9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.

AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.129638.December8,2003]

ANTONIOT.DONATO,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,FILOMENOARCEPE,
TIMOTEO BARCELONA, IGNACIO BENDOL, THELMA P. BULICANO,
ROSALINDACAPARAS,ROSITADECOSTO,FELIZADEGUZMAN,LETICIA
DE LOS REYES, ROGELIO GADDI, PAULINO GAJARDO, GERONIMO
IMPERIAL, HOMER IMPERIAL, ELVIRA LESLIE, CEFERINO LUGANA,
HECTORPIMENTEL,NIMFAPIMENTEL,AURELIOG.ROCERO,ILUMINADA
TARA,JUANITOVALLESPIN,ANDNARCISOYABUT,respondents.

DECISION
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarifiledonJuly17,1997whichshouldbeapetitionfor
[1]
certiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.ItassailstheResolutions datedMarch21,1997and
[2]
June23,1997issuedbytheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.41394.
Thefactualbackgroundofthecaseisasfollows:
PetitionerAntonioT.DonatoistheregisteredownerofarealpropertylocatedatCiriaco Tuason
Street,SanAndres,Manila,coveredbyTransferCertificateofTitleNo.131793issuedbytheRegister
ofDeedsoftheCityofManilaonNovember24,1978.OnJune7,1994, petitioner filed a complaint
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 26) of Manila (MeTC) for forcible entry and unlawful
[3]
detaineragainst43nameddefendantsandallunknownoccupantsofthesubjectproperty.
Petitionerallegesthat:privaterespondentshadoralcontractsofleasethatexpiredattheendof
each month but were impliedly renewed under the same terms by mere acquiescence or tolerance
sometimein1992,theystoppedpayingrentonApril7,1994,petitionersentthemawrittendemand
to vacate the noncompliance with said demand letter constrained him to file the ejectment case
[4]
againstthem.
[5]
Of the 43 named defendants, only 20 (private respondents, for brevity) filed a consolidated
Answer dated June 29, 1994 wherein they denied nonpayment of rentals. They contend that they
cannot be evicted because the Urban Land Reform Law guarantees security of tenure and priority
right to purchase the subject property and that there was a negotiation for the purchase of the lots
occupied by them but when the negotiation reached a passive stage, they decided to continue
paymentofrentalsandtenderedpaymenttopetitionerscounselandthereafterinitiatedapetitionfor
consignationoftherentalsinCivilCaseNo.144049whiletheyawaittheoutcomeofthenegotiationto
purchase.
Following trial under the Rule on Summary Procedure, the MeTC rendered judgment on
September19,1994againstthe23nonansweringdefendants,orderingthemtovacatethepremises
occupiedbyeachofthem,andtopayjointlyandseverallyP10,000.00permonthfromthedatethey
lastpaidtheirrentuntilthedatetheyactuallyvacate,plusinterestthereonatthelegalrateallowedby
law, as well as P10,000.00 as attorneys fees and the costs of the suit. As to the 20 private
[6]
respondents,theMeTCissuedaseparatejudgment onthesamedaysustainingtheirrightsunder
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 1/8
9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision

the Land Reform Law, declaring petitioners cause of action as not duly warranted by the facts and
circumstancesofthecaseanddismissingthecasewithoutprejudice.
Not satisfied with the judgment dismissing the complaint as against the private respondents,
[7] [8]
petitionerappealedtotheRegionalTrialCourt(Branch47)ofManila(RTC). InaDecision dated
July5,1996,theRTCsustainedthedecisionoftheMeTC.
Undaunted, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA for brevity),
docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 41394. In a Resolution dated March 21, 1997, the CA dismissed the
petitionontwogrounds:(a)thecertificationofnonforumshoppingwassignedbypetitionerscounsel
[9]
andnotbypetitionerhimself,inviolationofRevisedCircularNo.2891 and,(b)theonlyannexto
the petition is a certified copy of the questioned decision but copies of the pleadings and other
material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition are not annexed,
contrary to Section 3, paragraph b, Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals
[10]
(RIRCA).
[11]
OnApril17,1997,petitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration, attachingtheretoaphotocopy
[12]
ofthecertificationofnonforumshoppingdulysignedbypetitionerhimself andtherelevantrecords
[13] [14]
oftheMeTCandtheRTC. Fivedayslater,oronApril22,1997,petitionerfiledaSupplement to
his motion for reconsideration submitting the duly authenticated original of the certification of non
[15]
forumshoppingsignedbypetitioner.
[16]
InaResolution datedJune23,1997theCAdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsiderationand
its supplement, ruling that petitioners subsequent compliance did not cure the defect in the instant
[17]
petition.
Hence,thepresentpetitionanchoredonthefollowinggrounds:
I.

RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINDISMISSINGTHEPETITIONBASEDON
HYPERTECHNICALGROUNDSBECAUSE:

A.PETITIONERHASSUBSTANTIALLYCOMPLIEDWITHSUPREMECOURTCIRCULAR
NO.2891.MORE,PETITIONERSUBSEQUENTLYSUBMITTEDDURINGTHE
PENDENCYOFTHEPROCEEDINGSADULYAUTHENTICATEDCERTIFICATEOF
NONFORUMSHOPPINGWHICHHEHIMSELFSIGNEDANDEXECUTEDINTHE
UNITEDSTATES.

B.PETITIONERHASSUBSTANTIALLYCOMPLIEDWITHSECTION3,RULE6OFTHE
REVISEDINTERNALRULESOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALS.MORE,PETITIONER
SUBSEQUENTLYSUBMITTEDDURINGTHEPENDENCYOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
COPIESOFTHERELEVANTDOCUMENTSINTHECASESBELOW.

C.PETITIONERHASAMERITORIOUSAPPEAL,ANDHESTANDSTOLOSE
SUBSTANTIALPROPERTYIFTHEAPPEALISNOTGIVENDUECOURSE.THE
RULESOFPROCEDUREMUSTBELIBERALLYCONSTRUEDTODOSUBSTANTIAL
JUSTICE.

II.

RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINNOTRULINGTHATALLTHEELEMENTS
OFUNLAWFULDETAINERAREPRESENTINTHECASEATBAR.

III.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 2/8
9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision

RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTRULINGTHATTHERTCMANILA,BRANCH47,
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINAFFIRMINGTHEFINDINGOFMTCMANILA,BRANCH26,
THATPRIVATERESPONDENTSCANNOTBEEJECTEDFROMTHESUBJECTPROPERTYWITHOUT
VIOLATINGTHEIRSECURITYOFTENUREEVENIFTHETERMOFTHELEASEISMONTHTO
MONTHWHICHEXPIRESATTHEENDOFEACHMONTH.INTHISREGARD,

A.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDHAVERULEDTHATTHERTCMANILA
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINNOTRULINGTHATTENANTSUNDERP.D.
1517MAYBEEVICTEDFORNONPAYMENTOFRENT,TERMINATIONOFLEASEOR
OTHERGROUNDSFOREJECTMENT.

B.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDHAVERULEDTHATTHERTCMANILA
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINNOTRULINGTHATTHEALLEGEDPRIORITY
RIGHTTOBUYTHELOTTHEYOCCUPYDOESNOTAPPLYWHERETHE
LANDOWNERDOESNOTINTENDTOSELLTHESUBJECTPROPERTY,ASINTHE
CASEATBAR.

C.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDHAVERULEDTHATTHERTCMANILA
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINRULINGTHATTHESUBJECTPROPERTYIS
LOCATEDWITHINAZONALIMPROVEMENTAREAORAPD.

D.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDHAVERULEDTHATTHERTCMANILA
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINNOTRULINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTS
NONCOMPLIANCEWITHTHECONDITIONSUNDERTHELAWRESULTINTHE
WAIVEROFPROTECTIONAGAINSTEVICTION.

E.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDHAVERULEDTHATTHERTCMANILA
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINNOTRULINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTS
CANNOTBEENTITLEDTOPROTECTIONUNDERP.D.2016SINCETHE
GOVERNMENTHASNOINTENTIONOFACQUIRINGTHESUBJECTPROPERTY.

F.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDHAVERULEDTHATTHERTCMANILA
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINFINDINGTHATTHEREISANONGOING
NEGOTIATIONFORTHESALEOFTHESUBJECTPROPERTYANDTHATIT
RENDERSTHEEVICTIONOFPRIVATERESPONDENTSPREMATURE.

G.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSHOULDHAVERULEDTHATTHERTCMANILA
COMMITTEDREVERSIBLEERRORINNOTRULINGTHATTHEALLEGEDCASE
FORCONSIGNATIONDOESNOTBARTHEEVICTIONOFPRIVATERESPONDENTS.

IV.

RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINNOTFINDINGTHATRESPONDENTS
SHOULDPAYPETITIONERAREASONABLECOMPENSATIONFORTHEIRUSEANDOCCUPANCY
OFTHESUBJECTPROPERTYINTHEAMOUNTOFATLEASTP10,000.00PERMONTHFROMTHE
DATETHEYLASTPAIDRENTUNTILTHETIMETHEYACTUALLYVACATETHESAME,WITH
LEGALINTERESTATTHEMAXIMUMRATEALLOWEDBYLAWUNTILPAID.

V.

RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINNOTFINDINGTHATRESPONDENTS
SHOULDPAYPETITIONERATTORNEYSFEESANDEXPENSESOFLITIGATIONOFATLEAST
[18]
P20,000.00,PLUSCOSTS.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 3/8
9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision

Petitionersubmitsthatarelaxationoftherigidrulesoftechnicalprocedureiscalledforinviewof
the attendant circumstances showing that the objectives of the rule on certification of nonforum
shopping and the rule requiring material portions of the record be attached to the petition have not
beenglaringlyviolatedand,moreimportantly,thepetitionismeritorious.
TheproperrecourseofanaggrievedpartyfromadecisionoftheCAisapetitionforreviewon
certiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.However,iftheerror,subjectoftherecourse,isoneof
jurisdiction, or the act complained of was perpetrated by a court with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party is a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules. As enunciated by the Court in Fortich vs.
[19]
Corona:

Anentthefirstissue,inordertodeterminewhethertherecourseofpetitionersisproperornot,itisnecessaryto
drawalinebetweenanerrorofjudgmentandanerrorofjurisdiction.Anerrorofjudgmentisonewhichthe
courtmaycommitintheexerciseofitsjurisdiction,andwhicherrorisreviewableonlybyanappeal.Onthe
otherhand,anerrorofjurisdictionisonewheretheactcomplainedofwasissuedbythecourt,officerora
quasijudicialbodywithoutorinexcessofjurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseofdiscretionwhichistantamountto
[20]
lackorinexcessofjurisdiction.Thiserroriscorrectibleonlybytheextraordinarywritofcertiorari.
(Emphasissupplied).

Inasmuch as the present petition principally assails the dismissal of the petition on ground of
proceduralflawsinvolvingthejurisdictionofthecourtaquotoentertainthepetition,itfallswithinthe
ambitofaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
Atthetimetheinstantpetitionforcertiorariwasfiled,i.e.,onJuly17,1997,theprevailingruleis
thenewlypromulgated1997RulesofCivilProcedure.However,considering that the CA Resolution
beingassailedwasrenderedonMarch21,1997,theapplicableruleisthethreemonthreglementary
[21]
period, established by jurisprudence. Petitioner received notice of the assailed CA Resolution
dismissing his petition for review on April 4, 1997. He filed his motion reconsideration on April 17,
1997,usinguponlythirteendaysofthe90dayperiod.PetitionerreceivedtheCAResolutiondenying
hismotiononJuly3,1997andfourteendayslater,oronJuly17,1997,hefiledamotionfor30day
extension of time to file a petition for review which was granted by us and petitioner duly filed his
petitiononAugust15,1997,whichiswellwithintheperiodofextensiongrantedtohim.
Wenowgotothemeritsofthecase.
Wefindtheinstantpetitionpartlymeritorious.
Therequirementregardingtheneedforacertificationofnonforumshoppingincasesfiledbefore
the CA and the corresponding sanction for noncompliance thereto are found in the then prevailing
[22]
Revised Circular No. 2891. It provides that the petitioner himself must make the certification
against forum shopping and a violation thereof shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of the
multiplepetitionorcomplaint.Therationalefortheruleofpersonalexecutionofthecertificationbythe
petitionerhimselfisthatitisonlythepetitionerwhohasactualknowledgeofwhetherornothehas
initiated similar actions or proceedings in other courts or tribunals even counsel of record may be
[23]
unawareofsuchfact. TheCourthasruledthatwithrespecttothecontentsofthecertification,the
rule on substantial compliance may be availed of. This is so because the requirement of strict
compliance with the rule regarding the certification of nonforum shopping simply underscores its
mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements
completely disregarded, but it does not thereby interdict substantial compliance with its provisions
[24]
underjustifiablecircumstances.
ThepetitionforreviewfiledbeforetheCAcontainsacertificationagainstforumshoppingbutsaid
certification was signed by petitioners counsel.In submitting the certification of nonforum shopping
[25]
duly signed by himself in his motion for reconsideration, petitioner has aptly drawn the Courts
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 4/8
9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision

attention to the physical impossibility of filing the petition for review within the 15day reglementary
periodtoappealconsideringthatheisaresidentof1125SouthJeffersonStreet,Roanoke,Virginia,
U.S.A.werehetopersonallyaccomplishandsignthecertification.
We fully agree with petitioner that it was physically impossible for the petition to have been
preparedandsenttothepetitionerintheUnitedStates,forhimtotravelfromVirginia,U.S.A.tothe
nearestPhilippineConsulateinWashington,D.C.,U.S.A.,inordertosignthecertificationbeforethe
Philippine Consul, and for him to send back the petition to the Philippines within the 15day
reglementaryperiod.Thus, we find that petitioner has adequately explained his failure to personally
signthecertificationwhichjustifiesrelaxationoftherule.
We have stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely designed to promote
and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute
[26]
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is simply to prohibit and
[27]
penalize the evils of forumshopping. The subsequent filing of the certification duly signed by the
petitionerhimselfshouldthusbedeemedsubstantialcompliance,prohacvice.
Inlikemanner,thefailureofthepetitionertocomplywithSection3,paragraphb,Rule6ofthe
RIRCA, that is, to append to his petition copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the
recordsaswouldsupportthepetition,doesnotjustifytheoutrightdismissalofthepetition.Itmustbe
emphasized that the RIRCA gives the appellate court a certain leeway to require parties to submit
additional documents as may be necessary in the interest of substantial justice. Under Section 3,
[28]
paragraphdofRule3oftheRIRCA, theCAmayrequirethepartiestocompletetheannexesas
thecourtdeemsnecessary,andifthepetitionisgivenduecourse,theCAmayrequiretheelevation
[29]
ofacompleterecordofthecaseasprovidedforunderSection3(d)(5)ofRule6oftheRIRCA. At
anyrate,petitionerattachedcopiesofthepleadingsandothermaterialportionsoftherecordsbelow
[30] [31]
withhismotionforreconsideration. InJarovs.CourtofAppeals, theCourtreiteratedthedoctrine
[32]
laid down in CusiHernandez vs. Diaz and PiglasKamao vs. National Labor Relations
[33]
Commission that subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for
reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance which calls for the relaxation of the rules of
procedure.Wefindnocogentreasontodepartfromthisdoctrine.
Truly, in dismissing the petition for review, the CA had committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in putting a premium on technicalities at the expense of a just
resolutionofthecase.
[34]
Needless to stress, "a litigation is not a game of technicalities." When technicality deserts its
functionofbeinganaidtojustice,theCourtisjustifiedinexemptingfromitsoperationsaparticular
[35]
case. Technicalrulesofprocedureshouldbeusedtopromote,notfrustratejustice.Whiletheswift
uncloggingofcourtdocketsisalaudableobjective,grantingsubstantialjusticeisanevenmoreurgent
[36]
ideal.
[37]
TheCourtspronouncementinRepublicvs.CourtofAppeals isworthechoing:cases should
bedeterminedonthemerits,afterfullopportunitytoallpartiesforventilationoftheircauses
and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections. In that way, the
[38]
ends of justice would be better served. Thus, what should guide judicial action is that a party
litigantisgiventhefullestopportunitytoestablishthemeritsofhisactionordefenseratherthanfor
[39]
himtoloselife,honororpropertyonmeretechnicalities. Thisguidelineisespeciallytruewhenthe
petitioner has satisfactorily explained the lapse and fulfilled the requirements in his motion for
[40]
reconsideration, asinthiscase.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 5/8
9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision

In addition, petitioner prays that we decide the present petition on the merits without need of
remandingthecasetotheCA.Heinsiststhatalltheelementsofunlawfuldetainerarepresentinthe
case.Hefurtherarguesthattheallegedpriorityrighttobuythelottheyoccupydoesnotapplywhere
thelandownerdoesnotintendtosellthesubjectproperty,asinthecasethatrespondentscannotbe
entitled to protection under P.D. No. 2016 since the government has no intention of acquiring the
subject property, nor is the subject property located within a zonal improvement area and, that
assuming that there is a negotiation for the sale of the subject property or a pending case for
consignationofrentals,thesedonotbartheevictionofrespondents.
Wearenotpersuaded.Weshallrefrainfromrulingontheforegoingissuesinthepresentpetition
forcertiorari.Theissuesinvolvedarefactualissueswhichinevitablyrequiretheweighingofevidence.
These are matters that are beyond the province of this Court in a special civil action for certiorari.
TheseissuesarebestaddressedtotheCAinthepetitionforreviewfiledbeforeit.As an appellate
court,itisempoweredtorequirepartiestosubmitadditionaldocuments,asitmayfindnecessary,or
toreceiveevidence,topromotetheendsofjustice,pursuanttothelastparagraphofSection9,B.P.
Blg.129,otherwiseknownasTheJudiciaryReorganizationActof1980,towit:

TheIntermediateAppellateCourtshallhavethepowertotrycasesandconducthearings,receiveevidenceand
performanyandallactsnecessarytoresolvefactualissuesraisedincasesfallingwithinitsoriginaland
appellatejurisdiction,includingthepowertograntandconductnewtrialsorfurtherproceedings.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Resolutions dated March 21, 1997 and
June23,1997oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.41394areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in CAG.R. No. 41394,
entitled,AntonioT.Donatovs.Hon.JudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch47,Filomeno
Arcepe,etal.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),Quisumbing,Callejo,Sr.,andTinga,JJ.,concur.

[1]
PennedbyJusticeRamonA.BarcelonaandconcurredinbyJusticesArtemonD.LunaandHilarionL.Aquino.
[2]
Entitled,AntonioT.Donatovs.Hon.JudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch47,FilomenoArcepe,etal.
[3]
Docketed as Civil Case No. 144362, entitled Antonio T. Donato vs. Erlinda Aguilar, Remedios Arcelis, Elsa Arcepe,
Filomeno Arcepe, Erlinda Avellano, Anita Barcelona, Bienvenido Barcelona, Timoteo Barcelona, Severa Basco,
Ignacio Bendol, Thelma P. Bulicano, Rosalinda Caparas, Rosita de Costo, Feliza de Guzman, Dominador de
Guzman, Leticia de los Reyes, Angelo de los Reyes, Rogelio Gaddi, Paulino Gajardo, Mercedita Y. Gonzales,
Emmanuel Imperial, Geronimo Imperial, Homer Imperial, Elvira Leslie, Ceferino Lugana, Eleuterio Malto, Marife
Maramara, Criselda Pimentel, Hector Pimentel, Nimfa Pimentel, Aurelia G. Rocero, Lamberto Sison, Zenaida
Sunga,DominadorTara,IluminadaTara,BenosaTomas,InesTrinidad,LigayaUsi,CarlitoVarallo,HenaValespin,
Juanito Valespin, Milagros Yabut, Narciso Yabut and All Unknown Occupants of the property covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 151795 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila, with address at Ciriaco Tuason Street, San
AndresDistrict,Manila.
[4]
Rollo,p.96.
[5]
Namely: Filomeno Arcepe, Timoteo Barcelona, Ignacio Bendol, Thelma P. Bulicano, Rosalinda Caparas, Rosita De
Costo, Feliza De Guzman, Leticia De Los Reyes, Rogelio Gaddi, Paulino Gajardo, Geronimo Imperial, Homer
Imperial, Elvira Leslie, Ceferino Lugana, Hector Pimentel, Nimfa Pimentel, Aurelio G. Rocero, Iluminada Tara,
JuanitoVallespin,andNarcisoYabutid.,p.101.
[6]
PennedbyJudgeReinatoG.Quilala,Id.,p.147.
[7]
DocketedasCivilCaseNo.9572700.
[8]
PennedbyJudgeLorenzoB.Veneracion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 6/8
9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision
[9]
OtherwiseknownasAdditionalRequisitesforPetitionsfiledwiththeSupremeCourtandtheCourtofAppealstoPrevent
ForumShoppingorMultipleFilingofPetitionsandComplaints.
[10]
Section3(b),Rule6oftheRIRCAreadsasfollows:
(b)The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the disputed decisions, judgments, or orders of the lower
courts, together with true copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the
allegationsofthepetition.
[11]
CourtofAppeals(CA)Rollo,p.74.
[12]
Id.,p.88.
[13]
Id.,pp.90286.
[14]
Id.,p.287.
[15]
Id.,p.291.
[16]
Rollo,p.91.
[17]
Id.,p.93.
[18]
Id.,pp.2932.
[19]
289SCRA624(1998).
[20]
Id.,p.642.
[21]
LapulapuDevelopment&HousingCorporationvs.Risos,261SCRA517,526(1996).
[22]
NowfoundinSection2,Rule42ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
[23]
Mendigorinvs.Cabantog,G.R.No.136449,August22,2002DigitalMicrowaveCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,328
SCRA286,290(2000).
[24]
MCEngineering,Inc.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,360SCRA183,189190(2001),citingDarvs.Alonzo
Legasto,339SCRA306(2000)Kavintavs.Castillo,Jr.,249SCRA604(1995)Loyolavs.CourtofAppeals,245
SCRA477(1995)and,Gabionzavs.CourtofAppeals,234SCRA192(1994).
[25]
SeeNoteNos.12and15,supra.
[26]
Cavilevs.HeirsofCavile,G.R.No.148635,April1,2003.
[27]
BASavingsBankvs.Sia,336SCRA484,490(2000).
[28]
Section3(d),Rule3oftheRIRCAreadsasfollows:
d.Whenapetitiondoesnothavethecompleteannexesortherequirednumberofcopies,theChiefoftheJudicialRecords
Division shall require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition
before docketing the case.Pleadings improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of the
JudicialRecordsDivision.
[29]
Section3(d)(5),Rule6oftheRIRCAreadsasfollows:
(5) The Court may order the Clerk of the Regional Trial Court to elevate the original record of the case including the
documentaryevidenceandtranscriptofstenographicnotestothisCourtwithinten(10)daysfromnotice.
[30]
SeeNoteNo.13,supra.
[31]
Jarovs.CourtofAppeals,377SCRA282,297(2002).
[32]
336SCRA113(2000).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 7/8
9/1/2017 DonatovsCA:129638:December8,2003:J.AustriaMartinez:129638:SecondDivision:Decision
[33]
357SCRA640(2001).
[34]
Aguamvs.CourtofAppeals,332SCRA784,789(2000).
[35]
PHHCvs.Tiongco,12SCRA471,475476(1964).
[36]
Twin Towers Condominium Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123552, February 27, 2003 Shipside
Incorporatedvs.CourtofAppeals,352SCRA334,347(2001).
[37]
292SCRA243(1998).
[38]
Id.,pp.251252.
[39]
Government Service Insurance System vs. Bengson Commercial Buildings, Inc., 375 SCRA 431, 445 (2002) Apex
Mining,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,319SCRA456,468(1999).
[40]
BankofthePhilippineIslandsvs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.146923,April30,2003.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/129638.htm 8/8