G.R. No. 165648 ; March 23, 2006
EASTLAND CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. BENEDICTA MORTEL, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Benedicta Mortel entered into a Contract to Sell with petitioner Eastland Construction & Development Corporation for a subdivision lot in Batangas. Mortel fully paid the purchase price. However, Eastland failed to deliver the title. Mortel discovered that the mother title of the subdivision project had been mortgaged to a bank, Orient Commercial Banking Corporation, prior to the sale and before Eastland obtained the required Certificate of Registration and License to Sell from the HLURB. The bank later closed and was placed under receivership by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC).
Mortel filed a complaint for specific performance before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The HLURB ruled in her favor, declaring the real estate mortgage null and void and ordering Eastland and PDIC to execute a deed of sale and deliver the title. The HLURB Board of Commissioners and the Office of the President affirmed this decision. Eastland appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Eastland’s petition for review for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 43.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural rules. Under Section 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review must be accompanied by certified true copies of the judgment appealed from and material portions of the record. It must also include a certificate of non-forum shopping.
Eastland’s petition before the CA failed to append several critical documents, including the HLURB Arbiter’s decision, the resolutions from the HLURB Board of Commissioners and the Office of the President, and the requisite certificate of non-forum shopping. The Court ruled that these omissions were fatal. The requirement to submit supporting documents is mandatory to allow the appellate court to properly review the case based on a complete record. The certificate of non-forum shopping is essential to prevent forum-shopping and ensure the orderly administration of justice. Eastland’s failure to submit these constituted a disregard of the rules warranting the petition’s dismissal. The Court held that procedural rules are not mere technicalities but tools to facilitate the fair and efficient resolution of cases, and their relaxation is not warranted in this instance.