SOLEDAD E. VELASCO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, HERMINIO RIVERA, VICENTE SUDARIO, RENATO MANLANGIT, JOSE PUSING, REYNALDO SUGUI, MANUEL DINO, M…

Velasco versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Soledad Velasco against the Court of Appeals, the Social Security Commission, and the private respondents led by Herminio Rivera. The action asks the Supreme Court to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed her petition for review outright, on the technical ground that she failed to attach certified true copies of the assailed resolutions of the Social Security Commission. The case matters because it fixes the standard for what counts as a duplicate original copy of an assailed ruling, and it reminds every practitioner that appellate courts may not slam the door on a petition for a defect that a closer look would have shown to be no defect at all.

Procedural History

The private respondents filed a petition before the Social Security Commission to compel the Velasco spouses to report them for social security coverage and to remit contributions. The Commission issued a resolution ordering Salvador Velasco to remit contributions with penalties, and later denied the spouses' motion for reconsideration. Salvador Velasco died, and Soledad Velasco filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within the extended period granted. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to attach certified true copies of the questioned resolutions, and denied her motion for reconsideration. She then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

Eighteen private respondents, led by Herminio Rivera, filed a petition before the Social Security Commission against their employers, the spouses Salvador and Soledad Velasco, owners and operators of passenger jeepneys. They alleged that they were employed on various dates as drivers, and that although the spouses deducted one peso and later one peso and fifty centavos from their daily earnings as social security contributions, they were reported for coverage only after the drivers had already lodged a complaint for non-reporting.

The Velasco spouses denied the allegations. They contended that ten of the drivers had executed quitclaims and releases, that their relationship with two of them was that of lessor and lessee, and that all contributions had been paid and remitted. On September 6, 1995, the Commission ordered Salvador Velasco to remit in full the contributions with penalties in the total amount of 774,149 pesos and 86 centavos, computed as of September 15, 1995. The spouses moved for reconsideration, which was denied.

Salvador Velasco died on May 27, 1996. Only Soledad Velasco filed the petition for review before the Court of Appeals on June 28, 1996, within the extended period granted. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to attach the required certified true copies of the questioned resolutions, and denied reconsideration. Hence this petition for certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing outright the petition for review on the ground that certified true copies of the assailed resolutions of the Social Security Commission were not attached.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, paragraph b, Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals provides:

What Should Be Filed. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the disputed decisions, judgments, or orders, of the lower courts, together with true copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.

This is the provision the Court of Appeals applied in dismissing the petition, and the Court examines whether it was the correct rule.

Administrative Circular No. 1-95, governing appeals to the Court of Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, provides:

Contents of the petition. The petition for review shall 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 as are referred to therein and other supporting papers.

This is the circular actually in force when the petition was filed, and it allows a duplicate original in place of a certified true copy.

Administrative Circular No. 1-95 further provides:

Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with the foregoing requirements regarding the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient grounds for the dismissal thereof.

This is the dismissal sanction invoked below, which the Court measures against actual compliance.

Administrative Circular No. 3-96 defines the duplicate original copy:

The duplicate original copy shall be understood to be that copy of the decision, judgment, resolution or order which is intended for and furnished to a party in the case or proceeding in the court or adjudicative body which rendered and issued the same.

And it adds the authenticating requirement:

The duplicate original copy must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the authenticity and completeness of such copy.

This definition controls whether the copies attached by the petitioner satisfied the rules.

Ruling

The Court granted the petition. It held that the petitioner's reliance on the earlier circular was misplaced, because at the time the petition was filed with the Court of Appeals, Administrative Circular No. 1-95 was already in effect and governed appeals from quasi-judicial agencies. That circular requires a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed ruling.

The Court then held that the Court of Appeals seriously abused its discretion when it failed to examine the documents attached to the petition. By the simple act of examining the document, the appellate court could have readily found that although at first glance the copies bore signs of being mere photostatic copies, a closer inspection showed that they bore the marks of a dry seal. Under Administrative Circular No. 3-96, the presence of the seal qualifies the document as a duplicate original copy. There was therefore compliance with the requirement.

The Court also noted that the Social Security Commission never filed its comment; it was the Social Security System that did. In its comment, the System never refuted the petitioner's claim that what was attached was the duplicate original copy. That failure to refute was an implied admission of the allegation.

Doctrine

A petition for review from a quasi-judicial agency is governed by the circular in force at the time of filing, and a duplicate original copy of the assailed ruling satisfies the requirement in place of a certified true copy. A copy bearing the dry seal of the issuing body qualifies as a duplicate original copy under Administrative Circular No. 3-96. Appellate courts must examine the documents actually attached before dismissing a petition on a technical ground, and dismissal for failure to comply with the requirements is not warranted where substantial compliance is shown.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for review and denying reconsideration were set aside, and the Court of Appeals was ordered to give due course to the petition for review and the records were remanded for further proceedings.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a copy bearing the dry seal of the issuing body is a duplicate original copy, and an appellate court that dismisses without looking commits grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case on the contents and accompanying documents of a petition for review, and on the limits of strict technical dismissal.