GR L 2611; (July, 1951) (Digest)
March 12, 2026GR 188118; (November, 2015) (Digest)
March 12, 2026G.R. No. 112547 July 18, 1994
DENNIS T. GABIONZA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ACHIEVERS SALES CORPORATIONS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dennis T. Gabionza was a defendant in Civil Case No. 54984, “Achievers Sales Corporation v. Pasvil Liner, Inc., et al.,” before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 155, Pasig. His motion to dismiss the complaint against him was denied by the trial court. Gabionza filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals to assail this denial. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a one-paragraph Resolution for failure to indicate in its caption the docket number of the case in the trial court, as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. Gabionza admits the docket number was not in the caption but contends there was substantial compliance because the docket number (Civil Case No. 54984) and the case title were stated in the body of the petition on page 2. He also complied with the second requirement of Circular No. 28-91 by attaching the required sworn certification against forum shopping.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition for failure to comply with Circular No. 28-91 by not including the trial court docket number in the caption, despite its inclusion in the petition’s body.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. It held that Gabionza’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was in substantial compliance with Circular No. 28-91. The docket number of the trial court case, though absent from the caption, was clearly stated in the body of the petition. Furthermore, the sworn certification against forum shopping was attached. The Circular was designed to prevent forum shopping and promote orderly administration of justice, not to dismiss cases on mere technicalities. The Court of Appeals should have required Gabionza to amend the caption instead of dismissing the petition. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.