TodayisSunday,February21,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.154018April3,2007
MARTINPEOSOandELIZABETHPEOSO,Petitioners,
vs.
MACROSMANDONA,Respondent.
DECISION
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
Resolution1 dated March 22, 2002 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 69472, which
dismissed the appeal before it because Martin Peoso and his mother Elizabeth Peoso (petitioners) failed to
submit a written explanation why service of pleading was not done personally as required under Section 11 of
Rule13oftheRulesofCourtandtopaytherequisitedocketfeesand,theCAResolution2datedJune3,2002
whichdeniedpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.
This case originated from a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC),
BranchNo.001,SanJose,OccidentalMindoro,byMacrosmanDona(respondent)againstthepetitioners,which
was tried and decided under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Respondent alleged that he is the owner of a
house and lot located at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro that in front of the house and lot is a barangay road
wherethepetitionersconstructedtheirhouseagainsttheobjectionsoftherespondentandthatthehouseofthe
petitionersconstitutedapublicnuisance.
Thepetitioners,intheirdefense,contendedthattheirhousewasconstructedbythelatePraxidoPeoso,Martins
fatherandElizabethshusband,wayaheadbeforetherespondentarrivedthattheirhouseconstitutesnopublic
nuisancethattherespondentcannotdemandarightofwaythatthecontinuedexistenceoftheirhousebrings
noharmtotherespondentandthattherespondentisnotauthorizedtofiletheinstantComplaint.
OnOctober1,1997,theMTCrendereditsDecision,infavorofthepetitionersandagainsttherespondentonthe
groundthatrespondenthasnocauseofactionagainstthepetitioners.Itorderedthedismissalofthecomplaint
onthegroundthatthehouseinquestionwasconstructedonapublicpropertywhich"maybeabatedonlybythe
Municipal Mayor, unless it is specially injurious to a private person" and the respondent to pay petitioners
P10,000.00bywayofattorneysfee.3
RespondentappealedtheDecisionoftheMTCtotheRTC,docketedasCivilCaseNo.R1061.
OnJanuary2,2002,theRTCrendereditsDecisionreversingtheMTC.TheRTCdeclaredthehouseerectedby
the petitioners on a portion of the road fronting the house of the respondent as a nuisance ordered the
petitioners to immediately remove the said house at their own expense ordered the petitioners to jointly and
severally pay plaintiffappellant the amount of P20,000.00, as and for reasonable attorneys fees and, ordered
thepetitionerstopayrespondentP5,000.00aslitigationexpensesandtopaythecostsofthissuit.4
OnJanuary21,2002,theRTCdeniedthepetitionersMotionforReconsideration.
PetitionersfiledaPetitionforReviewwiththeCA.OnMarch22,2002,theCAissuedaResolutiondismissingthe
Petition,towit:
Forfailureofthepetitionerstoincludeintheirpetitiontherequiredexplanationonwhypersonalserviceuponthe
respondentwasnotresortedtopursuanttoSec.11,Rule13ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended,
thehereinpetitionisherebyDISMISSEDOUTRIGHT.Strictcompliancewiththisruleismandated.(SolarTeam
Entertainment,Inc.v.Hon.HelenBautistaRicafort,etal.,293SCRA661).
Moreover,paymentoftherequireddocketingandotherlegalfeesisshortbyP530.00.
SOORDERED.5(emphasisintheoriginal)
On May 16, 2002, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners attaching a Certification dated April
15,2002fromthePostmasterthatthepleadinginquestionhadbeenactuallyreceivedbytherespondentaswell

asaLetterdatedFebruary12,2002totheCAClerkofCourtstatingthatifthedocketfeeisinsufficient,counsel
for the petitioners shall remit the balance immediately, if any. But on June 3, 2002, the CA issued another
Resolutionwhichstates:
Petitioners motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. Petitioners subsequent compliance
withtheRULESdoesnotcleansethepetitionofitsinfirmity.
Atty.Ma.ConchitaLuceroDeMesaisherebyorderedtoRETURNthetwo(2)PostalMoneyOrdersforP530.00
tothepetitioners.
SOORDERED.6(emphasisintheoriginal)
Hence,theinstantPetitionaverringthattheCAerredindismissingthepetitiononthefollowinggrounds:
A.
Failureofthepetitionerstoincludeintheirpetitiontherequiredexplanationonwhypersonalservice
upontherespondentwasnotresortedtopursuanttoSection11,rule13,ofthe1997RulesofCivil
Procedure
B.
PaymentoftherequireddocketingandotherlegalfeesisshortbyP520.00.7
Thepetitionhasmerit.
Section11,Rule13oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
Sec.11.Prioritiesinmodesofserviceandfiling.Wheneverpracticable,theserviceandfilingofpleadingsand
otherpapersshallbedonepersonally.Exceptwithrespecttopapersemanatingfromthecourt,aresorttoother
modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A
violationofthisRulemaybecausetoconsiderthepaperasnotfiled.
Jurisprudenceholdsthattherulethatapleadingmustbeaccompaniedbyawrittenexplanationwhytheservice
orfilingwasnotdonepersonallyismandatory.8
However, in Ello v. Court of Appeals,9 the Court defined the circumstances when the court may exercise its
discretionarypowerunderSection11ofRule13,viz:
However,suchdiscretionarypowerofthecourtmustbeexercisedproperlyandreasonably,takingintoaccount
the following factors: (1) "the practicability of personal service" (2) "the importance of the subject matter of the
case or the issues involved therein" and (3) "the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for
violationofSection11.xxx"10
Considering the prima facie merit of the pleading involving the issues whether the petitioners house is a public
nuisancewhetherthesubjecthouseisconstructedonanabandonedroadandwhethertheallegednuisanceis
specially injurious to respondent and, considering further the fact that the MTC and the RTC decisions are
conflicting,theCAhadvalidgroundstorefrainfromdismissingtheappealsolelyontechnicalgrounds.11
AstheCourthasexpoundedinAguamvs.CourtofAppeals:12
The court has the discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant's appeal. It is a power conferred on the
court,notaduty.The"discretionmustbeasoundone,tobeexercisedinaccordancewiththetenetsofjustice
and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case." Technicalities, however, must be
avoided. Thelawabhorstechnicalitiesthatimpedethecauseofjustice.Thecourt'sprimarydutyistorenderor
dispensejustice."Alitigationisnotagameoftechnicalities.""Lawsuitsunlikeduelsarenottobewonbyarapier's
thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and
chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on
technicality.Everypartylitigantmustbeaffordedtheamplestopportunityfortheproperandjustdeterminationof
his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on technical
grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their
merits and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense rules of
procedure are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a far better and more
prudentcourseofactionforthecourttoexcuseatechnicallapseandaffordthepartiesareviewofthe
caseonappealtoattaintheendsofjusticeratherthandisposeofthecaseontechnicalityandcausea
grave injustice to the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually
resultinginmoredelay,ifnotamiscarriageofjustice.13(Emphasissupplied)
1 ^v v p h i1 .n e t

InGinetev.CourtofAppeals,14theCourtfurtherheld:
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate
ratherthanpromotesubstantialjustice,mustalwaysbeeschewed.EventheRulesofCourtreflectthisprinciple.

Thepowertosuspendorevendisregardrulescanbesopervasiveandcompellingastoaltereventhatwhichthis
Courtitselfhasalreadydeclaredtobefinal,aswearenowconstrainedtodointheinstantcase.
xxxx
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the
properandjustdeterminationofhiscause,freefromtheconstraintsoftechnicalities.Timeandagain,thisCourt
hasconsistentlyheldthatrulesmustnotbeappliedrigidlysoasnottooverridesubstantialjustice.15(Emphasis
supplied)
Rules of procedure being designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their rigid application resulting in
technicalitiesthattendtodelayorfrustrateratherthanpromotesubstantialjustice,mustalwaysbeavoided.16
InPhilippineAmusementandGamingCorporationv.Angara,17thisCourtheld:
Whileitistruethatrulesofprocedureareintendedtopromoteratherthanfrustratetheendsofjustice,andthe
swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met at the expense of
substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere
toolsintendedtofacilitatetheattainmentofjustice,ratherthanfrustrateit.Astrictandrigidapplicationoftherules
mustalwaysbeeschewedwhenitwouldsubverttheprimaryobjectiveoftherules,thatis,toenhancefairtrials
andexpeditejustice.Technicalitiesshouldneverbeusedtodefeatthesubstantiverightsoftheotherparty.Every
partylitigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free
fromtheconstraintsoftechnicalities.Thus,theCAshouldhaverefrainedfromhastilydismissingthepetitionon
proceduralflaws.
Insimilarcases,theCourtordinarilyremandsthecasetotheCAforproperdispositiononthemerits.However,in
thepresentcase,consideringtheissuesraisedandthefactthattherecordsofthecasearebeforeus,theCourt
deemsitmoreappropriateandpracticaltoresolvethepresentcontroversyinordertoavoidfurtherdelay.18
Thus,inviewoftheforegoingjurisprudentialtrendtoaffordeverypartylitiganttheamplestopportunityforajust
determination of his case, free from the severities of technicalities the prima facie merit of the pleading and,
especially considering the conflicting rulings of the MTC and the RTC, the CA erred in dismissing the
appealonmeretechnicalgrounds.
1 a w p h i1 .n t

Furthermore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the shortage of the payment of the docketing
feecannotbeusedasagroundfordismissingpetitionersappealbeforetheCA.Itisundisputedthattheyand
theircounselarelivinginaremotetownandarenotawareoftheexactamountofthelawfulfeesforpetitionsfor
review. Hence, it is understandable why they place sheer reliance on the Rules of Court, notably, Section 1 of
Rule42,whichonlyspecifiestheamountofP500.00fortheappealcostinquestion.PetitionerssentP500.00with
arequestfromtheClerkofCourtfornotificationofanyinsufficiencywhichwillbesentimmediatelyifthereisany.
The deficiency in payment was not at all intentional. There was a willingness to comply should any deficiency
occur, as stated in their Letter to the CA Clerk of Court: "Please acknowledge receipt of the amount and if the
amountisinsufficientpursuanttoSec.1,Rule42oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,kindlynotifytheundersignedand
thebalanceifanywillbeimmediatelysent.Thankyouverymuch."Thisclearlyshowsthatthepetitionersactedin
goodfaithandsubstantiallycompliedwiththeRules.
InHeirsofBertuldoHinogv.Melicor,19theCourtheld:
Time and again, the Court has held that the Manchester rule has been modified in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd.
(SIOL)vs.Asuncionwhichdefinedthefollowingguidelinesinvolvingthepaymentofdocketfees:
xxxx
Plainly,whilethepaymentoftheprescribeddocketfeeisajurisdictionalrequirement,evenitsnonpaymentatthe
time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to
abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the
plaintiffsandtherewasnointentiontodefraudthegovernment,theManchesterruledoesnotapply.20
Infine,theCAerredindismissingthepetitionforreviewoutright.
In light of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara,21 since the records of the case are not
before this Court, a remand of the case to the CA for proper disposition on the merits is necessary, bearing in
mindthejudicialpolicytoresolvethepresentcontroversywithalldispatchinordertoavoidfurtherdelay.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheCourtofAppealsisdirectedtoREINSTATEthepetitionforreview,docketedas
CAG.R.SPNo.69472,forfurtherproceedings.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.