EMELY B. GOM-OS, PROVINCIAL BOARD MEMBER, SIQUIJOR, SIQUIJOR, SALARY GRADE 27, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO G. MANIGO, RESPONDENT

Gom-os versus Manigo

The Case

This is Emely Gom-os, a provincial board member of Siquijor, against Antonio Manigo. Gom-os filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Joint Review and the Joint Resolution issued by the Office of the Ombudsman. The case matters far less for its facts than for its procedure: the Supreme Court never reached the merits, because the petition itself was defective in several respects. For a bar candidate, this is a lesson in the strict, technical requirements for filing a petition for review, and in the Court's power to dismiss such a petition outright.

Procedural History

The matter began before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas, where the respondent filed his complaint and the parties exchanged affidavits and position papers. The Office of the Ombudsman then issued a Joint Review dated April 10, 2012, followed by a Joint Resolution dated March 8, 2013. From these, Gom-os filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court directly with the Supreme Court. The Court did not require the respondent to comment; instead, upon a perusal of the petition, it noted several defects and dismissed the petition outright.

Facts

The petition for review was filed with the Supreme Court, but it failed to indicate the material date showing when the motion for reconsideration of the April 10, 2012 Joint Review had been filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. It also failed to incorporate a written explanation why the preferred personal mode of filing was not availed of.

Worse, the petitioner did not attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition, including the March 9, 2009 letter cum affidavit and the reply-affidavit of the respondent, the counter-affidavit of the petitioner, and the annexes referred to in the respondent's position paper.

The petitioner's counsel likewise failed to indicate the petitioner's Integrated Bar of the Philippines number and its date and place of issuance, and the professional tax receipt number and its date and place of issuance. Finally, the notarial certificate in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping did not contain the serial number of the notary public's commission, the province or city where the notary public was commissioned, and the office address of the notary public.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review may be dismissed outright for failure to comply with the content and documentary requirements of Rule 43.
• Whether or not the failure to state the material dates and to attach the required pleadings and documents is a ground for dismissal.
• Whether or not the defects in counsel's compliance with the bar matters and in the notarial certificate warrant dismissal of the petition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

SEC. 6. Contents of the Petition. - The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific materials dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.

This is the provision the petitioner violated by failing to state the material date of the motion for reconsideration and by failing to attach the necessary pleadings and documents.

Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Sec. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. – Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.

The petitioner violated this rule by omitting the written explanation for not filing personally.

Section 2 of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

Sec. 2 Contents of the Concluding Part of the Notarial Certificate. - The notarial certificate shall include the following: (a) the name of the notary public as exactly indicated in the commission; (b) the serial number of the commission of the notary public; (c) the words "Notary Public" and the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, the expiration date of the commission, the office address of the notary public; and (d) the roll of attorney's number, the professional tax receipt number and the place and date of issuance thereof, and the IBP membership number.

The notarial certificate in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping omitted the serial number of the commission, the province or city of commissioning, and the office address, all required by this provision.

Section 5, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 5. Action by the Court. - The court may dismiss the petition outright with specific reasons for such dismissal or require the respondent to file a comment on the same within ten (10) days from notice. Only pleadings required by the court shall be allowed. All other pleadings and papers may be filed only with leave of court.

This is the authority the Court invoked in dismissing the petition outright.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was defective and dismissed it outright. It noted that the petitioner failed to indicate the material date showing when the motion for reconsideration of the April 10, 2012 Joint Review was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, in violation of Section 6, Rule 43. It also failed to attach copies of all pleadings and documents necessary for a thorough understanding and resolution of the petition, again in violation of Section 6, Rule 43.

On the second issue, the Court treated the omission of the material dates and the failure to attach the required pleadings and documents as serious defects. The petition must state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed, and it must be accompanied by certified true copies of the material portions of the record and other supporting papers.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the petitioner's counsel failed to indicate the Integrated Bar of the Philippines number and the professional tax receipt number, with their dates and places of issuance, in violation of the governing bar matters. The notarial certificate also lacked the serial number of the commission, the province or city of commissioning, and the office address of the notary public, in violation of Section 2 of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The petitioner also failed to incorporate a written explanation why the preferred personal mode of filing was not availed of, in violation of Section 11, Rule 13. With all these defects, the Court dismissed the petition upon the authority of Section 5, Rule 46.

Doctrine

A petition for review under Rule 43 must comply strictly with the content and documentary requirements of Section 6, Rule 43. It must state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed, and it must be accompanied by certified true copies of the material portions of the record and other supporting papers. Failure to comply is a ground for outright dismissal under Section 5, Rule 46.

The preferred personal mode of service and filing must be observed whenever practicable, and a resort to another mode must be accompanied by a written explanation why the filing was not done personally, under Section 11, Rule 13.

The notarial certificate must contain all the elements required by Section 2 of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, including the serial number of the commission, the province or city of commissioning, and the office address of the notary public. Counsel must also indicate the Integrated Bar of the Philippines number and the professional tax receipt number, with their dates and places of issuance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright for the defects noted, upon the authority of Section 5, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The respondent prevailed, and the petition was not given due course.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a petition for review under Rule 43 may be dismissed outright for failure to state the material dates, to attach the required pleadings and documents, and to comply with the notarial and counsel requirements. Examiners use this case to test the strict procedural requirements for a petition for review and the Court's power to dismiss outright under Section 5, Rule 46.