SPS. JUANITO SEBASTIAN AND AURELIA SEBASTIAN, PETITIONERS, VS. REMEDIOS M. ESLABRA, RESPONDENT.

Sebastian versus Eslabra

The Case

This is the case of Sebastian versus Eslabra, a petition for review brought by spouses Juanito Sebastian and Aurelia Sebastian against Remedios Eslabra. The spouses sought to overturn a decision of the Regional Trial Court that ordered them, and all those claiming rights under them, to peacefully vacate a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title situated in Barangay Gabaldon, Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija, and to surrender its possession to the respondent. The case matters not for the merits of the land dispute, which the Supreme Court never reached, but for what it teaches about the strict, unforgiving requirements for perfecting a petition for review under Rule 42. It is a case about the gate, not the garden.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision dated September 24, 2013, ordering the petitioners and all those claiming rights under them to peacefully vacate the subject property and surrender its possession to the respondent. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the Regional Trial Court denied in an order dated October 28, 2014. From that denial, the petitioners went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for review filed under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright, without reaching the merits, on the ground that the petition was fatally defective.

Facts

The respondent, Remedios Eslabra, obtained from the Regional Trial Court a decision in her favor concerning a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title and located in Barangay Gabaldon, Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija. The decision, dated September 24, 2013, ordered the petitioners, the spouses Juanito and Aurelia Sebastian, together with all those claiming rights under them, to peacefully vacate the property and surrender its possession to the respondent.

The petitioners sought reconsideration, but the Regional Trial Court denied their motion in an order dated October 28, 2014. The petitioners received a copy of that denial on November 27, 2014.

Counting from that receipt, the petitioners had until December 12, 2014 within which to file their petition for review. They filed it by registered mail only on December 19, 2014, seven days late. Beyond the delay, the petition carried no affidavit of service showing that it had been served on the respondent and on the Regional Trial Court. Its verification and certification against forum shopping bore a notarial certificate that was itself defective, because the notary public failed to indicate his office address or place of commission. And the petition did not attach copies of the pertinent pleadings and documents, such as the complaint, the answer, the memorandum of appeal, and the motion for reconsideration, nor such material portions of the record as would support its allegations.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review filed under Rule 42 was filed within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the petition was accompanied by a valid affidavit of service upon the respondent and the Regional Trial Court.
• Whether or not the verification and certification against forum shopping were defective for failure of the notary public to state his office address or place of commission.
• Whether or not the petition was defective for failure to attach copies of pertinent pleadings and documents and the material portions of the record.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, fixes the period and the manner of appeal, and 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, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of Five hundred (500) pesos for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the resolution denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial, if any. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees, and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioners received notice of the denial on November 27, 2014, giving them until December 12, 2014, yet they filed by registered mail only on December 19, 2014, seven days beyond the period.

Section 13 of Rule 13 of the same Rules, made applicable to the petition through Section 1 of Rule 42, provides:

Section 13. Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with Section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

This provision bears on the case because the petition carried no affidavit of service at all, leaving the Court with no proof that the respondent and the Regional Trial Court had been served.

Section 2 of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as cited in the decision, provides:

Section 2. Prohibitions. (a) A notary public is prohibited from performing notarial acts outside his regular place of commission or office. (b) A notary public is prohibited from performing notarial acts in a place where he is not commissioned. (c) A notary public is prohibited from performing notarial acts without indicating in the notarial certificate his regular place of commission or office address.

This provision bears on the case because the notary public who notarized the verification and certification against forum shopping failed to indicate his office address or place of commission, rendering the notarial certificate defective.

Section 3 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Section 3. Dismissal of petition. The Court of Appeals may dismiss the petition for review if it finds that the petition is insufficient in form and substance, or if the petitioner fails to comply with the requirements of this Rule.

This provision bears on the case because it is the ground on which the Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was filed out of time. The petitioners received a copy of the assailed order dated October 28, 2014 on November 27, 2014, and thus had until December 12, 2014 only within which to file the petition. Their filing by registered mail on December 19, 2014 was delayed by seven days.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition was defective for want of an affidavit of service. There was no affidavit of service to show service of the petition upon the respondent and the Regional Trial Court, as Section 1 of Rule 42, in relation to Section 13 of Rule 13, requires.

On the third issue, the Court held that the notarial certificate of the verification and certification against forum shopping was defective, given the failure of the notary public to indicate his office address or place of commission as required by Section 2, paragraphs b and c, of Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petition was defective for failure to attach copies of the pertinent pleadings and documents, and such material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition, namely the complaint, the answer, the memorandum of appeal, and the motion for reconsideration, among others.

For these reasons, the Court declared the petition fatally defective and dismissed it outright.

Doctrine

A petition for review under Rule 42 must be filed and served within fifteen days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the resolution denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial. The period is mandatory, and a petition filed even seven days late is dismissed outright.

The petition must be accompanied by proof of service upon the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party. Absent an affidavit of service, the petition is defective.

The verification and certification against forum shopping must bear a notarial certificate that complies with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A notary public must indicate in the notarial certificate his regular place of commission or office address, and the failure to do so renders the certificate defective.

The petition must attach copies of the pertinent pleadings and documents and such material portions of the record as would support its allegations. The omission of these annexes is a further ground for dismissal.

These requirements are not mere technicalities. They are jurisdictional and formal prerequisites, and noncompliance with any of them warrants dismissal under Section 3 of Rule 42.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright, so the respondent, Remedios Eslabra, prevailed, and the Regional Trial Court's decision ordering the petitioners to vacate the property and surrender its possession to her stands.

Remember This

Remember that a Rule 42 petition is dismissed outright for a seven day delay, a missing affidavit of service, a defective notarial certificate, or missing annexes, because form is substance at the gate of review. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory periods and the complete requirements for perfecting a petition for review.