Posted by Stephanie Tuquib on 25 July 2018
FACTS:
In Civil Case No. 5579, the Tagbilaran Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1 issued a January 12, 2007 Decision5 ordering petitioner to pay respondents spouses Eric and Genevieve Medequiso, the amount of P30,000.00 with legal interest, attorney's fees, and costs.
FACTS:
In Civil Case No. 5579, the Tagbilaran Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1 issued a January 12, 2007 Decision5 ordering petitioner to pay respondents spouses Eric and Genevieve Medequiso, the amount of P30,000.00 with legal interest, attorney's fees, and costs.
Petitioner interposed an appeal, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, Branch 48. On September 30, 2008, the RTC issued a Decision affirming the MTCC judgment.
Petitioner moved to reconsider, but the RTC - in an April 13, 2009 Order8 - upheld its judgment.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review9 with the CA. However, in its assailed September 14, 2009 Resolution, the CA dismissed the Petition, on the ground that the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum Shopping was sworn to not before a notary public but before a clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court in Tagbilaran City, Bohol.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,12 but in its assailed Resolution, the CA stood its ground.
ISSUE/S:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A PROPER VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 42 THAT WARRANTS A DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT A STRICT ADHERENCE TO SECTION 6 OF THE REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE IS TO BE RESORTED [TO] TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE ANSWER OF THE PETITIONER WAS NOT EXPUNGED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE MTCC CASE.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PECULIARITY OF THE MTCC CASE AND THE ADVENT OF A.M. 08-9-7-SC (RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES) ENTITLES A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES TO GIVE THE PETITIONER HIS DAY IN COURT AND ALLOW HIM TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE DURING A FULL BLOWN TRIAL.
HELD:
We have held that "Clerks of Court are notaries public ex-officio, and may thus notarize documents or administer oaths but only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. x x x [C]lerks of court should not, in their ex-officio capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to their official functions."
Even if it is to be conceded that the CA Petition for Review in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 04236 is merely a continuation of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 5579, this Court cannot agree with petitioner's argument that the notarization of verifications and certifications on non-forum shopping constitutes part of a clerk of court's daily official functions. We are not prepared to rule in petitioner's favor on this score; as it is, the workload of a clerk of court is already heavy enough. We cannot add to this the function of notarizing complaints, answers, petitions, or any other pleadings on a daily or regular basis; such a responsibility can very well be relegated to commissioned notaries public. Besides, if the practice - specifically title notarization by clerks of court of pleadings filed in cases pending before their own salas or courts - is allowed, unpleasant consequences might ensue; it could be subject to abuse, and it distracts the clerks of court's attention from the true and essential work they perform.
Petitioner's procedural misstep forms part of a series of lapses committed in the prosecution of his case. In the MTCC level, he failed to file a verified Answer to respondents' Complaint. Secondly, he did not furnish a copy thereof to respondents. As a result, the MTCC expunged his responsive pleading and rendered judgment against him. This time, at the level of the CA, he committed another mistake; that is, he caused his Petition for Review to be notarized by the RTC Clerk of Court where his case is pending. At this point, petitioner and his counsel are expected to be more circumspect in their actions, avoiding the commission of questionable acts that jeopardize their case.
Under Sections 1 and 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a party desiring to appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the CA, submitting together with the petition a certification on non-forum shopping. Under Section 3 of the same Rule, "[t]he failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
Specifically with respect to certifications against forum-shopping, we have repeatedly held that "non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of 'substantial compliance' or presence of 'special circumstances or compelling reasons.'"19 Taking the foregoing circumstances and considerations to mind, the Court is not inclined to relax the rules for the petitioner's benefit; it perceives no compelling reasons or circumstances to rule in his favor. Quite the contrary, the CA pronouncement ordering the dismissal of his Petition for Review is just, and thus should stand.
