PATROCINIO QUIBUYEN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On September
11, 1959,
the Quibuyens filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction and mandamus against the CFI, the Sheriff and the Pulidos,
with the Court of Appeals, being CA-G.R. No. 25310-R. The Court of Appeals on September
22, 1959,
gave due course to the petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction
upon the filing of P500.00 bond by petitioners. On February
23, 1960,
the Court of Appeals rendered judgment, dismissing the petition with costs,
against the petitioners, and ordered the dissolution of the preliminary
injunction previously issued, stating—

“* * *. Neither copy of the order
sought to be annulled nor of the ‘Petition for Relief From Judgment’ denied in
the said order are attached or annexed, to the petition. Likewise no copies of
the order pleadings and orders mentioned in the petition are attached thereto.
Evidently, the herein petition originally filed with this Court, does not meet
the requirements of section 2, Rule 49 of the Rules of Court, which provides
that ‘the petition shall be accomplished with supporting papers’, the
most important of which is the copy of the judgment or order to be reviewed and
voided. The instant petition is, therefore, fatally defective. Presented as it
is, we do not have any means of checking and verifying the correctness or
completeness of the facts alleged in the petition, or of determining whether
the stand taken by the respondents is fairly and adequately presented.’
(Trinidad, et al. vs. Bayona, CA-G.R. No. 23895-R, December 29, 1958).

A motion was filed on March 14,
1960, by counsel for petitioners asking, for the reasons stated therein, that
the decision be reconsidered and that the following pleadings be admitted, as
annexes to the petition for certiorari:—

with a note that “Annex F has
not been actually reproduced because it was already attached by the respondents
‘(the Pulidos) in their answer, as Annex A”. On March
22, 1960,
the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. The Quibuyena filed
the present certiorari proceedings to review) the decision of the Court of
Appeals, contending, in this instance, that the latter erred (1) In dismissing
the petition on the ground that it did not meet the requirements of section 2,
Rule 49, and that the same was fatally defective, and (2) In denying the motion
for reconsideration.

The position of herein petitioners,
may be summarized as follows:

Petitioners’ petition for
certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals was sufficient, otherwise, it would
not have been given due course, for Rule 67 provides that the petition is
issued only if the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify such
process. But the Court of Appeals found that the petition was fatally
defective, in the sense that the necessary supporting papers were not attached
with the petition, and most important, the precise order dated January
5, 1959,
which petitioners sought to annul through said petition. Petitioners claimed
that it was a regrettable clerical mistake. They contended that the order of January
5, 1959,
the order of the trial judge denying the petition for relief mentioned or
designated in the prayer of the petition, was not. the order which was being
assailed, but the order of April 27, 1959, which was attached as Annex
A, to the petition for certiorari and this was the one refusing to give due
course to the appeal from the order denying the petition for relief filed by
the petitioners. Petitioners submit that Annex. A, order of the trial court
under date of April 27, 1959, having been actually attached to the petition, it
was no longer necessary for petitioners to attach the other supporting papers,
such as the petition for relief, the opposition thereto, the order denying the
said petition for relief and so forth.

It is contended that petitions for
certiorari, are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules and save for the requirement
that the constitutive facts be alleged “with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceeding’s of such tribunal,
board or officer, as the law requires, with costs”, there does not appear
to be any other requirement, arguing that if the rules require certain other
documents, it would be explicit in such respect, such as the one provided in
appeals by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals to the
Supreme Court, which says:

“The petition shall contain a
summary statement of the matters involved and the reasons relied in for the
allowance of the writ, and it should he accompanied with a certified copy of
the judgment sought to be reviewed, together with the copies of the record on
appeal, if any, as printed in the Court of Appeals * *”. (Sec. 2, Rule 49,
R.C.)

Petitioners concluded that gee. 2,
Rule 49, does not apply, but Rule 67; and granting that section 2, Rule 49
applies, a copy of the order sought to be annulled was already attached to the
petition filed with the Court of Appeals.

We are satisfied that it is a case
of lapsus calami. The mistake consists in mentioning” in the prayer
of the petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (G. R. No. 25310-R),
that the writ be issued “annulling the aforesaid order of the respondent
Judge of January 5, 1959, and directing the respondent Judge to give due course
to the appeal interposed by the herein petitioners”, without
attaching” a copy of said Order, but accompanying the said petition, as
Annex A, with a copy of the order of the court dated April 27, 1959, which
states—

“* * for the reasons stated in
the opposition of the plaintiff dated February 12, 1959, defendants’ appeal is hereby
denied. Let the corresponding writ of execution be issued against the
defendants”.

The order of January
5, 1959,
as stated, was one denying the petition for relief “for lack of
merit”. While the order of April 27, 1959 was an order denying” the
defendants’ appeal and granting .the issuance of a writ of execution. The
petition mentioned the order of January 5, 1959 .as the order assailed, instead of
designating: that of April 27, 1959, as the order appealed from. We
say that it was a mere case of lapsus calami, because of the averments
of the petition itself. (Annex A, present petition).

Paragraph IX, after reciting all
.the antecedent circumstances, states—

“The respondent Court, through
an Order dated April 27, 19959, sustained the Opposition of respondents
Pulido to the appeal and ruled that the appeal could not be given due course
‘for the reasons stated in the opposition of plaintiffs dated February 12,
1959’ and forthwith directed the issuance of a writ of execution as indeed, a
writ of execution has now been issued against the herein petitioners. Copy of
said Order of April 27, 1959 is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’
and made an integral part of this petition.”

Immediately after said paragraph,
petitioners proceeded to state in par. X thereof, as follows—

“Petitioners respectfully
allege that the respondent Judge in denying to give due course to said
appeal acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction and/or with grave
abuse of discretion, and there is now no appeal or any other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

Paragraph XI of .the same petition
proceeded to set forth why such an order (of April 27,
1959),
constituted an act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion, and in paragraph XII,—

“Petitioners likewise respectfully
allege that the aforesaid Order, Annex ‘A’ (April 27, 1959) of the respondent
Judge is a patent nullity, proceeding as it does from the assumption that such
an Order can not be appealed from and that the steps towards the perfection of
an appeal were performed outside of the reglementary period when in truth and
in fact, all were seasonably done,”

And the prayer recited—

Wherefore, it is respectfully
prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued by this Honorable Tribunal
annulling- the aforesaid Order of the respondent Judge to give due course to
the appeal interposed by the herein petitioners.”

It is seen, therefore, that the
designation of the order by date, in the .petition was. a mistake, which
are oftentimes inadvertently incurred by lawyers, in the course of their
practice.

The only ground set forth by the
respondent Court in dismissing the petition for certiorari was the lack
of supporting papers. Since a copy of the order sought to be annulled was
actually attached to the certiorari petition, as Annex A, the next
question posed is: Wag it necessary, as respondents contend, for petitioners to
attach still “other supporting papers?” The query invites a negative
answer, because it being a special action of certiorari, Rule 67 governs, at
least, in matter of form of the petition. All that the Rules require is that
the petition be verified, the facts be alleged with certainty and it must pray
for the annulment of the judgment order complained of (sec. 1, Rule 67). These
requisites were met by the petitioner with the respondent Court. Granting’ for
the sake of argument, that Section 2, Rule 49 is applicable, the same was also
substantially complied with. The copy of the order of April 27, 1959 was filed
as (Annex A), with the petition, on the date the petition was presented, and
the other pleading’s such as the Petition for Relief from Judgment (Annex B),
apposition to petition for relief (Annex 0), order of the respondent court
denying petition for relief (Annex” D), Notice of Appeal (Annex E), Opposition
to Defendants’ appeal, and Motion for Execution (Annex F), with the motion for
reconsideration, dated March 14, 1960, of the order of dismissal of the
petition, which served to cure the alleged defect, in form and substance, of
the petition in question. If at all, petitioners were guilty of a. technical
violation of .procedural requirements, a technicality which does not seem to be
of much moment presently, since the reason for its existence had been
satisfied. Pleading’s, as well as remedial laws, should be construed liberally,
in order that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their
respective claims, and that a possible denial of substantial justice,-due to
legal technicalities, may be avoided (Conception, et al. vs. Payatas Estate Co.
103 Phil., 1016.)

The respondents discussed, at
length, the merits of the appeal, which was denied by the trial court and
which, order of denial was precisely the subject of the certiorari proceedings
with the respondent court. The sole issue; however, in the present petition, is
whether the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R.
No. 25310-R), is sufficient in form and substance, such that a dismissal by
said Court of said petition on the ground that it is “fatally defective”
would not be justified. This being the case, it would seem improvident to
discuss the merits of the appeal, because this involves questions of fact,
which the respondent Court should pass upon and which it could not legally do,
without first giving due course to the petition for certiorari, brought before
it. In paragraph XIX of petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals,
petitioner allege that the petition was in aid of the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction and should the appeal be given course ”petitioners intend to
raise in said appeal questions of fact as well as questions of law” (Annex
A, petition). It is beyond our competence, to dwell on the merits of the
appeal. It is for the best interest, of justice, that the same be decided by
the respondent court.

In view hereof , the Order of dismissal complained
of, should be, as it is hereby reversed, and the case remanded to respondent
Court, for further proceedings, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ.,
concur.