G.R. No. 182375 . December 2, 2015.
HADJA RAWIYA SUIB, Petitioner, vs. EMONG EBBAH and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 22nd DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hadja Rawiya Suib’s (Suib) deceased husband owned a parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-19714, acquired in 1981. In March 1990, Suib filed a criminal case for qualified theft against respondent Emong Ebbah (Ebbah) for allegedly illegally harvesting coconuts from the property. As a defense, Ebbah claimed he was instituted as a tenant by Suib’s husband in 1963. Suib countered that tenancy in 1963 was impossible as her husband acquired the land only in 1981. The RTC dismissed the criminal case on grounds of res judicata, as Suib had previously filed a similar case which was dismissed by the MTC.
Ebbah then filed a case for Immediate Reinstatement and Damages before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB), docketed as Case No. XI-0330-SC-90. The PARAB dismissed the case, finding no tenancy relationship. On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed the PARAB, declaring Ebbah a tenant based on his presence on the land since 1963, the harvesting and sharing of produce, and the implied recognition of tenancy over several years. Suib’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Suib filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 7, 2006. The CA issued a resolution requiring Suib, among other things, to submit a legible certified copy of the DARAB decision. Suib filed several compliances, eventually attaching the DARAB decision in a 2nd Supplement to Compliance dated June 2, 2006. The CA, in a Resolution dated October 9, 2007, dismissed the petition for failure to submit the DARAB decision pursuant to procedural rules. Suib’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated February 26, 2008.
Suib then filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the CA Resolutions for grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Suib’s appeal for failure to timely submit a copy of the DARAB decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that Suib availed of the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal and lies only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Here, Suib should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to assail the final CA judgment. While the Court may, under certain conditions, treat a petition for certiorari as a petition for review in the interest of justice, such liberal construction is not warranted in this case. The Court found that Suib failed to comply with the CA’s directive to submit the required DARAB decision, a procedural requirement under Rule 43. The CA’s dismissal of the petition for this failure was not a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The rules of procedure must be followed, and the Court shall not relax them under the guise of liberal construction where, as here, the petitioner’s non-compliance is unjustified. Therefore, the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion.