G.R. No. 139607 October 28, 2002
RAMON ISIDRO P. LAPID and GLADYS B. LAPID, in behalf of their minor child CHRISTOPHER B. LAPID, petitioners, vs. HON. EMMANUEL D. LAUREA, Presiding Judge of RTC, BR. 169, Malabon, ST. THERESE OF THE CHILD JESUS, INC., and COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Ramon Isidro P. Lapid and Gladys B. Lapid, parents of seven-year-old Christopher B. Lapid, filed a complaint for damages against St. Therese of the Child Jesus, Inc. and its school officials. They alleged their son was summarily suspended for five days effective November 6, 1997, without notice and hearing, based on alleged complaints from other parents about Christopher’s misconduct. Petitioners denied knowledge of these complaints. After the incident, Christopher transferred schools. Petitioners filed a letter-complaint with the DECS and, after the school officials refused to issue a written retraction and public apology, filed Civil Case No. 2839 MN before the RTC of Malabon. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion to declare the respondent school in default and their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 52970). The CA dismissed the petition because it failed to indicate the material date of the filing of their motion for reconsideration with the RTC, as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 39-98 (amending Section 3, Rule 46). The CA denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration, which still omitted the required date.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of a formal and procedural deficiency, specifically the petitioners’ failure to state a material date in their petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for failure to comply with the procedural requirement under Rule 65, as amended, which mandates that a petition for certiorari must indicate three material dates: (1) the date of receipt of the judgment or order assailed; (2) the date of filing of a motion for reconsideration; and (3) the date of receipt of the denial thereof. The petitioners’ failure to state the date they filed their motion for reconsideration with the RTC was a sufficient ground for dismissal, as this date is crucial for determining the timeliness of the petition. The Court rejected the plea for liberal application of the rules, noting that petitioners’ counsel failed to provide a persuasive explanation for the non-compliance and remained obstinate even when seeking reconsideration. The negligence of counsel binds the client. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are liberally construed in certain cases, utter disregard of the rules cannot be rationalized by invoking liberal construction, as rules are designed to ensure the orderly disposition of cases.