on records of
   pleadings filed and proceedings undertaken before the court a quo; and

5. The notarial certificate of the Verification and Certification
   Against Forum Shopping does not show competent evidence of affiant’s
   identity required under Section 2 (b) Rule IV, in relation to Section
   12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice.

We are constrained to dismiss the petition in view of the
foregoing defects appearing with it. Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, emphatically provides:

Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirement.-The
failure of the petitioner to comply any of the foregoing requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit
for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the
documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof.

In Hyung Hyung Park v. Eng Won Choi,^[3] the Supreme Court made the following pronouncement, to wit:

Verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless formality.
Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or
sheer caprice. For what is at stake is the matter of verity attested by
the sanctity of an oath to secure an assurance that the allegations in
the pleading have been made in good faith, or are true and correct and
not merely speculative.

This Court has strictly been enforcing the requirement of
verification and certification and enunciating that the obedience to the
requirements of procedural rules is needed if fair results are to be
expected therefrom. Utter disregard of the rules cannot just be
rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. While the
requirement is not jurisdictional in nature, it does not make it less a
rule.

Further, Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 4. Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or
accompanied by affidavit.

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read
the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of
his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification
based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and
belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned
pleading.^[4]

Notably, it is a settled principle of law that rules of procedure
must be used to facilitate, not to frustrate the ends of justice.^[5] Corollary, petitioner and his counsel should bear in mind that the right to a special civil action of certiorari is neither a natural right nor an essential element of due process; a writ of certiorari
is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, and never
issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, one who
seeks a writ of certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and the Rules.^[6]
Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an
injustice which is not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.^[7]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 65 is hereby DISMISSED.

Accordingly, the Cash Division of this Court is DIRECTED to
return the amount of P3,470.00 representing the excess payment for
docket and legal fees.

SO ORDERED.

Camello and Lopez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 4-12.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 86-87.

^[3] G.R. No. 165496, February 12, 2007.

^[4] As amended by A.M. No. 00-2-20-SC, which took effect on May 1, 2000.

^[5] Cusi-Hernandez v. Sps. Diaz, 390 Phil. 1245 (2000).

^[6] MTM Garment Manufacturing, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152336, June 9, 2005.

^[7] Limpot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 44642, 20 February 1989.