GR 203124; (June, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 203124 , June 22, 2015
PROVINCE OF LEYTE, herein represented by MR. RODOLFO BADIABLE, in his capacity as the ICO-Provincial Treasurer, Province of Leyte, Petitioner, vs. ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
The Province of Leyte issued franchise tax assessments against Energy Development Corporation (EDC) in 2006 and 2007. EDC protested these assessments, and upon the denial of its protests, appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City. The RTC consolidated these appeals. While these cases were pending, the Province issued another tax assessment against EDC on February 27, 2008. EDC filed a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the RTC to enjoin the Province from assessing or collecting franchise taxes until the pending cases were resolved. The RTC initially denied the motion but later granted it in an Order dated July 17, 2009, directing the issuance of the writ. The Province of Leyte elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated September 21, 2011, on the ground, among others, that there was no proper proof of service of the petition to EDC, as the Province only presented registry receipts and failed to include the registry return card. The Province’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Province of Leyte’s certiorari petition due to its failure to provide proper proof of service of the petition on EDC.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on purely procedural grounds. The Court held that while Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court requires proof of service of the petition on the respondent, the purpose of this rule—to apprise the other party of the pendency of the action—had already been served. The CA had issued a Resolution dated November 4, 2009, directing EDC to file a comment, which EDC complied with by filing its comment on December 14, 2009. This demonstrated that the CA had already acquired jurisdiction over EDC, and EDC was aware of and had participated in the proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote the objective of securing a just disposition of every action. Dismissing the case on a technical lapse, especially when substantive issues involving tax assessments are at stake, is not in the interest of substantial justice. The Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA Resolutions, and remanded the case to the CA to resolve the merits of the certiorari petition.