DOMINGO S. GUEVARA, JR. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, M. MARCUS N. VALDEZ II, PETITIONER, VS. ELMA S. TAPIA A.K.A. ELVIRA/ELVIE TAPIA, RESPONDENT.

We resolve to dismiss outright the petition for review for the following reasons:

First, Section 2(d), Rule 42, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly requires the petition for review to be accompanied by “clearly legible duplicate original or true copy of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.” Here, petitioner’s attachment of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities’ (MTCC) Decision^[1] is neither a duplicate original nor a certified true copy.

Second, the verification and certification against non-forum shopping^[2] as well as the affidavit of service^[3] do not contain the office address of the notary public as required under Section 2(c), Rule VIII^[4] the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.^[5]

It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. It does not mean, however, that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random, to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.^[6]

Petitioner and its counsel should bear in mind that the right to appeal is not a natural right. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.^[7] Therefore, a party seeking relief must strictly comply with the rules of procedure or otherwise face the risk of an outright dismissal of the case.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Bueser, and ^*Paredes, JJ., concur.

---

^* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 55-15-ABR dated 23 February 2015

^[1] Rollo, pp. 144-146

^[2] Rollo, p. 102

^[3] Id., p. 104

^[4] Rule 8, Section 2 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice state that:

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.

^[5] A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004).

^[6] Pyro Copper Mining Corp. vs. MAB-DENR, et. al., G.R. No. 179674, July 28, 2009, 594 SCRA 193 citing Teoville Homeowners Asso., Inc. v. Ferreira, G.R. No. 140086, 8 June 2005, 459 SCRA 459, 471.

^[7] Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 95 (1998).