Spouses Lanaria vs.

Planta (Tobillo) ISSUE:

2007 | Chico, J. | Petition for Review WoN the CA should have allowed the reception of the supporting
documents - YES
PETITIONERS: Sps. Lanaria
RESPONDENTS: Francisco Planta RULING: Petition is granted. Case is remanded on RTC Pasig for further
proceedings.
DOCTRINE: Jurisprudence has established that submission of a document
together with the motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance RATIO:
with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be submitted along
with the petition, calls for the relaxation of procedural rules. As to Section 2, Rule 42
1. Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure embodies the
Only the judgments or orders of the lower courts must be duplicate originals or procedure for appeals from the Decision of the RTC in the exercise of its
be duly certified true copies. appellate jurisdiction. Said section reads:

SEC. 2. Form and Contents. — The petition shall be =led in seven (7)
legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated
FACTS: as such by the petitioner, and shall
1. Rosario Planta was the registered owner and possessor of a parcel of land in (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading
Iloilo. Respondent is the nephew and heir of Rosario. the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or
2. Respondent instituted an action for unlawful detainer against petitioner sps. respondents;
Lanaria before the MTC of Iloilo. The complaint alleges: (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on
a. Rosario Planta allowed the grandparent and parents of petitioner to time;
construct their house in the said land with the promise to vacate the (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues
land upon demand. raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly
b. A formal demand to vacate was made but petitioners failed to do committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments
so. relied upon for the allowance of the appeal;
3. MTC Ruling: In favor of respondent. Ordered petitioners to vacate the land. (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true
4. RTC Ruling: affirmed MTC ruling. copies of the judgments original orders of both lower courts,
a. MR: denied. certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the
5. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review before the CA. Petitioners argued the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and
lack of cause of action on the part of respondents. Attached to the petition other material portions of the record as would support the allegations
were original and certified true copies of the decisions of both the lower of the petition.
courts. 2. Non-compliance with any of the foregoing requisites is a ground for the
6. CA Ruling: outrightly dismissed the case. dismissal of a petition based on Section 3 of the same Rule.
a. Reason: Failure to attach plain copies of the pleadings and other 3. Petitioners' subsequent submission of the following documents annexed to
material portions of the record such as, Complaint for Unlawful their Motion for Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with
Detainer, Answer with Counterclaim, Parties' Position Paper, Section 2, Rule 42
Memorandum on Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration. 4. Jurisprudence has established that submission of a document together
b. Petitioners filed an MR explaining that the failure to attach the with the motion for reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance
copies was due to an oversight and asked the CA to allow inclusion with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be
of the pleadings. submitted along with the petition, calls for the relaxation of procedural
c. MR: Denied. rules.
7. Hence, the petition before the SC.
 5. This ruling is in consonance with the fact that the Rules do not specify the where counsel of petitioners holds office and the City of Manila
precise documents, pleadings or parts of the records which must be annexed where the Court of Appeals is located.
to the petition, apart from the assailed judgment, final order, or resolution. c. The Petition for Review also shows service on respondent's
6. Respondent contends that petitioners violated anew formal and procedural counsel was made personally as evidenced by respondent counsel’s
requirements for failure to comply with the provisions of Section 4 (d), Rule signature thereon which purports to be a written admission of the
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that the Petition for party served as required under Section 13, Rule 13.
Review, Motion for Reconsideration, other Material Documents, and 8. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The primary
Comment submitted to this Court were neither duplicate originals nor duly function of procedural rules is to pursue and not defeat the ends of justice.
certified true copies. The circumstances of this case present compelling reasons to disregard
a. Perusal of the documents and pleadings submitted by petitioners to petitioners' procedural lapses and to allow them to properly present their
the Court of Appeals in their Motion for Reconsideration reveals case in order to pursue the ends of justice.
that the annexed pleadings thereto were not duly certified true
copies.
b. Evidently, only the judgments or orders of the lower courts must
be duplicate originals or be duly certified true copies.
c. Moreover, the phrases "duplicate originals" and "true copies" of the
judgments or orders of both lower courts, being separated by the
disjunctive word "OR" indicate that only the latter are required to
be certified correct by the clerk of court.
d. While it is true that the attached pleadings were not duly certified
copies thereof, these, however, were not required to be duly
certified.

As to Section 13, Rule 13

7. As to respondent's allegation that petitioners failed to comply with Section
13 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure1, when the Petition for
Review filed before the Court of Appeals did not include the Affidavit of
Service/Proof of Service
a. The SC finds there is substantial compliance of the rule.
b. Counsel for petitioners attached an explanation to the Petition for
Review indicating that the filing thereof was done by registered
mail citing impracticability due to the distance between Iloilo City

1
Proof of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of
the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party
serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the
service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person
mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made
by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt
issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon
its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the
certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.