Pleadings and practice/ verification

51. Galvez v. Court of Appeals 695 scra 10

Gr no. 157445. April 3, 2013

FACTS
This case involves a parcel of land owned by spouses Galvez which was later on sold to by Eustacio
Galvez to their Jovita without the knowledge of Segundina Galvez. The land was mortgage with PNB then
sold to spouses Montano.
Respondent Montano sued Segundina for recovery of ownership and possession and damges in
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Babatngon, Leyte. The MTC favored the Montanos. The Regional Trial
Court affirmed the MTC decision.
The Court of Appeals in its decision states that no copies of pleadings and other material portions
of the record as would support the allegations thereof were attached as annexes in violation of section 2,
rule 42 of the Rules of civil procedure. Wherefore, the petition for review is dismisses outright.

ISSUE
Whether or not all pleadings filed before the lower courts should be attached to the petition
before the Court of Appeals thus dismissing the petition outright?

RULING
NO. The mere failure to attach copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as
would support the allegations should not cause the dismissal outright of a petition for review. The
allegations of the petition must be examined to determine the sufficiency of the attachments appended
thereto.
The court considers the attachments of segundina’s petition for review already sufficient to
enable the Court of Appeals to pass upon her assigned errors and to resolve her appeal even without the
pleadings and other portions of the records.
The court laid down three guideposts in determining the necessity of attaching and portions of
the records to the petition in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora, to wit:
First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only
those which are relevant anf pertinent must accompany it.
Second, even if document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it
is shown that the contents thereof can also found in another document already attached to the petition.
Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due
course or reinstated upon showing that the petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it
will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.

52. SPS WELTCHIE AND EMILY RAYMUNDO V LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
695 SCRA 152GR NO 195317 APRIL 3, 2013

Facts
Petitioner spouses availed of a loan package by LBP and as security thereof, executed real and
chattel mortgages which were later foreclosed due to failure to pay loan obligations. The petitioners filed
a complaint for annulment of loan documents, to which the LBP moved to dismiss on the ground that said
complaint did not state a cause of action. While the case was in its pre-trial stage, petitioners requested
for the suspension of proceedings alleging that they are negotiating with defendant, resulting to the
archiving of the case. The petitioners later filed a motion for leave to File Amended and Supplemental
Complaint and Admission of the same which was opposed by said Bank and denied by the RTC alleging
that the motion was merely intended to delay the proceedings. On appeal, the CA upheld the RTC’s ruling
hence the petition. Note that LBP had transferred its rights title and interests to Philippine Distressed
Asset Asia Pacific (PDAS2) thus the former had been substituted by the latter. The PDAS2 filed a
manifestation and motion to withdraw the opposition to the admission of the amended and supplemental
complaints of petitioners which caused the suspension of the case for more than 8 years and for it to be
resolved already.

Issue:
Should the PDAS2’s motion be considered?

Ruling:
Yes. It is incumbent that trial should continue to settle the issues between the parties once and
for all. Court litigation which is primarily a search for truth must proceed; and a liberal interpretation of
the rules by which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret
out such truth. Concomitantly, neither the parties nor their lawyers should be allowed to dictate the pace
by which a case proceeds.

53. REINIER PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC. V CAPTAIN FRANCISCO GUEVARRA

699 SCRA 1 GR No. 157020 June 19, 2013

Facts:
Respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner for unjustifiably relieving him as
ship master. The Labor Arbiter found respondent’s dismissal illegal for denying the latter of his right to be
heard. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but on February 22, 2002, the latter affirmed the Arbiter’s
decision. The due date to file a petition for certiorari before the CA fell on July 26, a Friday but an extension
of 15 days was granted as per request of petitioner, which period counted from July 26 began to run on
July 27, a Saturday, and fell due on August 10, a Saturday. Petitioner filed its petition on the following
Monday, August 12. Because of this, the CA dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time
andheld that petitioner should have filed it earlier, hence the appeal.

Issue
Whether or Not the CA erred in dismissing its petition for having been filed out of time?
Ruling
The CA erred in dismissing the petition. Filing the petition earlier than the due date would deprive
the party of the full benefit of that extension. A.M. 00-2-14-SC clarifies the application of Sec 1., Rule 22
of the Rules of Court, “… this provision applies in the matter of filing of pleadings in courts when the due
date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, in which case, the filing of the said pleading on the next
working day is deemed on time.” Since petitioner filed said petition on the following Monday, August 12
(a working day), it is considered filed on time. The CA’s decision is reversed and set aside.
Note: Any extension of time to file the required pleading should xxx be counted from the expiration of the
period regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.

54. SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINES, INC V THE TREASURER OF CITY OF MANILA

700 SCRA 428 GR No 181277 July 3, 2013

Facts:
Petitioner represented by Beleno, filed with the RTC a Petition for Refund of taxes from
respondent for double taxation. The RTC dismissed the Petition for the failure of petitioner to plead the
latter’s capacity to sue and to state authority of Beleno, who had executed the Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. On appeal, the CTA affirmed the RTC’s decision for failure of
petitioner to state the authority of Beleno to institute the suit. It further argued that physical acts of a
corporation can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate by-
laws or by a specific act of the board of directors. Consequently, a verification signed without an authority
from the board of directors is defective

Issue:
Whether or not Ms Beleno was authorized to file the Petition for Refund of Taxes with the RTC?

Ruling:
Yes.The requirement of verification is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading and
non-compliance does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. – a verification signed without
an authority from the board of directors is defective. However, the requirement for verification is simply
a condition affecting the form of the pleading and non-compliance does not necessarily render the
pleading fatally defective. The court may in fact order the correction of the pleading if verification is
lacking or, it may act on the pleading although it may not have been verified, where it is made evident
that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with so that the ends of justice may be served.
Rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical manner, but are used only to
help secure substantial justice.