ROSA SIERRA, DESIDERIA RECOVEZ, SALVACION LOTA, GUILLERMA HAYOHOY, VERGENITA AGUDO, ROMAN BLENAGIQUE, DELIA SALVA, CARMENCITA GENON AND EVELYN CABANDO, PETITIONERS, VS. USTADZ A…

On October 09, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution^[1] which dismissed the instant petition for failure to comply with its October 12, 2012 directive – 

On 12 October 2012, this Court issued a Resolution, directing respondents to file comment on the petition and likewise directing petitioners to submit the original or certified true copy of the assailed DENR Decision, certified as true by the issuing office within 10 days from notice.   

Reply to Tracers both dated 20 June 2013 states that copies of said directive were received by petitioners through one Marivic Doria on 23 November 2012 and through one S/G Roland Bongol for respondents also on 23 November 2012.   

However, per JRD verification report dated 24 September 2013, both respondents and petitioners failed to comply with the above-mentioned directive.   

Section 3 (5^th par.) of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides:

The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. (n; Bar Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998)  

Thus, the instant petition is hereby ordered DISMISSED.^[2]

In their motion for reconsideration, petitioners, attached thereto the certified true copy of the DENR Decision dated September 15, 2011 and prays for a chance to prosecute its petition.^[3]

This Court grants the motion.

Rule 1 of the Rules of Court provides: 

Sec. 6. Construction. – These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

In Piglas Kamao v. National Labor Relations Commission,^[4] the High Court stressed the policy of courts to encourage the full adjudication of the merits of the case. In Spouses Lanaria v. Planta, ^[5] it was held that courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. These rulings are in consonance with the enshrined policy that the ends of justice be served over technical objections.

In the interest of substantial justice, the aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution issued by this Court on 09 October 2013 is set aside and the instant petition is REVIVED and be included again with the active docket cases of this Court.

Without necessarily giving due course to the petition, respondents are DIRECTED to file a Comment on the petition (not a motion to dismiss) within ten (10) days from notice, to which petitioners may file a Reply within five (5) days from receipt of the said comment.

SO ORDERED.

Borja, J., Ch., and Badelles, JJ., concur.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 58-59.

^[3] Rollo, pp. 63-79.

^[4] G.R. No. 138556, May 9, 2001 citing Magsaysay Lines v. CA, 260 SCRA 513, August 12, 1996; Siguenza v. CA, 137 SCRA 570, July 16, 1985; Insular Bank of America v. CA, 228 SCRA 420, December 14, 1993.

^[5] G.R. No. 172891, November 22, 2007.