G.R. No. 144117 . February 27, 2003.
MILAGROS B. NAYVE, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ACRE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Acre Development Corporation (ACRE) filed an ejectment suit against petitioner Milagros Nayve for unpaid rentals. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of ACRE, ordering Nayve to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears. Nayve appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). During the pendency of this appeal, ACRE moved for execution pending appeal, alleging Nayve failed to deposit the monthly rentals with the RTC as required by Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of execution.
Nayve filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the RTC’s orders granting execution. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright due to procedural deficiencies, including the lack of an express allegation that the RTC judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and the absence of several material dates in the petition. Nayve’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on purely technical grounds.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The petition for certiorari before the appellate court was correctly dismissed for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. A petition for certiorari must specifically allege the jurisdictional facts, including that the respondent tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and must state the material dates of receipt of the assailed order and the filing of the petition to show timeliness.
Nayve’s petition before the Court of Appeals lacked an express allegation of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC and omitted critical dates, rendering it fatally defective. The rules of procedure are not mere technicalities; they are essential for the orderly administration of justice. While litigation should be decided on merits, adherence to procedural rules is required, and their relaxation is an exception, not the rule. The RTC’s grant of execution pending appeal was, in any event, justified under Section 19, Rule 70, as the rule mandates execution if the appellant fails to periodically deposit the rentals due during the appeal. Nayve’s filing of a supersedeas bond did not excuse her from this separate and distinct obligation to make periodic deposits.