G.R. No. 144533 , September 23, 2003
Jimmy L. Barnes a.k.a. James L. Barnes, Petitioner, vs. Teresita C. Reyes, Elizabeth C. Pasion, Ma. Elsa C. Garcia, Imelda C. Trillo, Ma. Elena C. Dinglasan and Ricardo P. Crisostomo, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an ejectment complaint filed by respondents against petitioner. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for respondents, but the Regional Trial Court reversed this on appeal. Respondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially dismissed the petition due to two procedural defects: first, the verification and certification against forum shopping was signed by only one respondent, Teresita Reyes, without proof she was authorized to act for her co-parties; and second, the petition failed to include a written explanation for serving copies by registered mail instead of personal service.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a Special Power of Attorney executed by the other respondents authorizing Teresita Reyes to sign and file the petition on their behalf. The CA granted the motion, reinstated the petition, and subsequently denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in reinstating the petition despite the cited procedural flaws.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reinstating the petition for review despite respondents’ initial non-compliance with the rules on verification/certification against forum shopping and the mode of service of pleadings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the CA’s discretionary act of reinstatement. On the forum shopping certification, the Court ruled that while strict compliance is required, the rule admits of substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. The subsequent submission of the Special Power of Attorney, which was executed even before the petition was filed, cured the initial defect. The rule is an instrument to promote orderly administration of justice, not to be applied with absolute literalness to subvert its ultimate objective of achieving substantial justice.
Regarding the mode of service, the Court held that the rule preferring personal service (Section 11, Rule 13) is directory, not mandatory. The use of the word “may” in stating that a violation “may be cause to consider the paper as not filed” vests discretion in the court. The CA properly exercised this discretion by not dismissing the petition, as the rights of the parties remained to be determined on the merits. Technicalities should not override the resolution of cases based on evidence and substantive justice. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was procedurally infirm as it assailed an interlocutory order (the denial of a motion for reconsideration) via Rule 45, which is not the proper remedy.