KINGS PROPERTIES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. MARSHALL AND LULU JOSEFINA LIM, RESPONDENTS.

Kings Properties versus Lim

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Kings Properties Corporation against the spouses Marshall and Lulu Josefina Lim, arising from a complaint for reimbursement that the spouses filed against the corporation before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. The case matters less for the merits of that money claim than for a single, unforgiving lesson in adjective law: how a petition for review must be dressed when it climbs from a quasi-judicial agency to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, through the resolution under study, was asked to rescue a petition that was filed on time but was, in the Court's own word, congenitally defective. What the Court did with it tells every reviewee exactly how strictly the rules on verified copies and on the integration of material portions of the record are enforced.

Procedural History

The spouses Lim filed a complaint for reimbursement against Kings Properties Corporation before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. The case was decided in their favor, and the corporation appealed to the Board of Commissioners of the same Board. The corporation's motion for reconsideration of the Board of Commissioners' decision was denied, so the corporation elevated the matter to the Office of the President. The Office of the President rendered a decision on August 13, 2014, and later denied reconsideration in a resolution dated December 10, 2014.

From the Office of the President, the corporation went up to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals initially issued a resolution on January 23, 2015, which treated the petition as timely filed. On closer scrutiny, however, the Court of Appeals found the petition defective and dismissed it under Section 7 of Rule 43. The corporation then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

The spouses Marshall and Lulu Josefina Lim sued Kings Properties Corporation before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board to recover a sum of money by way of reimbursement. The corporation lost before the Board and pursued its remedies step by step: to the Board of Commissioners, then on reconsideration, and then to the Office of the President.

The Office of the President decided against the corporation on August 13, 2014, and denied its motion for reconsideration on December 10, 2014. The corporation then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals on February 5, 2015. Measured against the incipient resolution of January 23, 2015, the petition appeared to have been filed in the nick of time.

But the petition carried what the Supreme Court called congenital infirmities. First, what were appended to it as Annexes A and B were mere photocopies of a certified true copy of the assailed decision and resolution from the Office of the President, rather than the copies that adjective law specifically requires. Second, material portions of the record were not integrated with the petition: the complaint for reimbursement, the corporation's appeal memorandum before the Board of Commissioners, its motion for reconsideration of the Board of Commissioners' decision, the Board's action on that motion, the memorandum on appeal before the Office of the President, and the oral and documentary evidence pertinent to all of these.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for review under Rule 43 may be dismissed for failure to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, together with proof of service.
• Whether or not a petition for review under Rule 43 may be dismissed for failure to integrate in the petition the material portions of the record that would support the allegations of the petition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, paragraph c, of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from, together with proof of service thereof on the adverse party and the required number of plain copies thereof.

This is the provision the Court invoked when it faulted the corporation for appending mere photocopies of a certified true copy instead of the duplicate original or certified true copy itself.

Section 7 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

The Court of Appeals may dismiss the appeal if the petition does not sufficiently show that the appellant is entitled to the relief prayed for, or if the petition is not accompanied by the documents required in Section 6, or if the appeal is frivolous or dilatory.

This is the provision under which the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and which the Supreme Court applied in affirming that dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was defective because what were appended to it as Annexes A and B were mere photocopies of a certified true copy of the assailed decision and resolution of the Office of the President. The rule requires a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy, and a photocopy of a certified true copy does not satisfy that requirement. The Court cited Section 6, paragraph c, of Rule 43 as the specific requirement of adjective law that the corporation failed to meet.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition was likewise defective because material portions of the record were not integrated with it. The Court enumerated what was missing: the complaint for reimbursement, the appeal memorandum before the Board of Commissioners, the motion for reconsideration of the Board of Commissioners' decision, the Board's corresponding action on that motion, the memorandum on appeal before the Office of the President, and the oral and documentary evidence pertinent to these pleadings. Without these, the petition did not sufficiently show that the corporation was entitled to the relief prayed for.

Because the petition failed to comply with the requirements of Section 6 of Rule 43, the Court applied Section 7 of the same Rule and dismissed the petition. The Court noted that while the petition appeared to have been filed in the nick of time when assayed by the incipient resolution of January 23, 2015, timeliness could not cure the congenital infirmities in the petition itself.

Doctrine

A petition for review under Rule 43 must be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from, together with proof of service on the adverse party. A photocopy of a certified true copy is not a certified true copy, and does not comply with Section 6, paragraph c, of Rule 43.

The petition must also integrate the material portions of the record that support its allegations. Failure to attach the required documents is a ground for dismissal under Section 7 of Rule 43, and the timely filing of the petition does not excuse the defect. The rules on the contents and attachments of a petition for review are mandatory, and a petition that does not sufficiently show the appellant's entitlement to the relief prayed for may be dismissed outright.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review and affirmed the dismissal of the corporation's appeal, with the spouses Lim prevailing.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a petition for review under Rule 43 that attaches only a photocopy of a certified true copy, and omits the material portions of the record, is dismissed under Section 7 even if it was filed on time. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory contents and attachments of a Rule 43 petition, and the rule that timeliness never cures a defective petition.