G.R. No. 127623 June 19, 1997
DOMINADOR VERGEL DE DIOS, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Special Thirteenth Division, VALENTIN SARMIENTO, and REYNALDO (REGINO) VENTURINA, respondents.

FACTS

In 1991, petitioner Dominador Vergel de Dios filed ejectment suits against private respondents Valentin Sarmiento and Reynaldo Venturina. The cases were referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and docketed as DARAB Case Nos. 248 and 283. In DARAB Case No. 248, petitioner alleged he owned a two-hectare farm under agricultural lease to Sarmiento, who abandoned it in 1988 by selling his rights to Venturina without paying rentals, and Venturina refused to surrender the land. In DARAB Case No. 283, petitioner claimed Venturina had been cultivating a 3.75-hectare lot without his knowledge or consent; the land was formerly leased by Jose Salonga, who allegedly sold his rights to Venturina before his death. The Provincial Adjudicator decided in favor of petitioner, declaring the leasehold extinguished and ordering Venturina to vacate. On appeal, the DARAB reversed the decision, dismissing the complaints for lack of evidence, finding Sarmiento did not abandon the land but relinquished cultivation to his son Pio due to old age, and finding Venturina to be the lawful tenant of the 3.75-hectare lot based on a DAR certification, testimonies, and receipts showing petitioner accepted rentals. The DARAB ordered the execution of leasehold contracts. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then moved for a 15-day extension to file a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. He filed a petition denominated as “for review by way of appeal by certiorari.” The Court of Appeals denied the motion for extension, stating the intended petition was not the proper remedy and that the certification against forum shopping was executed by counsel, not petitioner. It later dismissed the petition as filed late. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a petition and in dismissing his petition.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated petitioner’s petition for review. The Court held that the Court of Appeals was hasty in concluding petitioner intended to file a petition for certiorari based solely on his motion’s wording; it should have reserved judgment until receiving the actual petition, which complied with the requirements for a petition for review under Circular No. 1-95. The petition contained necessary statements, a summary of proceedings, analysis of evidence, and attached certified copies of the DARAB decision and a proper certification against forum shopping. The inclusion of DARAB as a respondent did not detract from its nature as a petition for review. Furthermore, the Court held that the requirement for a certification against forum shopping under Circular No. 28-91 applies to petitions, not motions for extension; petitioner’s subsequent attachment of a proper certification to his petition cured any prior defect.