REGINA ALEJANDRO, PETITIONER, VS. FE CHUA, RESPONDENT.

Alejandro versus Chua

The Case

This is the case of Alejandro versus Chua, a petition for review brought by Regina Alejandro against Fe Chua. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to reverse the rulings of the lower courts, but the real question the Court confronts is not who is right on the merits. It is whether the petition may even be entertained at all. The Court uses this case to remind practitioners that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in the manner the rules prescribe, and that a petition which fails on form is dismissed outright, however sympathetic its substance may be.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court, which rendered judgment against the petitioner. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion. The petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court. From that adverse judgment, the petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits; it dismissed the petition outright on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Regina Alejandro, was the losing party in a complaint litigated before the Regional Trial Court against the respondent, Fe Chua. After the trial court ruled against her, the petitioner sought reconsideration, which the trial court denied. She then brought an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which likewise ruled against her.

Undaunted, the petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review under Rule 42. But the petition she filed was incomplete. She did not append copies of the complaint, the answer with third party complaint, the answer with compulsory counterclaim, the plaintiff's answer, the motion for reconsideration, the order denying that motion, the memorandum of appeal, and other material pleadings.

The verification attached to the petition was likewise defective, and the affidavit of filing and service carried a jurat that did not show the affiant had presented competent proof of identity before the notary public. These defects became the ground on which the Supreme Court disposed of the case.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review may be dismissed outright for failure to append the duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments and material pleadings required by the Rules.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for a defective verification that omits the assurance that the allegations are true and correct of the petitioner's personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
• Whether or not the petition may be dismissed for an affidavit of filing and service whose jurat fails to show competent proof of the affiant's identity before the notary public.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph d, of Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

SEC. 2. Form and contents. — The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or true copy of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.

This provision supplies the first ground for dismissal, because the petitioner omitted the material pleadings the rule requires.

Section 4 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

SEC. 4. Verification. — Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on "information and belief," or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.

This provision supplies the second ground, because the petitioner's verification did not contain the required assurance.

Section 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended, provides:

SEC. 6. Jurat. — "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion: (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document; (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.

This provision supplies the third ground, because the jurat did not show that the affiant was personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity.

Section 12 of the same Rules defines that competent evidence of identity:

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; 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.

This provision measures what the jurat in this case failed to show.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed because the petitioner failed to append the complaint, the answers, the motion for reconsideration, the order denying it, the memorandum of appeal, and other material pleadings. This deprived the Court of the opportunity to peruse the petition completely.

On the second issue, the Court held that the verification was defective because it did not include the assurance that the allegations are true and correct of the petitioner's personal knowledge or based on authentic records, as Section 4 of Rule 7 requires.

On the third issue, the Court held that the affidavit of filing and service failed to comply with the notarial rules, there being no properly accomplished jurat showing that the affiant exhibited competent proof of identity before the notary public. The Court stressed that it cannot simply assume that affiants are personally known to the notary public.

The Court acknowledged that litigation is not a game of technicalities, but answered that this does not mean the Rules may be ignored at will and at random. Procedural rules, it said, are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons. It then declared the governing principle:

The right to appeal is not a natural right. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.

A party seeking relief must therefore strictly comply with the rules of procedure or face the risk of outright dismissal.

Doctrine

A petition for review under Rule 42 must be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or true copy of the judgments of both lower courts and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record that support its allegations; omission of these is a ground for outright dismissal.

A verification must state that the allegations are true and correct of the affiant's personal knowledge or based on authentic records; a verification lacking this is defective, and under Section 4 of Rule 7 a pleading with an improper verification is treated as an unsigned pleading.

A jurat must show that the affiant appeared personally before the notary, was personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity, signed in the notary's presence, and took an oath; the Court will not presume that affiants are personally known to the notary public.

Finally, the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright, so the respondent, Fe Chua, prevailed and the judgment against the petitioner stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the law. Examiners use this case to test the formal requirements of a Rule 42 petition, the verification under Section 4 of Rule 7, and the jurat under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.