The Supreme Court ruled that strict adherence to procedural rules should not override the pursuit of substantial justice. In a case involving the dismissal of a government employee, the Court emphasized that technical defects in a petition can be excused if there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Court and if a strict application of the rules would unjustly deprive a litigant of the chance to present their case on the merits. This decision underscores the principle that courts should prioritize dispensing justice over rigidly enforcing procedural technicalities, especially when significant rights and livelihoods are at stake.

Lost in the Fine Print? When Justice Overrides Procedural Stumbles

This case arose from an administrative complaint filed against Narciso Victoriano, an employee of the Bureau of Fire Protection, for allegedly falsifying a public document to evade taxes. The Ombudsman found Victoriano guilty of dishonesty and ordered his dismissal from service. Victoriano filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was outrightly dismissed due to several procedural infirmities. These included an incomplete statement of material dates, failure to explain why personal service was not used, defects in the verification and certification against forum shopping, non-compliance with notarial rules, and an outdated Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) number for his counsel. Aggrieved, Victoriano elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing his petition based on mere technicalities.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition outright due to technical grounds. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are essential for the orderly administration of justice, they should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat the very purpose for which they exist. The ultimate task of the Court is to render and dispense justice, and to achieve this, certain procedural lapses may be excused, especially if strict application of the rules would unjustly deprive a litigant of the chance to present his/her case on the merits.

Building on this principle, the Court acknowledged that a party aggrieved by a decision of the OMB in an administrative case may appeal by filing a petition for review under Rule 43 with the CA. Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court specifies several requirements for the petition, including stating the full names of the parties, a concise statement of facts and issues, certified copies of relevant documents, a sworn certification against forum shopping, and specific material dates showing timely filing. Failure to comply with these rules may lead to dismissal of the petition. However, the Court also recognized that strict adherence to these rules may be relaxed in certain circumstances, especially when substantial justice is at stake.

The Court then examined each of the procedural errors cited by the CA in dismissing Victoriano’s petition. Regarding the incomplete statement of material dates, the Court cited previous rulings where it excused the failure to include all material dates, as long as the date of receipt of the assailed ruling was specified and the petition was filed on time. In Victoriano’s case, the Court noted that he clearly specified the date he received the OMB MOLEO resolution denying his motion for reconsideration, and the records showed the petition was filed within the 15-day reglementary period. Therefore, the Court deemed this a case of substantial compliance.

Concerning the failure to attach an affidavit explaining why personal service was not used, the Court acknowledged that Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court prioritizes personal service and filing of pleadings. However, it also recognized exceptions, such as when personal service is impracticable due to circumstances of time, place, and person. Citing Spouses Ello v. CA, the Court reiterated the grounds for excusing the absence of a written explanation, including the practicability of personal service, the importance of the subject matter, and the prima facie merit of the pleading. Considering the distance between Victoriano’s residence in Bontoc, Mountain Province, and the CA, the Court excused the absence of a written explanation, noting that the affidavit of service submitted by his counsel’s secretary provided sufficient information about the circumstances of service.

The Court then addressed the alleged defect in the verification, which failed to state that the allegations were true and correct based on both personal knowledge and authentic records. The Court cited Hun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, emphasizing that a pleading may be verified based on either personal knowledge or authentic records, or both. The use of the word “or” indicates that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification. Therefore, Victoriano’s attestation to the truth and correctness of the allegations based on his personal knowledge was sufficient.

Addressing the allegedly defective certification of non-forum shopping, which did not explicitly state that there was no other similar action pending before any other court, the Court cited Santos v. Litton Mills Incorporated. In that case, the Court excused a similar certification, holding that the petitioner’s undertaking that she had not filed a similar case before any other court or tribunal, and that she would inform the court if she learned of a pending case similar to the one she had filed, was more than substantial compliance. Applying this reasoning to Victoriano’s case, the Court held that his assurance in the certification constituted substantial compliance with the rule.

Regarding the CA’s finding that the notarization of the Verification/Certification and Affidavit of Service violated the rules on notarial practice due to the absence of a properly accomplished jurat showing competent evidence of identity, the Court disagreed. While A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC requires the presentation of competent evidence of identity, such as an identification card issued by an official agency, the Court cited Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Dela Cruz, et al., which allowed the presentation of the affiant’s community tax certificate in lieu of other competent evidence. Furthermore, in Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., et al., the Court ruled that competent evidence of identity is not required when the affiant is personally known to the notary public. Given that Victoriano was personally known to the notary public, the Court held that his Community Tax Certificate constituted sufficient proof of identity.

Finally, the Court addressed the failure of Victoriano’s counsel to indicate his IBP number in the pleading. While the IBP Number was inadvertently omitted, this mistake was immediately rectified in Victoriano’s Motion for Reconsideration. His counsel subsequently indicated the date and place of issuance of his IBP number, which was shown to have been updated. Therefore, the Court concluded that this minor defect did not warrant the dismissal of the petition.

The Court reiterated that lawsuits are not to be won by technicalities. When technicality deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, it deserves scant consideration from courts. The Court emphasized the importance of promoting substantial justice, reminding courts to temper their propensity to dismiss cases based on sheer technical errors.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the petition outright due to technical grounds, despite the potential injustice to the petitioner.
What did the Supreme Court ultimately decide?	The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the CA should not have dismissed the case based on technicalities. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural rules.
What is “substantial compliance” in this context?	Substantial compliance means that while there may be some defects in the petition, the petitioner has generally met the requirements of the Rules of Court, and the defects do not prejudice the other party.
Why was the failure to include all material dates excused?	The failure was excused because the date of receipt of the assailed ruling was specified, and the petition was filed on time. The Court considered this as substantial compliance with the requirement to state material dates.
Under what conditions can personal service requirements be relaxed?	Personal service requirements can be relaxed when personal service is impracticable due to circumstances of time, place, and person. The Court also considers the importance of the subject matter and the prima facie merit of the pleading.
What constitutes sufficient verification of a pleading?	A pleading may be verified based on either personal knowledge or authentic records, or both. The use of “or” indicates that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification.
When is competent evidence of identity not required for notarization?	Competent evidence of identity is not required when the affiant is personally known to the notary public.
What is the significance of this ruling for litigants?	This ruling emphasizes that courts should prioritize substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural rules, giving litigants a better chance to have their cases heard on the merits.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the principle that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice, not obstruct it. By emphasizing substantial compliance and excusing minor technical defects, the Court ensures that litigants are not unjustly deprived of their right to a fair hearing. This ruling serves as a reminder to courts to balance the need for procedural order with the paramount importance of dispensing justice on the merits of each case.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Narciso Victoriano v. Juniper Dominguez, G.R. No. 214794, July 23, 2018