http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_165155_2010.

html

G.R. No. 165155

REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, Office of the

Regional Adjudicator, San Fernando, Pampanga, CECILIA MANIEGO, JOSE
BAUTISTA, ELIZA PACHECO, JUANITO FAJARDO, MARIO PACHECO,
MARIANO MANANGHAYA as heir of Antonio Mananghaya, MARCIANO
NATIVIDAD, ROBERTO BERNARDO in his personal capacity EDILBERTO
NATIVIDAD, as heir of Ismael Natividad, JEFFREY DIAZ as BENIGNO
CABINGAO, MARIO GALVEZ, DELFIN SACDALAN, as heir of Avelino
Santos, Petitioners,1
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, VERONICA R. GONZALES, DEOGRACIAS REYES,
LEONARDO REYES, ISABELITA BALATBAT, MANUELA REYES,
WILHELMINA ALMERO, ARTURO REYES, EPIFANIO REYES, GLORIA
REYES, MARIO REYES, TERESITA BALATBAT, LYDIA BALATBAT,
FERNANDO BALATBAT, VICENTE BALATBAT, GILBERTO REYES, RENE
REYES, EMILIA DUNGO, BRENDA CANCIO, VICTOR REYES, and
EDGARDO REYES, represented by VERONICA R. GONZALES, for herself
and as attorney-in-fact, Respondents.

Our Ruling

The petition is meritorious. The defects found in the two notices of appeal are not
of such nature that would cause a denial of the right to appeal. Placed in their
proper factual context, the defects are not only excusable but also
inconsequential.

Alleged failure to specify grounds for appeal

There is nothing sacred about the forms of pleadings or processes, their sole
purpose being to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of
contending parties. Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules should be
construed liberally. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned
upon because rules of procedure should not be applied to override substantial
justice. Courts must proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of statutory
appeal; they must ensure that all litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for
the proper and just ventilation of their causes, free from technical constraints. 33 If
the foregoing tenets are followed in a civil case, their application is made more
imperative in an agrarian case where the rules themselves provide for liberal
construction, thus:

Rule I
General Provisions
Section 2. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the
objectives of the agrarian reform program and to promote just, expeditious, and
inexpensive adjudication and settlement of agrarian cases, disputes or
controversies.

xxxx

Section 3. Technical Rules Not Applicable. The Board and its Regional and
Provincial Adjudicators shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and
evidence as prescribed in the Rules of Court, but shall proceed to hear and
decide all agrarian cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious
manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in
accordance with justice and equity.

xxxx

Rule VIII
Proceedings before the Adjudicators and the Board

Section 1. Nature of Proceedings. The proceedings before the Board or its

Adjudicators shall be non-litigious in nature. Subject to the essential
requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and procedure and the
rules governing the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence obtained in the
courts of law shall not apply. x x x34

Guided by the foregoing principles, we find that the Notices of Appeal

substantially complied with all that is required under the 1994 DARAB Rules. The
following provisions are instructive in making this conclusion:

Rule XIII
APPEALS

Section 1. Appeal to the Board. a) An appeal may be taken from an order,

resolution or decision of the Adjudicator to the Board by either of the parties or
both, orally or in writing, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the
order, resolution or decision appealed from, and serving a copy thereof on the
adverse party, if the appeal is in writing.

b) An oral appeal shall be reduced into writing by the Adjudicator to be

signed by the appellant, and a copy thereof shall be served upon the
adverse party within ten (10) days from the taking of the oral appeal.

Section 2. Grounds. The aggrieved party may appeal to the Board from a final
order, resolution or decision of the Adjudicator on any of the following grounds:
 a) That errors in the findings of fact or conclusions of laws were committed
which, if not corrected, would cause grave and irreparable damage and
injury to the appellant;

b) That there is a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Adjudicator;

or

c) That the order, resolution or decision is obtained through fraud or

coercion.

xxxx

Section 5. Requisites and Perfection of the Appeal. a) The Notice of Appeal shall
be filed within the reglementary period as provided for in Section 1 of this Rule. It
shall state the date when the appellant received the order or judgment appealed
from and the proof of service of the notice to the adverse party; and

b) An appeal fee of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) shall be paid by the

appellant within the reglementary period to the DAR Cashier where the
Office of the Adjudicators is situated. x x x

Non-compliance with the above-mentioned requisites shall be a ground for

dismissal of the appeal.

Both Notices of Appeal stated that the petitioners were appealing the decision
"on the grounds of questions of fact and of law," which we find sufficient
statement of the ground for appeal under Section 2(a), Rule XIII of the DARAB
Rules. While the notices omitted to state that "the decision would cause grave
and irreparable damage and injury to the appellant," we find such punctilious
fidelity to the language of the DARAB Rules unnecessary. Surely by appealing
the Decision of the Regional Adjudicator, the petitioners were already manifesting
that they will be damaged by the assailed decision. Requiring a literal application
of the rules when its purpose has already been served is oppressive superfluity.

It must be stressed that the purpose of the notice of appeal is not to detail one’s
objections regarding the appealed decision; that is the purpose of the appellants’
memorandum.35 In the context of a DARAB case, the notice of appeal serves
only to inform the tribunal or officer that rendered the appealed decision (i.e., the
Regional Adjudicator) of the timeliness of the appeal and of the general reason
for the appeal, and to prepare the records thereof for transmission to the
appellate body (i.e., the DARAB). Petitioners’ Notices of Appeal contain
everything that is necessary to serve these purposes.

Another important consideration is the fact that petitioners were obviously not
assisted by counsel in the filing of the Notices of Appeal. Only the parties were
signatories thereto; Atty. Mena’s signature was missing, which gives credence to
petitioners’ assertion that they had already terminated the services of their
counsel at that time. Their new counsel, Atty. Dauphine B. Go, DAR-Legal
Counsel, entered her appearance only on March 13, 2003, or several days after
the Notices of Appeal were filed.36

The Regional Adjudicator is also correct when she ruled that she has no power to
determine if the appeal is frivolous and intended merely for delay. Such matters
are for the appellate body to determine after it has studied the appellant’s brief or
the appeal memorandum. The body which rendered the appealed decision
should not pass upon the question of whether the appeal was taken manifestly
for delay because such determination belongs to the appellate body. 37 For the
lower body to do so would constitute a review of its own judgment and a mockery
of the appellate process. This principle is applicable to agrarian disputes by virtue
of Section 8, Rule XIII of the DARAB Rules which states that the Board (not the
Regional Adjudicator) has the power to impose reasonable penalties, including
fine or censure, on parties who file frivolous or dilatory appeals. The implication is
that since the Board is the one which has the power to punish, it is also the one
which has the power to decide if there has been a violation. The Regional
Adjudicator has no such power. She must allow the appeal if it is timely and
compliant with the reglementary requirements. It has been held that when an
appeal is filed on time, the approval of a notice of appeal is a ministerial duty of
the court or tribunal which rendered the decision. 38

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/168973.htm

CITY OF DUMAGUETE, herein G.R. No. 168973

Represented by City Mayor, Agustin R.
Perdices, Present:
Petitioner,
CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
- versus - BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, Promulgated:

Respondent.
August 24, 2011
 In Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. Ricafort, this Court, passing
upon Section 11 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, held that a court has the
discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if said rule is not
complied with.

Personal service and filing are preferred for obvious

reasons. Plainly, such should expedite action or resolution
on a pleading, motion or other paper; and conversely,
minimize, if not eliminate, delays likely to be incurred if
service or filing is done by mail, considering the
inefficiency of the postal service. Likewise, personal
service will do away with the practice of some lawyers
who, wanting to appear clever, resort to the following less
than ethical practices: (1) serving or filing pleadings by
mail to catch opposing counsel off-guard, thus leaving the
latter with little or no time to prepare, for instance,
responsive pleadings or an opposition; or (2) upon
receiving notice from the post office that the registered
containing the pleading of or other paper from the adverse
party may be claimed, unduly procrastinating before
claiming the parcel, or, worse, not claiming it at all, thereby
causing undue delay in the disposition of such pleading or
other papers.

If only to underscore the mandatory nature of this

innovation to our set of adjective rules requiring personal
service whenever practicable, Section 11 of Rule 13 then
gives the court the discretion to consider a pleading or
paper as not filed if the other modes of service or filing
were not resorted to and no written explanation was made
as to why personal service was not done in the first
place. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily
consider the practicability of personal service, for
Section 11 itself begins with the clause “whenever
practicable.”

We thus take this opportunity to clarify that under

Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
personal service and filing is the general rule, and resort to
other modes of service and filing, the exception.
Henceforth, whenever personal service or filing is
practicable, in the light of the circumstances of time, place
and person, personal service or filing is mandatory. Only
when personal service or filing is not practicable may resort
 to other modes be had, which must then be accompanied by
a written explanation as to why personal service or filing
was not practicable to begin with. In adjudging the
plausibility of an explanation, a court shall likewise
consider the importance of the subject matter of the case or
the issues involved therein, and the prima facie merit of the
pleading sought to be expunged for violation of Section 11.

In Musa v. Amor, this Court, on noting the impracticality of

personal service, exercised its discretion and liberally applied Section 11
of Rule 13:

As [Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court]

requires, service and filing of pleadings must be done
personally whenever practicable. The court notes that in
the present case, personal service would not be
practicable. Considering the distance between the Court
of Appeals and Donsol, Sorsogon where the petition was
posted, clearly, service by registered mail [sic] would have
entailed considerable time, effort and expense. A written
explanation why service was not done personally might
have been superfluous. In any case, as the rule is so
worded with the use of “may,” signifying
permissiveness, a violation thereof gives the court
discretion whether or not to consider the paper as not
filed. While it is true that procedural rules are necessary to
secure an orderly and speedy administration of justice, rigid
application of Section 11, Rule 13 may be relaxed in this
case in the interest of substantial justice.

In the case at bar, the address of respondent’s counsel is Lopez,

Quezon, while petitioner Sonia’s counsel’s is Lucena City. Lopez, Quezon
is 83 kilometers away from Lucena City. Such distance makes personal
service impracticable. As in Musa v. Amor, a written explanation why
service was not done personally “might have been
superfluous.”[42] (Emphases supplied and citations omitted.)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/jan2007/158992.htm

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 158992

(represented by the Philippine
Orthopedic Center) and VICTOR
S. CLAVEL, Present:
Petitioners,
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
 CARPIO,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.

SPOUSES JOSE and AMELIA Promulgated:

LURIZ,
Respondents. January 26, 2007

The Ruling of the Court

The petition has merit.

Timeliness of the Payment of Docket Fees

Appeal is an essential part of our judicial process. As such, courts should proceed
with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, [5] particularly if the appeal
is meritorious. However, the right to appeal is merely a statutory right. For this reason, it
should be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
[6]

In an appeal from a judgment or final order of a municipal trial court to the

regional trial court, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 2. When to appeal.—An appeal may be taken within fifteen

(15) days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order
appealed from. x x x

xxxx

Sec. 3. How to appeal.—The appeal is taken by filing a notice

of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from. x x x

xxxx

Sec. 5. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees.—Within

the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of
the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful
fees. Proof of payment thereof shall be transmitted to the appellate
court together with the original record or the record on appeal, as the
case may be.
 Accordingly, in order to perfect an appeal, the following must be complied
with: first, a notice of appeal must be filed within 15 days from the notice of final
judgment or final order appealed from; second, such notice of appeal must be filed with
the court which rendered the judgment or final order, and served upon the adverse
party; third, within the same period, payment of the full amount of appellate court docket
and other legal fees to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order.

Notably, full payment of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory, even jurisdictional. Otherwise, the appeal is deemed not perfected and the
decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.[7]

In the instant case, petitioners do not deny that they paid the appellate docket fees
on October 18, 1997.[8] However, they maintain good faith, averring that such payment
was seasonably filed. They clarified that what was stated in their Notice of Appeal as the
date of receipt of the MeTC Decision was a mere inadvertence. They aver that it was
petitioner Clavel who received the Decision on October 10, 1997. However, he forwarded
said Decision through fax message to their counsel. [9] The latter, upon receipt of the
message, immediately prepared a Notice of Appeal and mistakenly stated that they
received the MeTC Decision on October 10, 1997. They alleged that as shown in the
stamp receipt on their counsel’s copy of the MeTC Decision, it was only on October 13,
1997 that the latter officially received said Decision. They explained that as soon as their
counsel received the Decision, on the same day, the latter filed the prepared Notice of
Appeal without correcting the date of receipt of the MeTC Decision, as already stated in
said notice. Thus, relying on their counsel’s date of receipt of the Decision, they paid the
appellate docket fees on October 28, 1997.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/158708.htm

JUSTINA MANIEBO, G.R. No. 158708

Petitioner,
Present:

CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
-versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
 ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ.:
HON. COURT OF APPEALS
and THE CIVIL SERVICE Promulgated:
COMMISSION,
Respondents. August 10, 2010

Evidently, the petitioner repeatedly disregarded the rules too many times to merit any tolerance by the Court, thereby
exhibiting a deplorable tendency to trivialize the rules of procedure. Yet, such rules were not to be belittled or
[26]
dismissed simply because their non-observance might have resulted in prejudicing a party’s substantive rights. The
bare invocation of substantial justice was not a magic wand that would compel the suspension of the rules of procedure.
Of necessity, the reviewing court had also to assess whether the appeal was substantially meritorious on its face, or not,
[27]
for only after such finding could the review court ease the often stringent rules of procedure. Otherwise, the rules of
procedure would be reduced to mere trifles.

We pronounced in Tanenglian v. Lorenzo[21] that:

All things considered, however, we do not agree in the

conclusion of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's Petition
based on a procedural faux pax. While a petition for certiorari is
dismissible for being the wrong remedy, there are exceptions
to this rule, to wit: (a) when public welfare and the
advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader
interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are
null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an
oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

In Sebastian v. Morales, we ruled that rules of procedure

must be faithfully followed except only when, for persuasive
reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an
injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure, thus:

[C]onsidering that the petitioner has presented a

good cause for the proper and just determination of
his case, the appellate court should have relaxed the
stringent application of technical rules of procedure
and yielded to consideration of substantial justice.
 The Court has allowed some meritorious cases to proceed
despite inherent procedural defects and lapses. This is in keeping
with the principle that rules of procedure are mere tools designed
to facilitate the attainment of justice and that strict and rigid
application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend
to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be
avoided. It is a far better and more prudent cause of action for the
court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of
the case to attain the ends of justice, rather than dispose of the
case on technicality and cause grave injustice to the parties, giving
a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually
resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.
[22]
(Emphases ours.)

Right to appeal -
sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence
/2013/april2013/181182.pdf
see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/april2013/181182.pdf

"x x x.

The Court denies the Petition.

Petitioner’s case is not unique, and there is no compelling reason to accord

it the privilege it now seeks.

“[T]he right to appeal is neither a natural right nor [is it a component] of

due process[. I]t is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law.”32 This being so,
x x x an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court.
Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to
appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an
age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants
with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. x x x
33

In this case, petitioner must comply with the following requirements laid
down in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court:

Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing.

A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court

rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the
Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and
other lawful fees, x x x. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice
of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or
reconsideration x x x. Upon proper motion x x x, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional
period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension
shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15)
days.

Sec. 2. Form and contents.

The petition shall be x x x accompanied by x x x copies x x x of the

pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the
allegations of the petition.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a

certification under oath that he has not theretofore commenced any other
action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state
the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts
and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

In addition, the Rules also require that the Petition must be verified or
accompanied by an affidavit by which the affiant attests under oath that he “has read the pleading
and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on
authentic records.”34

And finally, Section 3 of Rule 42 provides that non-compliance “with any of the foregoing
requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, x x x and the contents of
and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal thereof.”

Records show that petitioner failed to comply with the foregoing rules.

x x x."