G.R. No. 204567, August 04, 2021
Emiliano D. Joven and Cicero V. Garcia, Petitioners, vs. Spouses Raul L. Tulio and Cristina Panganiban Tulio, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Emiliano D. Joven and Cicero V. Garcia leased a commercial property in San Fernando, Pampanga from respondent spouses for 15 years (Nov. 1, 1999 to Oct. 31, 2013). Petitioners constructed a two-storey commercial building (J-G Shopping Mall) on the property. Petitioners incurred a rental balance of P1,000,000.00 for the period Nov. 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 and issued two dishonored checks. On June 3, 2000, respondents, assisted by a lawyer and 12 security guards, served a Notice of Eviction, barricaded the mall’s Administration Office, issued notices to tenants, and ordered petitioners’ security guards to leave, thereby reassuming possession.
Petitioners filed a complaint for Forcible Entry before the MTCC. The MTCC ruled respondents did not commit forcible entry as petitioners’ guards left voluntarily, but ordered respondents to reimburse advance rentals (P2,250,000.00) and one-half the value of improvements. Both parties appealed to the RTC. The RTC initially modified the MTCC decision, declaring respondents’ possession lawful, reducing the refund to P500,000.00, and ruling improvements become respondents’ property without reimbursement per the lease contract. Upon petitioners’ motion, the RTC reversed itself, declaring forcible entry and ordering reimbursement of half the improvement value (P12M) and P2,250,000.00 advance rentals. On respondents’ motion for reconsideration, a different RTC judge partly granted it, reinstating respondents’ lawful possession, ruling improvements become respondents’ property without reimbursement, and ordering a refund of only P250,000.00.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition outright on technical grounds: (1) an affidavit of service lacked the notary public’s commission number, place of commission, and office address; (2) the Verification and Certification against forum shopping was signed by only one petitioner and also lacked the notary’s details; and (3) no copies of pleadings and documents from the lower courts were attached. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing the dismissal resulted in manifest injustice and that they had submitted certified true copies of the lower courts’ issuances.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright petitioners’ Rule 42 Petition for Review on technical grounds.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Resolutions, and ordered the REINSTATEMENT of CA-G.R. SP No. 125036 for resolution on the merits.
The Supreme Court ruled that while obedience to procedural rules is necessary, their strict application may be relaxed to serve substantial justice and avoid irreparable damage or grave injustice. The technical defects cited by the CA were not fatal. The lack of specific notarial details in the affidavit of service and verification, while a defect, did not render the documents utterly void, especially since the notarizations themselves were not contested as false. More importantly, the core requirement for a Rule 42 petition—the submission of certified true copies of the judgments or final orders of the lower courts—was substantially complied with, as petitioners had submitted these documents. The CA’s outright dismissal, based on curable formal defects, truncated the appeal on a purely technical basis and prevented a resolution on the merits of the forcible entry case, which involved significant property rights and monetary claims. The demands of substantial justice warranted reinstating the petition to allow the CA to adjudicate the case based on its factual and legal merits.