G.R. No. 263481 . February 08, 2023.
JESUS CABALLES, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CORAZON ADOLFO CALDERON, ROBERTO ADOLFO CALDERON, RICARDO ADOLFO CALDERON, MA. FE ADOLFO CALDERON, ANALIZA ADOLFO CALDERON, MARIA DOLORES CALDERON, MA. GERTRUDES CALDERON, AND ROMY CARAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint filed by petitioner Jesus Caballes against private respondents before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) of Tagum City. The RARAD ruled in favor of Caballes. Private respondent Corazon Adolfo Calderon appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which reversed the RARAD’s decision in its Decision dated December 26, 2019. Caballes’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the DARAB in a Resolution dated December 14, 2020, a copy of which he received on February 11, 2021. On February 26, 2021, Caballes filed via registered mail a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition outright in a Minute Resolution dated March 25, 2021, citing six procedural defects: 1) the petition was filed three days late; 2) attached copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution were plain photocopies; 3) the dates of receipt of the assailed Decision and filing of the motion for reconsideration were not indicated; 4) the petitioner failed to show competent evidence of identity for the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping; 5) the counsel’s IBP Official Receipt was outdated; and 6) the addresses of the respondents were not indicated. Caballes filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Attached Amended Petition for Review, correcting the defects. The CA denied the motion in a Resolution dated June 24, 2022, insisting the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. Caballes then filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing outright the petitioner’s Petition for Review on the basis of procedural defects.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition.
The Supreme Court held that the CA’s act of ruling that the petition was belatedly filed constituted grave abuse of discretion. The registry receipts showed the petition was mailed on February 26, 2021, the last day of the 15-day reglementary period from receipt of the DARAB resolution on February 11, 2021. Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, the date of mailing is considered the date of filing. The CA’s failure to properly determine this, and its insistence on the error despite being presented with the registry receipts in the motion for reconsideration, was arbitrary and whimsical.
Regarding the other procedural defects, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, found they did not justify outright dismissal, especially since the petition was timely filed and an amended petition correcting the defects was attached to the motion for reconsideration. Specifically:
1. Failure to state material dates: Citing Victoriano v. Dominguez, the failure to indicate the date of receipt of the assailed decision was not fatal; the crucial date to allege was the receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, which was stated.
2. Failure to attach certified true copies: The defect was not fatal as the attached plain photocopies still allowed the CA to resolve the case, and the amended petition attached to the motion for reconsideration contained certified true copies.
3. Failure to show competent evidence of identity: The submission of a photocopy of a Voter’s ID substantially complied with the requirement for competent evidence of identity under the Notarial Rules.
4. Outdated IBP receipt: This was a minor defect that did not prejudice the respondents and was subsequently corrected.
5. Failure to state respondents’ addresses: The addresses were indicated in the body of the petition, constituting substantial compliance.
The Supreme Court emphasized that litigation is not a game of technicalities, and the rigid application of rules should give way to the promotion of substantial justice when there is substantial compliance. The CA Resolutions were reversed and set aside, and the case was remanded to the CA for resolution of the petition for review on the merits.