GR 132426; (August, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132426. August 19, 1999.
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 253, Las Piñas City and MARTA D. MADRIAGA, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Public Estates Authority (PEA), filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to assail two Orders from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 253, Las Piñas City, in Civil Case No. LP-97-0034. The first Order, dated October 2, 1997, considered PEA’s Motion to Dismiss as not filed due to non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a written explanation when service or filing is not done personally. The second Order, dated December 5, 1997, denied PEA’s Manifestation and Motion praying that its previously filed Answer be treated as its Answer to the Amended Complaint, for failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 13 regarding proof of service by registered mail. PEA contended that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing these orders and in failing to resolve promptly its motion for reconsideration of the October 2, 1997 Order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in considering PEA’s Motion to Dismiss and Manifestation and Motion as not filed for alleged non-compliance with procedural rules on service and filing.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It ruled that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the liberal construction of the Rules of Court under Section 6, Rule 1 to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action. Regarding the Motion to Dismiss, while PEA’s written explanation (“there being no pressing need to resort to personal service”) was not strictly compliant with Section 11, Rule 13, it was acceptable as PEA did not ignore the rule. Rigid application of procedural rules that frustrates substantial justice must be avoided. As to the Manifestation and Motion, the failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 13 on proof of service was not fatal because the pleading was non-contentious and did not affect the adverse party’s rights. Moreover, the filing was unnecessary since PEA’s previously filed Answer could serve as its Answer to the Amended Complaint under Section 3, Rule 11. Consequently, the challenged Orders dated October 2, 1997, and December 5, 1997, were SET ASIDE, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.