G.R. No. 179878 , December 24, 2008
Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA), petitioner, vs. Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC-Negros Occidental, Branch 52, Bacolod City, and Aniceto Manojo Campos, respondents.

FACTS

On March 17, 1999, private respondent Aniceto Manojo Campos filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract with Damages against petitioner Negros Oriental Planters Association, Inc. (NOPA) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On August 17, 2005, more than six years after filing its Answer, NOPA filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of Campos’s alleged failure to pay the correct filing fee. The RTC denied this motion on June 30, 2006, and subsequently denied NOPA’s Motion for Reconsideration on January 5, 2007. On April 2, 2007, NOPA filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC Orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition via Resolution dated May 23, 2007, on three procedural grounds: (1) failure of the Verification to state that the allegations were true and correct of personal knowledge or based on authentic records, as required by Section 4, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; (2) failure to append all relevant pleadings and documents as required by Section 1, Rule 65; and (3) failure of counsel to indicate his current IBP Official Receipt Number. NOPA filed a Motion for Reconsideration with an attached Amended Petition for Certiorari, but the Court of Appeals denied it in a Resolution dated August 16, 2007. Hence, NOPA filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that there was no substantial compliance with the procedural requirements regarding the Verification and the attachment of necessary documents to the Petition for Certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the amendment to Section 4, Rule 7 (by A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, effective May 1, 2000) made the verification requirement stricter. A verification must now allege under oath that the affiant’s knowledge is either personal or based on authentic records; a verification based merely on “knowledge and belief” is insufficient. Under the amended rule, a pleading with an improper verification “shall be treated as an unsigned pleading,” and an unsigned pleading produces no legal effect, though a court may in its discretion allow the deficiency to be remedied. The Court of Appeals, in the exercise of this discretion, refused to allow the deficiency to be remedied by denying NOPA’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in this refusal, as the discretion to allow correction is vested in the court to which the pleading is submitted. Furthermore, the Court noted that NOPA’s Motion to Dismiss in the RTC was filed over six years after its Answer, constituting undue delay, and the issue raised (regarding docket fees) was not jurisdictional. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, and their strict application is justified when a party’s negligence, like NOPA’s belated procedural challenge, is apparent.