MARY LOUSIENE P. TRINIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Trinidad versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Mary Lousiene Trinidad against the People of the Philippines, a criminal case that reached the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review. The petitioner had been convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan City of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, and that conviction was affirmed on appeal by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. What makes this case matter for the Bar is not the crime but the remedy: the Supreme Court uses it to remind every practitioner that a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals must be verified and must carry a sworn certificate of non-forum shopping, and that the omission of that certificate is a fatal defect that warrants outright dismissal.

Procedural History

The Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan City, Branch 58, rendered its decision on November 27, 2013, finding the petitioner guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and ordering her to indemnify Pepito Jabao the amount of 60,000 pesos as temperate damages. The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160, which, in a decision dated June 25, 2014, affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court. From that affirmance, the petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review of the Regional Trial Court's decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright, and the case is reported under the ponencia of Justice Sadang, with Justices Librea-Leagogo as Chairperson and Diamante concurring.

Facts

The petitioner, Mary Lousiene Trinidad, was prosecuted before the Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan City for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court found her guilty and ordered her to pay Pepito Jabao temperate damages in the amount of 60,000 pesos.

Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, which exercised its appellate jurisdiction and affirmed the conviction and the award of damages.

Seeking further relief, the petitioner came to the Supreme Court through a petition for review. On examination of the petition, the Court found that it was not verified and, more importantly, that no certificate of non-forum shopping had been submitted with it. The petitioner offered no valid justification for the omission, and the Court dismissed the petition outright.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review filed with the Supreme Court may be given due course despite the failure of the petitioner to have it verified and to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping.
• Whether or not the subsequent compliance with the requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping excuses the failure to comply with it in the first instance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

This provision fixes the remedy and the forum: an appeal from a Regional Trial Court acting in its appellate jurisdiction is taken by a verified petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals, not with the Supreme Court.

Section 2 of the same Rule provides:

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath 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 days therefrom.

This is the certificate of non-forum shopping that must accompany the petition, and its absence is what the Court treats as fatal.

Section 3 of Rule 42 provides:

Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

This provision supplies the consequence: failure to submit the documents that should accompany the petition is a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed outright. The requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, and failure to comply with it cannot be excused. The Court explained that the certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving basically the same parties, issues, and causes of action. Hence, the certification must be accomplished by the party himself because he has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in different courts or tribunals. Examining the petition, the Court found that it was not verified and, more importantly, that the petitioner omitted to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping, a fatal defect that warrants outright dismissal.

On the second issue, the Court held that subsequent compliance with the requirement does not excuse a party's failure to comply with it in the first instance. While there are cases in which non-compliance was excused, the Court found special circumstances or compelling reasons which made strict compliance clearly unjustified or inequitable. In this case, the petitioner offered no valid justification for her failure to comply. The Court closed with a balanced reminder: while it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

Doctrine

A petition for review from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction must be verified and must be accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping, as required by Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 42. The certificate is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, who alone has actual knowledge of whether he has commenced similar actions in other courts or tribunals, and it must therefore be accomplished by the party himself. Failure to comply is a fatal defect that warrants outright dismissal under Section 3 of Rule 42, and subsequent compliance does not cure the failure in the first instance. Excusal is possible only where special circumstances or compelling reasons make strict compliance clearly unjustified or inequitable, and the burden is on the petitioner to show such justification.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright, and the conviction and the award of 60,000 pesos in temperate damages stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the certificate of non-forum shopping is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, and its omission is a fatal defect that warrants outright dismissal. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory character of the certificate under Rule 42 and the rule that belated compliance does not cure the defect.