CONCHITA RODIS, SENFOROSO LAWA, JR., LUZ LAWA LUGAY, AND EDUARDO DERIGAY, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. EDGAR AND KIM MARTINEZ, HON. SOLIVER C. PERAS, RESPONDENTS.

Rodis versus Martinez

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Conchita Rodis, Senforoso Lawa, Junior, Luz Lawa Lugay, and Eduardo Derigay against spouses Edgar and Kim Martinez and against the presiding judge of a Regional Trial Court branch in Cebu City. The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to annul a trial court order, but the Court never reached the merits. The case matters because it is a clean, unforgiving lesson in procedural law: a petition that ignores the mandatory contents and filing requirements of Rule 46 is dismissed outright, no matter how substantial the underlying grievance may be.

Procedural History

The dispute began as a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by the private respondents before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6, Cebu City. That court rendered a decision on February 17, 2012. The case then went up to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Cebu City, where the parties filed their memoranda. The Regional Trial Court issued an order on July 31, 2013, which the petitioners sought to reconsider. From that denial, the petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the July 31, 2013 order. It is that original petition which the Supreme Court resolved, and it resolved it on procedural grounds alone.

Facts

The petitioners were the losing side in an unlawful detainer case decided by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6, Cebu City, on February 17, 2012. They elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Cebu City, and both sides submitted memoranda. On July 31, 2013, the Regional Trial Court issued the order that the petitioners would later challenge.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration of that order, and then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. On its face, the petition was defective in several ways. The petitioners did not allege the date they filed their motion for reconsideration. Their docket and other lawful fees were short by 180 pesos. They showed no proof that a copy of the petition was served on the public respondent. They attached only a photocopy of the assailed order instead of a duplicate original or certified true copy. They omitted the certification of non-forum shopping. They failed to attach the relevant pleadings and documents, including the complaint for unlawful detainer, the answer, the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, the memoranda filed before the Regional Trial Court, and their own motion for reconsideration.

They also failed to explain why they resorted to personal filing rather than the preferred mode, in violation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari should be dismissed for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the omission of the certification of non-forum shopping and the other defects are fatal to the petition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements. — The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.

This fixes what every petition must contain, and the petitioners fell short of it.

In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received.

The petitioners omitted the date of filing of their motion for reconsideration, a material date the rule requires.

It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto.

The petitioners attached only a photocopy of the assailed order and no proof of service on the public respondent.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

The petitioners appended no certification of non-forum shopping at all.

The petitioner shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of court and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the petition.

The petitioners' payment was deficient by 180 pesos.

The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

This last sentence is the provision on which the entire ruling turns.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was laden with defects and dismissed it. It enumerated the violations: the failure to allege the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration; the deficient payment of docket and other lawful fees by 180 pesos; the absence of proof of service on the public respondent; the attachment of a mere photocopy instead of a duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed order; the omission of the certification of non-forum shopping; and the failure to attach the pertinent pleadings and documents, namely the complaint for unlawful detainer, the answer, the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities dated February 17, 2012, the memoranda filed before the Regional Trial Court, and the motion for reconsideration.

On the second issue, the Court held that these omissions are fatal. It pointed to the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46, which provides that the failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court also noted the violation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court for failure to explain why personal filing was preferred. Because the defects went to the very requirements the Rules make mandatory, the Court did not excuse them and did not reach the merits.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must strictly comply with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court. The requirements are mandatory: the material dates, the proof of service, the duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed order, the certification of non-forum shopping, the full docket fees, and the pertinent attachments. The Rules themselves supply the consequence, for the failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Procedural rules are not mere technicalities to be brushed aside at the litigant's convenience; noncompliance is a ground for dismissal that the Court will apply.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the private respondents prevailed, with no ruling on the merits of the unlawful detainer case.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the failure to comply with any requirement of Section 3, Rule 46 is a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. Examiners use this case to test whether you know the mandatory contents of a Rule 65 petition, especially the certification of non-forum shopping and the material dates.