Contents of Petition

RULE 42

Petition for Review From the Regional Trial Courts to

the Court of Appeals

Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. — A party

desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court
rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file
a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals,
paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the
corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the
amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional
Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition.
The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the
denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration
filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and
the payment of the full amount of the docket and other
lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of
the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an
additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file
the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted
except for the most compelling reason and in no case to
exceed fifteen (15) days. (n)

Section 2. Form and contents. — The petition shall be filed

in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended
for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and
shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case,
without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either
as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific
material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set
forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the
issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or
both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and
the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of
the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate
originals or true copies 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.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a

certification under oath that he has not theretofore
commenced any other action involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is
such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of
the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to
promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (n)

Section 3. 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. (n)

xxx

RULE 45

Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party

desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final
order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition
shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set
forth. (1a, 2a)

Section 2. Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be

filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or
final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of
the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed
in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly
filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other
lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of
the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for
justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days
only within which to file the petition. (1a, 5a)

Section 3. Docket and other lawful fees; proof of service of

petition. — Unless he has theretofore done so, the petitioner
shall pay the corresponding docket and other lawful fees to
the clerk of court of the Supreme Court and deposit the
amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of the filing of the
petition. Proof of service of a copy, thereof on the lower
court concerned and on the adverse party shall be submitted
together with the petition. (1a)

Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed

in eighteen (18) copies, with the original copy intended for
the court being indicated as such by the petitioner and shall
(a) state the full name of the appealing party as the
petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without
impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as
petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the material dates
showing when notice of the judgment or final order or
resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for
new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when
notice of the denial thereof was received; (c) set forth
concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the
reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the
petition; (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original, or a certified true copy of the judgment or final
order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the
court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof,
and such material portions of the record as would support
the petition; and (e) contain a sworn certification against
forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section
2, Rule 42. (2a)

CASE:

GR No. 181182, April 10, 2013

Boardwalk Ventures, petitioner vs.
Elvira A. Villareal (deceased), substituted by Reynaldo P.
Villareal, Jr.-spouse, Shekinah Marie Villareal-Azugue-
daughter, Reynaldo A. Villareal ill-son, Shahani A. Villareal-
daughter, and Billy Ray A. Villareal-son, respondents.

O Petition for Review on Certiorari

Facts:

O Petitioner Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc.

(Boardwalk) is a duly organized and existing domestic
corporation engaged in the selling of ready-to-wear
(RTW) merchandise.
O Respondent Elvira A. Villareal (Villareal), on the other
hand, is one of Boardwalk’s distributors of RTW
merchandise.
O Boardwalk filed an Amended Complaint for replevin
against Villareal covering a 1995 Toyota Tamaraw FX,
for the latter’s alleged failure to pay a car loan obtained
from the former.

Ruling of Metropolitan Trial Court

O On May 30, 2005, the MeTC rendered its

Decision favoring Boardwalk, as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendant adjudging that the former has the right to the
possession of the subject motor vehicle and for the latter to
pay the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.

O Villareal moved for reconsideration, but failed.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

O She thus appealed to the Manila RTC, which

court issued a Decision reversing the MeTC Decision,
thus:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is granted. The assailed

judgment of the lower court is reversed and set
aside. Defendant Villareal has the right of
possession to and the value of subject
vehicle described in the complaint. Hence,
plaintiff is directed to deliver the subject vehicle to
defendant or its value in case delivery cannot be
made. The complaint and counterclaim are both
dismissed.
 SO ORDERED.

O Boardwalk filed through mail its Petition for Review with

the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

O On April 25, 2007, the CA issued the first assailed

Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is hereby

DISMISSED OUTRIGHT.

SO ORDERED.

O CA held that:
O Boardwalk erred in filing its Motion for
Extension and paying the docket fees
therefor with the RTC.
O The CA added that Boardwalk’s prayer for a
30-day extension in its Motion for Extension
was irregular, because the maximum period
that may be granted is only 15 days pursuant
to Section 1 of Rule 42.
O Boardwalk’s Petition for Review failed to
include a board resolution or secretary’s
certificate showing that its claimed
representative, Ma. Victoria M. Lo (Lo), was
authorized to sign the Petition or represent
Boardwalk in the proceedings, which thus
rendered defective the Verification and
Certification against forum-shopping.
O Boardwalk for its failure to attach to its
Petition copies of the Complaint, Answer,
position papers, memoranda and other
relevant pleadings, as required in Sections 2
and 3 of Rule 42, thus meriting the outright
dismissal of its Petition for Review.

Boardwalk filed a Motion for Reconsideration and

Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, invoking a
liberal construction of the Rules in its favor.
In the second assailed December 21, 2007 Resolution
subsequently issued, the CA denied the Motion for
Reconsideration and its supplement. It held that despite
curative action, the fact remains that Boardwalk’s Petition
was filed beyond the reglementary 15-day period.

Issues

O Boardwalk thus filed the instant Petition, raising the

following issues for resolution:

PETITIONER IS INVOKING THE LIBERAL

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES TO EFFECT
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RULE 1, SECTION 6 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.

SPECIFICALLY, THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS X X

X ORDERING THE OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF THE
PETITION FOR REVIEW X X X DUE TO
PROCEDURAL LAPSES, IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF
THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES CLEARLY RAISED
THEREAT, ARE CONTRARY TO EXISTING RULES,
LAW, JURISPRUDENCE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF
EQUITY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.

The Court denies the Petition.

O SC held that:
O The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is
it a component of due process. It is a mere
statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in
the manner and in accordance with the provisions
of law.
O Petitioner must comply with the following
requirements laid down in Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court.

Section 3 of Rule 42 provides that non-compliance

"with any of the foregoing requirements regarding
the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, x
x x and the contents of and the documents which
should accompany the petition shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal thereof

O Records show that:

O In this case, no special power of attorney or board
resolution was attached to the Petition showing
that Lo was authorized to sign the Petition or
represent Boardwalk in the proceedings. In
addition, petitioner failed to attach to the Petition
copies of the relevant pleadings and other
material portions of the record.
O Petitioner erroneously paid the docket fees and
other lawful fees with the RTC.
O Petitioner never cited any compelling reason.
O Petitioner’s appeal was not perfected because of
its failure to timely file the Petition and to pay the
docket and other lawful fees before the proper
court which is the CA.