GR 174034; (March, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174034 ; March 9, 2011
HEIRS OF MARILOU K. SANTIAGO, represented by DENNIS K. SANTIAGO, LOURDES K. SANTIAGO and EUFEMIA K. SANTIAGO, Petitioners, vs. ALFONSO AGUILA, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of Marilou K. Santiago, owned a coconut land tenanted by respondent Alfonso Aguila. They filed an ejectment suit against him before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for allegedly cutting down coconut trees and depriving them of their harvest share. On May 31, 2000, the PARAD ruled in favor of the heirs, terminated the tenancy, and ordered Aguila to vacate and pay past shares. Aguila appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which set aside the PARAD’s decision and ordered a new leasehold contract. The DARAB denied the heirs’ motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2006. The heirs received the denial on March 6, 2006, making their deadline to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) March 21, 2006. On March 15, 2006, they filed a motion for a 30-day extension, until April 20, 2006. They filed their petition on April 20, 2006. On April 28, 2006, the CA granted only a 15-day extension, up to April 5, 2006, rendering the April 20 filing late. The CA also found a defect in the attached Special Power of Attorney (SPA), which named a non-party (Dennis Matubis) instead of petitioner Dennis K. Santiago. The CA dismissed the petition. The heirs’ motion for reconsideration was denied on August 7, 2006, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for review under Rule 43 for having been filed out of time.
RULING
Yes, the CA erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA resolutions, and directed the CA to give due course to the petition and adjudicate it on its merits.
1. On the Defective SPA: The heirs explained it was an honest mistake, as Dennis Matubis and Dennis K. Santiago are the same person. In the absence of counter-proof and as the CA did not require substantiation, this assertion may be presumed true. The defect did not warrant outright dismissal, as all petitioners shared a common interest and the petition was validly verified for the others.
2. On the Timeliness of the Petition: While the CA has discretion to grant or deny extensions, such discretion must be exercised wisely to promote justice, not frustrate it on technicalities. The CA acted unreasonably:
It waited 44 days (from March 15 to April 28) to act on the motion for extension.
When it granted only a 15-day extension ending April 5, that deadline had already passed 23 days prior, giving petitioners no chance to comply.
* The CA did not provide reasonable notice that it found the grounds for a 30-day extension insufficient.
* The petition was already filed on April 20, eight days before the CA’s order. The CA’s delay in acting negated the purpose of a strict deadline.
* Procedural rules should facilitate, not obstruct, justice. Cases should be decided on their merits, especially here, involving tenancy relations and conflicting findings by the PARAD and DARAB, which warranted CA review.