ALEX O. LEYSON, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION OFFICE – OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS) AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN – CENTRAL OFFICE, DILIMAN, QUE…

Leyson versus Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office

The Case

This is Leyson versus the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas and the Office of the Ombudsman Central Office in Diliman, Quezon City. The petitioner, Alex O. Leyson, sought review of an Ombudsman decision and a joint order by filing a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The case matters because it teaches, in the most practical way, that the Supreme Court will dismiss a petition outright when the Rules on appeal, service, and verification are not strictly complied with. It is a case about procedure, and procedure defeats the petition here.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas dated September 15, 2011, and the Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman Central Office in Diliman, Quezon City dated March 17, 2014. The petition went directly to the Supreme Court. The Court, upon a perusal of the petition, found several infirmities and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 43, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

The petitioner, Alex O. Leyson, brought a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court against the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas and the Office of the Ombudsman Central Office in Diliman, Quezon City. He sought to reverse the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas dated September 15, 2011, and the Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman Central Office dated March 17, 2014.

When the Supreme Court examined the petition, it found that the petition did not allege the date of receipt of the Decision of the Ombudsman for the Visayas, nor the date the motion for reconsideration of that Decision was filed. The petition also did not contain an explanation why the preferred personal mode of service was not availed of, and it did not contain proof of service upon the adverse parties, such as an affidavit of service.

Aside from a copy of the assailed Decision, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, and the resolution denying the same, no other pleadings or documents necessary for a better understanding and resolution of the petition were attached. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping also failed to state that the allegations in the petition are based on authentic records. It contained no competent evidence as to the identity of the petitioner, such as at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing his photograph and signature. It also did not indicate the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, nor the office address of the notary public.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review may be dismissed for failure to allege the date of receipt of the assailed Decision and the date the motion for reconsideration was filed, as required by Rule 43, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to explain why personal service was not availed of, as required by Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to contain proof of service upon the adverse parties, as required by Rule 13, Section 13 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for failure to attach the other pleadings and documents necessary for a better understanding and resolution of the petition.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for defects in its verification and certification of non-forum shopping, namely, failure to state that the allegations are based on authentic records, failure to show competent evidence of the petitioner's identity, and failure to indicate the province or city of commissioning and the office address of the notary public.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 43, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, on the contents of a petition for review, provides:

The petition for review shall state the date of receipt of a copy of the decision or resolution of the court or agency, the date of the filing of any motion for reconsideration, and the date of receipt of a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.

The petition failed to state these dates, which is one of the grounds for its dismissal.

Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, on the explanation for not availing of personal service, provides:

If service is made by registered mail, the proof of service shall consist of the affidavit of the person mailing and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office, or the registry return card signed by the addressee or his agent.

The petition contained no explanation why the preferred personal mode of service was not availed of.

Rule 13, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, on proof of service, provides:

Proof of service shall be made in writing, and shall state the date and place of service, and the manner of service.

The petition contained no proof of service upon the adverse parties.

Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC dated May 1, 2000, on verification, provides:

The verification shall state that the allegations in the petition are based on authentic records.

The verification failed to state that the allegations were based on authentic records.

Rule II, Section 12 of the Rules on Notarial Practice, on the notary public's duty to ascertain identity, provides:

The notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is not in his presence at the time of the notarization, and is not personally known to him, or not identified by him through a competent evidence of identity.

No competent evidence of the petitioner's identity was attached.

Rule VIII, Section 2(c) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, on the notarial certificate, provides:

The notarial certificate shall state the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, and the office address of the notary public.

The petition did not indicate these details.

Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on all the grounds it identified. On the first issue, the petition did not allege the date of receipt of the Decision of the Ombudsman for the Visayas, nor the date the motion for reconsideration of that Decision was filed, in violation of Rule 43, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. On the second issue, the petition did not contain an explanation why the preferred personal mode of service was not availed of, in violation of Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. On the third issue, the petition did not contain proof of service of the petition upon the adverse parties, such as an affidavit of service, in violation of Rule 13, Section 13 of the Rules of Court.

On the fourth issue, no other pleadings or documents necessary for a better understanding and resolution of the petition were attached, except a copy of the assailed Decision, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, and the resolution denying the same. On the fifth issue, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping failed to state that the allegations in the petition are based on authentic records, in violation of Rule 7, Section 4 of the Rules of Court as amended; contained no competent evidence as to the identity of the petitioner, in violation of Rule II, Section 12 of the Rules on Notarial Practice; and did not indicate the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, and the office address of the notary public, in violation of Rule VIII, Section 2(c) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

In view of these infirmities, and pursuant to Rule 43, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, the Court dismissed the petition.

Doctrine

A petition for review under Rule 43 must comply strictly with the Rules of Court. The petition must state the date of receipt of the assailed decision, the date of filing of any motion for reconsideration, and the date of receipt of the resolution denying it. It must explain why personal service was not availed of, and it must contain proof of service upon the adverse parties. It must attach the pleadings and documents necessary for a better understanding and resolution of the petition.

The verification must state that the allegations are based on authentic records, and the notarial certificate must show competent evidence of the signatory's identity, the province or city where the notary public is commissioned, and the notary public's office address. Failure to comply with these requirements is a ground for dismissal under Rule 43, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review, and the respondents, the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas and the Office of the Ombudsman Central Office, prevailed.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a petition for review under Rule 43 is dismissed when it fails to state the dates of receipt and reconsideration, to explain the mode of service, to prove service, and to comply with the verification and notarial requirements. Examiners like to use this case to test strict compliance with the Rules of Court on appeal and service, and the consequences of defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping.