G.R. No. 184542 , April 23, 2010.
ALMA B. RUSSEL, Petitioner, vs. TEOFISTA EBASAN and AGAPITO AUSTRIA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alma B. Russel filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondents Teofista Ebasan and Agapito Austria. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iligan City ruled in favor of Russel. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC and dismissed the complaint. Russel received the RTC decision on April 13, 2007. On April 20, 2007, she filed a motion for a 15-day extension to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), attaching postal money orders for the fees. She filed her petition via registered mail on May 15, 2007. The CA dismissed the appeal in a June 18, 2007 Resolution, citing that the petition was filed out of time, lacked a written explanation for filing by mail, had a defective verification, and failed to attach pertinent documents. Russel received this resolution on July 18, 2007, and filed a motion for reconsideration via registered mail on July 27, 2007. The CA denied the motion in an August 26, 2008 Resolution, ruling it was filed 63 days late. Russel elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review on procedural grounds, specifically the timeliness of the petition and motion for reconsideration, and the compliance with formal requirements.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the CA for disposition on the merits. The Court held that both the petition for review and the motion for reconsideration were filed within the reglementary periods. The reglementary period to file the petition for review expired on April 28, 2007. The granted 15-day extension ended on May 13, 2007, a Sunday, and the next day, May 14, was a legal holiday; thus, the filing on May 15, 2007, was timely. The motion for reconsideration was filed by registered mail on July 27, 2007, within 15 days from notice of the CA resolution on July 18, 2007; the date of mailing is considered the date of filing. The Court also found the dismissal on other procedural grounds improper. The written explanation for filing by mail was superfluous given the distance between Iligan City and the CA station in Cagayan de Oro City. The defective verification, missing the phrase “based on authentic records,” was excusable as verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement. The failure to attach the complaint and answer was substantially complied with when Russel filed an amended petition. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are tools to promote substantial justice, and their rigid application should be avoided when it results in technicalities that frustrate justice.