Martin Peoso Vs.

macrosman Dona
G.r. no. 154018 Submitted to: April 3, 2007

Atty. Aila rae b. endonila

Submitted by:

Mia laine catalan Crisanne del vargas Hyacinth obsequio

Origin of the Case:

- A complaint for abatement of nuisance was filed with the MTC in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro by respondent Dona against petitioners Peoso

Respondent alleged:
-that he is the owner of a house and lot;
-that in front of the house and lot is a barangay road where the petitioners constructed their house against the objections of respondent; -and that the house of the petitioners constitutes a public nuisance.

Petitioners alleged:
-that their house was constructed by the late

Praxido Peoso (Martins father) way before the respondent arrived; -that their house constitutes no public nuisance; -that the respondent cannot demand a right of way; -that the continued existence of their house brings no harm to the respondent; -and that the respondent is not authorized to file the instant complaint.

Decision of the MTC:

-ruled in favor petitioners on the ground that respondent has no cause of action -ordered the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the house was constructed on a public property which may be abated only by the Municipal Mayor, unless it is specially injurious to a private person

On appeal with the RTC:

-reversed the decision of the MTC -declared the house as a nuisance -ordered the petitioners to remove the house at their own expense

On petition for Review with the CA:

-dismissed the appeal because: - petitioners failed to submit a written explanation why service of pleading was not done personally as required under Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court - and petitioners failed to pay the requisite docket fees

Issue:
-whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition purely on technical grounds

Ruling of the SC:

Sec.11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides: Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.

Factors to be considered when the court may exercise its discretionary power under Sec. 11 of Rule 13:
1. The practicability of personal service 2. The importance of the subject matter of the case or the issues involved therein 3. The prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Sec. 11

* CA had valid grounds to refrain from dismissing the appeal based solely on technical grounds
Considering the prima facie merit of the pleading involving the issues:
whether the petitioners house is a public nuisance; whether the subject house is constructed on an abandoned road; and whether the alleged nuisance is specially injurious to respondent;

Considering further the conflicting decisions of the MTC and the RTC.

Dismissal of appeal purely on technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is:
- to encourage hearing 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.

 - Furthermore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the shortage of the payment of the docket fee cannot be used as a ground for dismissing petitioners appeal before the CA. - They and their counsel are living in a remote town and are not aware of the exact amount of the lawful fees. - They also sent Php 500.00 with a request from the Clerk of Court for notification of any insufficiency which will be sent immediately if there is any. -The deficiency was not intentional. There was a willingness to comply should any deficiency occur. Petitioners acted in good faith and substantially

1. The CA erred in dismissing the petition for review based purely on technical grounds. 2. The CA is directed to reinstate the petition for review for further proceedings.

Thank you!