G.R. No. 168240 ; February 9, 2011
AURORA B. GO, Petitioner, vs. ELMER SUNBANUN, GEORGIE S. TAN, DORIS SUNBANUN and RICHARD SUNBANUN, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents filed a suit for damages against petitioner Aurora B. Go, her husband, and their employment agency. The RTC rendered a decision finding only Aurora Go liable. Her counsel belatedly discovered the judgment due to the court mistakenly sending it to an old address. Aurora filed a motion for reconsideration on the last day to appeal. Upon its denial, her counsel had one day left to file a notice of appeal. Counsel sought a 15-day extension, citing Aurora’s busy campaign for a local elective position as mayor. The RTC denied the motion for extension and the subsequently filed notice of appeal as filed out of time, ruling that campaigning was no excuse. Aurora filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s orders. The CA dismissed the petition outright for procedural flaws: (1) the verification/certification of non-forum shopping was signed by only one petitioner (Aurora) without authority for the other named petitioners; (2) the affidavit of service lacked an explanation for not serving the petition to the CA personally; (3) counsel failed to indicate his PTR and IBP numbers; and (4) certain pleadings referred to in the petition (the complaint and answer) were not attached. Aurora’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Aurora Go’s petition for certiorari based on procedural deficiencies.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court ruled that the CA should have applied the 2004 amendment to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court retroactively, as it was in effect at the time the CA resolved the motion for reconsideration. The amended rule states that the failure to comply with certain requirements (like verification, non-forum shopping certification, and proof of service) shall not be a ground for the dismissal of the petition, but shall be cause to consider the pleading as not filed. This is a more lenient provision compared to the prior rule of outright dismissal. Applying the amended rule, the procedural defects (items 1, 2, and 3 cited by the CA) should not have been grounds for dismissal but merely for considering the petition as not filed, which would have allowed Aurora to refile a corrected petition within the reglementary period. Furthermore, the Court found that the other documents not attached (the complaint and answer) were not relevant to the sole issue in the certiorari petition, which was the propriety of denying an extension to file a notice of appeal. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action. The RTC’s denial of the extension was also deemed a grave abuse of discretion, as the period to appeal is non-extendible, and the filing of the notice of appeal one day after the motion for extension was filed showed a willingness to comply promptly. The case was remanded to the CA for further proceedings.