G.R. No. 169122, February 2, 2010
MARCELINO DOMINGO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AGAPITA DOMINGO, ANA DOMINGO, HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO DOMINGO, namely: DOROTEO DOMINGO, JULITA DOMINGO, AMANDO DOMINGO, and ARCEL DOMINGO; HEIRS OF JULIAN DOMINGO, namely: JULIAN DOMINGO, JR. and PONCIANO DOMINGO; HEIRS OF EDILBERTA DOMINGO, namely: ANITA DOMINGO and ROSIE DOMINGO; HEIR OF FELIPE DOMINGO, namely: LORNA DOMINGO; and HEIRS OF GERONIMO DOMINGO, namely: EMILY DOMINGO and ARISTON DOMINGO represented by ROLANDO DOMINGO, Respondents.

FACTS

Before his death, Julio Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over a 4.1358-hectare parcel of land in favor of petitioner Marcelino Domingo’s wife, Carmelita Mananghaya. Respondents, the other heirs of Julio Domingo, filed a complaint for annulment of the deed, alleging forgery. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the deed void due to forgery and ordered Marcelino and his wife to deliver possession to respondents. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and became final and executory. A writ of execution was issued, and respondents gained possession on August 25, 2003.
Subsequently, Marcelino filed a petition with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to be declared a tenant-beneficiary. Around April 2004, he reentered and retook possession of the property. Respondents filed a motion for contempt. The RTC found Marcelino in contempt, fined him, and ordered his arrest. He was later released after promising in writing to deliver possession and not reenter.
Marcelino again reentered the property. The RTC issued a December 23, 2004 Order, noting his defiance and failure to appear at hearings, which granted a motion for contempt, ordered his arrest and detention, forfeiture of improvements, and execution of the fine. Meanwhile, the DAR initially granted Marcelino’s petition on October 4, 2004, placing the land under agrarian reform coverage and naming him a beneficiary. However, upon reconsideration, the DAR set aside this order on February 17, 2005, ruling the 4.1358-hectare property was not covered by agrarian reform as it was below the five-hectare ceiling.
Marcelino filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s contempt orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition outright due to procedural defects, specifically failure to serve the pleadings personally and to provide a written explanation for not doing so as required by the Rules of Court. Marcelino’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Marcelino Domingo’s petition for certiorari due to procedural non-compliance with the rules on personal service of pleadings.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s dismissal. The Rules of Court mandate that filing and service of pleadings must be done personally whenever practicable. If service is not done personally, a written explanation must be provided. Marcelino failed to comply with this rule. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice and are not to be disregarded. Liberal application of procedural rules is allowed only when there is (1) a justifiable cause for non-compliance, and (2) a compelling reason that outright dismissal would seriously impair the orderly administration of justice. Both requisites were absent in this case. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals’ strict application of the procedural rules, which was within its sound discretion. The petition was dismissed.