MICHAEL A. DOLERA, PETITIONER, VS. ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD, COMELEC, LABO, CAMARINES NORTE AND CATHERINE B. REYES, RESPONDENTS.

Dolera versus Election Registration Board, Comelec, Labo, Camarines Norte and Catherine B. Reyes

The Case

This is Dolera versus the Election Registration Board of Labo, Camarines Norte and Catherine B. Reyes. Michael A. Dolera filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, assailing a judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Labo, Camarines Norte, Branch 64. The case matters far less for election law than for procedure: it is a stark lesson in what happens when counsel simply ignores a direct order of the Supreme Court. The Court never reached the merits, because the petition died on a technical default.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Labo, Camarines Norte, Branch 64, which rendered the assailed judgment dated 8 March 2013. From that judgment, Dolera went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.

While the petition was pending, the Supreme Court issued a Minute Resolution dated 16 August 2013, directing Dolera, within five days from notice, to submit a certified true copy of the assailed judgment of the Regional Trial Court. A copy of that resolution was sent to his counsel, Attorney Avelino D. M. Basco. The Court later sent a letter tracer dated 30 October 2013 to the Postmaster of Camarines Norte concerning the mail matter addressed to Attorney Basco. In a reply, the Postmaster informed the Court that the copy of the Minute Resolution had been received by Attorney Basco through a certain John Saludes. Despite that receipt, no compliance was ever filed.

Facts

Dolera lost before the Regional Trial Court of Labo, Camarines Norte, Branch 64, which issued its judgment on 8 March 2013. He challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 42.

For the Court to act on the petition, it needed the certified true copy of the assailed judgment. On 16 August 2013, it issued a Minute Resolution ordering Dolera to submit that copy within five days from notice. The resolution was mailed to his counsel, Attorney Basco.

When nothing arrived, the Court sent a letter tracer dated 30 October 2013 to the Postmaster of Camarines Norte. The Postmaster replied that the resolution had in fact been received by Attorney Basco through John Saludes. Even so, no compliance was filed. The Court was left with an unheeded order and an incomplete record.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review under Rule 42 should be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's Minute Resolution dated 16 August 2013.
• Whether or not the failure of counsel to submit the required certified true copy of the assailed judgment, despite receipt of the resolution, warrants the dismissal of the petition and the closing and termination of the case.

Applicable Provisions

The decision itself quotes no statutory text; it rests on the Court's own Minute Resolution and on the petition's basis, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The operative directive of the Court reads:

In a Minute Resolution dated 16 August 2013, this Court directed petitioner Michael A. Dolera, within five (5) days from notice, to submit certified true copy of the assailed Judgment dated 8 March 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Labo, Camarines Norte, Branch 64.

This directive is the fulcrum of the case: noncompliance with it, not any defect in the merits, is what sealed the petition's fate.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled against Dolera. It found that the Minute Resolution of 16 August 2013 was received by his counsel, Attorney Basco, through John Saludes, as confirmed by the Postmaster of Camarines Norte in reply to the Court's letter tracer. Yet no compliance was filed. The Court held that this failure to comply warranted dismissal, stating:

ACCORDINGLY, for failure to comply with the Court's 16 August 2013 Minute Resolution, the instant Petition for Review filed under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court is hereby DISMISSED. This case is considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.

On the second issue, the Court treated the noncompliance as sufficient ground not only to dismiss the petition but to close and terminate the case entirely. The reasoning is one of procedural discipline: a party who invokes the Court's jurisdiction must obey its lawful directives, and the receipt of the order by counsel is receipt by the party. No explanation for the default appears in the record, and none was accepted.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a petition for review under Rule 42 may be dismissed outright for failure to comply with a lawful directive of the Supreme Court, such as an order to submit a certified true copy of the assailed judgment. Second, notice to counsel is notice to the client; receipt by counsel of a Court resolution binds the party, and the party cannot profit from counsel's inaction. Third, the right to appeal is not a license to ignore procedure; the Court may dismiss and declare the case closed and terminated when its orders are disobeyed. These rules tie directly to the Minute Resolution quoted above, which the Court enforced to its full extent.

Disposition

The petition for review was dismissed, and the case was considered closed and terminated, because Dolera failed to comply with the Court's Minute Resolution dated 16 August 2013.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: failure to comply with a Supreme Court resolution is ground to dismiss the petition and close and terminate the case. Examiners use this case to test procedural discipline, the binding effect of notice to counsel, and the consequences of an unheeded order in a Rule 42 petition.