G.R. No. 155025 ; August 24, 2007
COL. ARTURO C. FERRER (Ret.), Petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARACELI E. VILLANUEVA, DALISAY SORIANO and WILSON DE LOS REYES, Members, Prequalification, Bidding and Awards Committee, Philippine International Convention Center, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Col. Arturo C. Ferrer, as president of Odin Security Agency, Inc., participated in a bidding for security services with the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). The Prequalification, Bidding and Awards Committee (PBAC) disqualified Odin based on a client survey indicating its performance was not “very satisfactory.” Petitioner’s request for reconsideration and for the names of the informants was denied by the PBAC on grounds of confidentiality. Petitioner subsequently filed an administrative complaint with the Ombudsman against the PBAC members, which was dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. His motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition outright due to two procedural deficiencies: first, the lack of proof of service on the respondents and the agency a quo as required under Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and second, the failure to attach copies of all relevant pleadings and documents, such as the Joint Counter-Affidavit. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to petitioner’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements on proof of service and attachment of relevant documents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the dismissal was legally sound due to petitioner’s strict non-compliance with mandatory procedural rules. Proof of service, as mandated by Section 13, Rule 13, is a mandatory requirement for motions and, with more reason, for petitions for certiorari under Section 3, Rule 46, which explicitly requires filing “together with proof of service thereof.” The lack of such proof is a fatal defect.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petition before the Court of Appeals was also flawed for failure to attach material portions of the record, specifically the Joint Counter-Affidavit and other relevant documents, as required by the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46. These attachments are crucial as they support the petition’s allegations; without them, the allegations remain bare and unsubstantiated. The Court cited precedents establishing that failure to attach these certified true copies or relevant documents is a sufficient ground for dismissal.
The Court rejected the plea for liberal construction, stating that procedural rules exist to ensure orderly administration of justice and prevent arbitrariness. Relaxing the rules in this case was unwarranted, as petitioner provided no persuasive reason for his non-compliance. Thus, the appellate court correctly dismissed the petition on purely procedural grounds.