GR 171098; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171098 ; February 26, 2008
JUAN G. GARCIA, JR. and DOROTEO C. GAERLAN, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GARCIA PASION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(GPDC), represented by RAMONA G. AYESA and MARCELO F. AYESA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Juan G. Garcia, Jr. and Doroteo C. Gaerlan, stockholders of respondent Garcia Pasion Development Corporation (GPDC), were defendants in a derivative suit filed by GPDC. During the proceedings, the parties filed a Joint Motion with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) praying that dividends declared for GPDC by other corporations be delivered to the Branch Clerk of Court and deposited in a designated bank account, with withdrawals allowed only upon court-approved joint motion. The RTC issued an Order directing delivery to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Manila, instead. A subsequent Joint Motion to Amend, seeking the specific bank deposit arrangement, was denied by the RTC, citing the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court which mandates that court deposits be in the court’s name with the Clerk of Court as custodian.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC Orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright for failure to attach certified true copies of the assailed RTC Orders of February 22, 2005 and April 7, 2005, as required by Section 1, Rule 65. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing they attached duplicate original copies, but the appellate court found they had only appended machine copies and denied the motion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for failure to strictly comply with the requirement of attaching certified true copies of the assailed orders.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that the rules on certiorari are strictly applied. Under Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof. The failure to comply with this requirement is a sufficient ground for dismissal.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the dismissal was based on a mere technicality. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, and parties must adhere strictly to procedural rules. The requirement for a certified true copy or duplicate original is not a trivial formality but ensures the authenticity and veracity of the documents submitted for judicial review. Petitioners’ submission of mere machine copies constituted a fatal procedural defect. The Court held that procedural rules are tools to facilitate the orderly administration of justice, and their strict observance is demanded, especially for extraordinary writs. The discretion to dismiss for non-compliance is sound and was properly exercised by the Court of Appeals.