GR 168350; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168350; January 31, 2008
PERCIVAL A. CENDAĂ‘A, petitioner, vs. CIRILO A. AVILA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Cirilo Avila was the Director II of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) Law Enforcement Service. On January 11, 2005, petitioner Percival Cendaña was appointed by the President to the same position, took his oath, and assumed office. The LTO issued orders for Avila to turn over the post. Avila filed a petition for quo warranto with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the writ, enjoining Cendaña from assuming the functions of the office.
Cendaña filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC’s grant of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court dismissed the petition due to procedural flaws, specifically Cendaña’s failure to state the actual addresses of the parties in the petition, his failure to manifest willingness to post a bond for the injunctive relief, and his failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC order before resorting to certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on procedural grounds.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The petition for certiorari was correctly dismissed for non-compliance with mandatory procedural rules. Under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for certiorari must contain the full names and actual addresses of all parties. This requirement is jurisdictional, as it enables the court to determine proper venue and ensure effective service of orders. Petitioner’s argument that notice to his counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General, suffices is incorrect; the rule explicitly requires the parties’ actual addresses.
Furthermore, the general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing a petition for certiorari, as it allows the lower court to correct its own errors. While exceptions exist, such as when the order is a patent nullity, petitioner failed to substantiate that the RTC order fell under any recognized exception. His bare allegation of patent nullity was insufficient to justify bypassing the motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice, and their strict observance is mandatory and jurisdictional. Dismissal based on these procedural infirmities was proper.