[G.R. No. 139811. June 5, 2006]

FRANCISCO B. ANIAG, JR., PETITIONER, v. HON. PEDRO M. AREOLA, PAIRING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 84, QUEZON CITY, AND EMILIO SUNTAY III, RESPONDENTS

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated JUNE 5, 2006

G.R. No. 139811 (Francisco B. Aniag, Jr., Petitioner, v. Hon. Pedro M. Areola, Pairing Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 84, Quezon City, and EMILIO SUNTAY III, Respondents.)

This petition for review[1] assails the Resolutions[2] dated 30 June 1999 and 31 August 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 53328. The first resolution dismissed outright the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner for failure to state the material dates in the petition. The second resolution denied the motion for reconsideration due to several deficiencies of the amended petition, namely, late filing of the motion for reconsideration of the 12 March 1998 Order of the trial court, absence of an affidavit of service and explanation for service by registered mail, and non-attachment of true copies of pertinent pleadings.

The Court finds merit in the petition. The records show that while the original petition for certiorari failed to clearly state the material dates, petitioner indicated in the body of the petition the requisite dates. At any rate, petitioner filed an amended petition for certiorari where he conformed with the material data rule.

The records also show that the motion for reconsideration of the 12 March 1998 Order of the trial court was seasonably filed by petitioner. The Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that the motion for reconsideration was filed on 1 April 1998, and not on 1 April 1999.

Based on the records, it appears that the amended petition for certiorari was accompanied by an affidavit of service dated 16 July 1999. The affidavit of service was duly executed by Manuel R. Navarro, Jr. who was a messenger of petitioner's counsel, and was notarized by Atty. Rogelio D. Peig II. The affidavit of service also contained a sufficient explanation for not resorting to personal service of the petition.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court does not require the attachment to the petition for certiorari of true copies of pertinent pleadings and documents. This provision merely requires copies, whether original or photocopies, of pleadings to accompany the petition for certiorari. However, Section 1 of Rule 65 states that a certified true copy of the assailed judgment, order or resolution should be attached to the petition.

Even assuming the petition for certiorari had several procedural infirmities, the Court of Appeals should have disposed of the case on the merits, instead of dismissing it on technicalities.

The Court has consistently held that rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate rather than to frustrate the attainment of justice. A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed if it would subvert their primary objective of enhancing fair trials and expediting justice.[3]

WHEREFORE, the Court REMANDS the instant case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals is ordered to resolve this case with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

---

[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

[2] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring.

[3] Posadas-Moya & Associates Construction Co., Inc. v. Greenfield Dev’t. Corp., 451 Phil. 647 (2003).