GR 136096; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136096 February 7, 2001
NELIA ATILLO, petitioner, vs. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Nelia Atillo leased a commercial unit from respondent Buenaventura Bombay. After she failed to pay rentals starting January 1995, respondent filed an ejectment case. In her defense, Atillo claimed Bombay was no longer the proper party to eject her. She alleged the building’s ownership had been transferred to the heirs of Tomas Escaraman, with whom she subsequently entered into a new lease contract, paying them rentals instead. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the case, ruling Bombay was not the proper party-in-interest.
Bombay appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC, ordered Atillo to vacate, and awarded back rentals. Atillo then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Atillo’s petition for review for failure to comply with the attachment requirements under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was proper. The Court affirmed the CA’s resolutions. Rule 42, Section 2(d) mandates that a petition for review from the RTC to the CA must be accompanied by copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record to support its allegations. Section 3 states that failure to comply with this requirement is a sufficient ground for dismissal.
The legal logic is clear: the attachment requirement is mandatory, not merely directory. Its purpose is to furnish the CA with a sufficient basis to make a preliminary determination of the petition’s merit without immediately ordering the elevation of the entire record, which avoids delay and prevents records from being lost in transit. In this case, Atillo failed to attach critical documents like the complaint, answer, and position papers. Her insistence that the requirement was discretionary and her refusal to submit the necessary annexes even when given the opportunity, including in her motion for reconsideration, demonstrated a stubborn disregard for procedural rules. The Court distinguished this from cases where leniency was granted, as here the non-compliance was unjustified. Procedural rules are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice, and their strict application in this instance was warranted.