G.R. No. 146197; June 27, 2005
Security Bank Corporation (formerly Security Bank and Trust Company), petitioner, vs. Indiana Aerospace University, The Branch Sheriff, Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256, and The Register of Deeds of Makati City, respondents.

FACTS

Security Bank held a real estate mortgage over fourteen condominium units owned by Innovatech Development and Management Corporation as security for a loan. Innovatech informed Security Bank that it had sold the units to Indiana Aerospace University, which would assume the mortgage. Upon the loan’s maturity without payment, Security Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the properties at auction. Innovatech filed an action for annulment of the foreclosure sale and obtained a preliminary injunction, which was later nullified by the Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, Indiana filed a Complaint-in-Intervention. The Regional Trial Court granted Indiana’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel the annotation of the certificate of sale on the titles and enjoining its re-registration. Security Bank’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Security Bank then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Security Bank’s petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the rule requiring a statement of material dates in the petition.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The legal logic is that while Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires a petition for certiorari to indicate material dates (such as receipt of the assailed order and filing of a motion for reconsideration) for determining timeliness, a strict application leading to dismissal is not warranted when non-compliance is not substantial and the dates are evident from the records. Here, Security Bank’s petition stated the date it received the order denying its motion for reconsideration—the most critical date for appeal. The other dates, while omitted from the petition’s body, were reasonably evident from the attached documents, including the trial court’s order which showed the motion for reconsideration was timely filed. Jurisprudence establishes that rules of procedure are tools to facilitate justice, not hinder it. The Court has relaxed such technical requirements when subsequent or substantial compliance exists and the appeal is filed within the reglementary period, as in this case. The dismissal on a purely technical ground deprived the parties of a resolution on the merits. Thus, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for reinstatement and proper adjudication.