G.R. No. 169918; February 27, 2008
Romulo J. Marohomsalic, petitioner, vs. Reynaldo D. Cole, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Romulo J. Marohomsalic was a Special Land Investigator I at the PENRO-DENR in Koronadal City. Respondent Reynaldo D. Cole had a pending land dispute case in the same office. In February 2001, Cole sought Marohomsalic’s assistance. Their accounts diverged: Marohomsalic claimed Cole gave him money for photocopying expenses, while Cole alleged Marohomsalic demanded a P15,000 bribe to influence the case. Cole, with NBI assistance, conducted an entrapment operation on March 8, 2001, where Marohomsalic was caught receiving P2,700.
The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao found Marohomsalic guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal. Marohomsalic appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43. The CA dismissed the petition on technical grounds, specifically the lack of a written explanation for filing by registered mail instead of personal service and an improper verification. Marohomsalic elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition, arguing the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and that his right to due process was violated.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Marohomsalic’s petition for review on technical grounds.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which was not present. The CA’s dismissal was based on valid legal grounds under the Rules of Court.
On the procedural defects, the Court held that Section 11, Rule 13 mandates personal filing as the general rule, requiring a written explanation for resorting to other modes like registered mail. Marohomsalic’s failure to provide this explanation justified the CA’s discretionary power to expunge the pleading. Regarding verification, Section 4, Rule 7 requires an affidavit stating allegations are true based on personal knowledge or authentic records. Marohomsalic’s verification, stating reliance only on authentic records without addressing allegations requiring personal knowledge, was improper. The CA correctly applied these procedural rules, and its dismissal was a valid exercise of discretion, not an arbitrary one. The technical rules of procedure are tools to facilitate, not frustrate, justice, but their observance remains mandatory.