GR 153756; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153756 ; January 30, 2006
ATTY. FEDERICO CALO, NORMAN CALO, FREDERICO CALO JR., and DANILO CALO (DECEASED), Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES JACINTA VILLANUEVA and JOSE VILLANUEVA, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent spouses filed a case for unlawful ejectment and damages before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) against petitioners Atty. Federico Calo and his son Norman Calo. Respondents claimed they were agricultural tenants since 1966 under a share-tenancy agreement over a portion of the Calo property. Petitioners countered that respondents were merely caretakers or “piados,” not tenants, and thus not entitled to security of tenure under agrarian laws. The Regional Adjudicator ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them lawful tenants-lessees. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioners subsequently filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on purely procedural grounds. It found two fatal infirmities: first, the required verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed only by Atty. Federico Calo and not by all petitioners; second, the petition lacked the mandatory affidavit of service. The appellate court denied their motion for reconsideration, prompting this Rule 45 petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review based solely on procedural technicalities.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon, and litigation should be decided on their merits whenever possible. On the first procedural defect, the Court held that the certification of non-forum shopping signed by Atty. Federico Calo substantially complied with the rules. As an original principal party, the father of the other petitioners, and their legal counsel, he was in a competent position to declare whether his co-petitioners had engaged in forum-shopping. Citing precedent, the Court ruled that a certification may be signed by any of the principal parties who can act on behalf of the others.
Regarding the lack of an affidavit of service, the Court deemed this a formal, not jurisdictional, defect that could be rectified. The rules should be liberally construed to secure a just determination of the case. Since the substantive issues involved tenancy rights and security of tenure, a hearing on the merits was paramount. The procedural lapses did not constitute a willful or deliberate disregard of the rules that would justify dismissal. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merits.