NAPOLEON FLANCIA, PETITIONER, V. PALMER U. MALLARI, RONALD P. AGUTO, MARTINI B. CRUZ, RONNIE S. CANLAS, AND ROSAURO P. DANTIS, RESPONDENTS.
ELBINIAS, J.:
To begin with, a perusal of the Petition[2] reveals that it suffers from the following infirmities:
First, petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of submitting an Affidavit of Service under Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which states:
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.” (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner’s obligation to comply with the requirement of submitting an Affidavit of Service is as was stated in the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc., represented by Eduardo Ang Gobonseng, Sr., vs. Court of Appeals, Social Security System and Mauro Tinaytina, substituted by his wife Gloria Tinaytina, G.R. No. 154837, March 22, 2007:
xxx The CA correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal on the grounds of improper verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and non-attachment of the affidavit of service to its petition, as required by Rule 13, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. The rule obliges litigants to attach an affidavit of service to their petitions/appeals. While this is required merely as proof that service has been made on the other party, it is nonetheless essential to due process and the orderly administration of justice. xxx
Petitioner’s contention that technicality must give way to substantial justice is without merit. We set aside technicality only when it is necessary to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the Rules or when the punctilious application of the Rules will deny rather than serve justice. Neither situation exists here.” (Emphasis supplied)
Second, the jurat of the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping[3] signed by petitioner did not have any competent evidence of affiant’s identity. This is in violation of Section 12 of Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by A.M. 02-08-13SC, which provides:
“Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. The phrase ‘competent evidence of identity’ refers to the identification of an individual based on:
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver’s license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID, voter’s ID, Barangay certification, Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seaman’s book, alien certificate of registration/ immigrant certificate of registration, government office ID, certification from the National Council for the Welfare of Disable Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) certification; or
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification.” (Emphasis supplied)
Last, material portions of the record and other supporting documents pertinent to the Petition[4] were not attached. These are: the Order of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration; the Arrest Information Sheet; the Sworn Statement and Supplemental Sworn Statement of Kim Yong Jun; petitioner’s own Position Paper and/or Counter-Affidavit; the Transcript of Inquest Proceedings, and; the Certification by the Forensic Chemistry Division.
Considering that all of these documents were referred to in the Petition[5], as well as in the attached certified photocopy of the assailed Decision[6], the failure to attach them is in contravention of Section 6(c) of Rule 43 of the Rules, and which failure warrants the dismissal of the Petition[7] under Section 7 of Rule 43, to wit:
Section 6. Contents of the petition. — The petition for review shall xxx (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; xxx
Section 7. 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.” (Emphasis supplied)
That the failure of a party, such as petitioner, to comply with the procedural requirements of filing a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court renders his Petition dismissible, is in accordance with the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Marison C. Basuel v. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) represented by Director, Agapito B. Rosales, G.R. No. 143664, June 30, 2006:
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.
The requirements of the rules on appeal cannot be considered as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded at whim. To be sure, the Court will not countenance deviations from the rules. In these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, parties have to abide by these rules with greater fidelity in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.
xxx [I]n Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The consequence of this failure is outlined under Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 43, to wit:
SEC. 7. 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.
xxx
xxx Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with the rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. xxx In addition, to grant petitioner’s request would be to fault the CA for acting in faithful compliance with the rules of procedure which that court has been mandated to observe. Viewed in this light, it cannot be said that the CA committed an error in denying the petition for being procedurally defective.” (Emphasis supplied)
The right to appeal by Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege [and] [t]he party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules”[8].
GIVEN ALL THESE, the Petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairman) and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 7-18.
[2] Rollo, pp. 7-18.
[3] Rollo, p. 19.
[4] Rollo, pp. 7-18.
[5] Rollo, pp. 7-18.
[6] Rollo, pp. 20-27.
[7] Rollo, pp. 7-18.
[8] BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., PETITIONER, vs. Pryce Gases, Inc., International Finance Corporation, et. al, G.R. No. 188365, June 29, 2011