Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50706:gr-171098-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:19:11+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 171098 - JUAN G. GARCIA, JR., ET AL. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
JUAN G. GARCIA, JR. and DOROTEO C. GAERLAN, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GARCIA PASION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(GPDC), represented by RAMONA G. AYESA and MARCELO F. AYESA, Respondents.
On 20 June 2005, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it outright for failure to attach therewith certified true copies of the assailed Orders of the RTC, dated 22 February 2005 and 7 April 2005 in contravention of Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On 15 July 2005, petitioners filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration,11 but it was denied. The Court of Appeals held that while the attachment of a duplicate original copy of the assailed order is sufficient compliance with the mandate of Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners merely appended machine copies of the assailed orders.
Hence, the instant Petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari on mere technicality.
Private respondent GPDC in its Comment12 joins petitioners in their prayer that this Court give due course to the Petition.
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original.
The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition."
It is true that Section 3 of Rule 46 does not require that all supporting papers and documents accompanying a petition be duplicate originals or certified true copies.17 However, it explicitly directs that all cases originally filed in the Court of Appeals shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject thereof.18 Similarly, under Rule 65, which covers certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, petitions need to be accompanied only by duplicate originals or certified true copies of the questioned judgment, order or resolution.19 Other relevant documents and pleadings attached to it may be mere machine copies thereof.20 In the case at bar, petitioners failed to attach duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed Orders of the RTC, dated 22 February 2005 and 7 April 2005. What they affixed were machine or xerox copies of the same. Plainly put, petitioners contravened the obvious rudiments of the rules.
1. The "duplicate original copy" shall be understood to be that copy of the decision, judgment, resolution or order which is intended for and furnished to a party in the case or proceeding in the court or adjudicative body which rendered and issued the same. The "certified true copy" thereof shall be such other copy furnished to a party at his instance or in his behalf, duly authenticated by the authorized officers or representatives of the issuing entity as hereinbefore specified.
2. The duplicate original copy must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the authenticity and completeness of such copy. For this purpose, all courts, offices or agencies furnishing such copies which may be used in accordance with Paragraph (3) of Revised Circular No. 1-88 shall make arrangements for and designate the personnel who shall be charged with the implementation of this requirement.
3. The certified true copy must further comply with all the regulations therefor of the issuing entity and it is the authenticated original of such certified true copy, and not a mere xerox copy thereof, which shall be utilized as an annex to the petition or other initiatory pleading.
4. Regardless of whether a duplicate original copy or a certified true copy of the adjudicatory document is annexed to the petition or initiatory pleading, the same must be exact and complete copy of the original and all the pages thereof must be clearly legible and printed on white bond or equivalent paper of good quality with the same dimensions as the original copy. Either of the aforesaid copies shall be annexed to the original copy of the petition or initiatory pleading filed in court, while plain copies thereof may be attached to the other copies of the pleading.
5. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the party using documents required by Paragraph (3) of Circular No. 1-88 to verify and ensure compliance with all the requirements thereof as detailed in the proceeding paragraphs. Failure to do so shall result in the rejection of such annexes and the dismissal of the case. Subsequent compliance shall not warrant any reconsideration unless the court is fully satisfied that the noncompliance was not in any way attributable to the party despite due diligence on his part, and that there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make such other disposition as it may deem just and equitable.
Based on the foregoing, it is incontrovertible that a certified true copy is not a mere xerox copy. Further, it is imperative that the duplicate original copy required by the rules must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the authenticity and completeness of such copy. Petitioners' xerox copies are wanting in this respect.
Petitioners' contention that the Court of Appeals ought to have issued an Order directing them to file the certified true copies of the assailed RTC orders is hardly a plausible explanation. They have everything within their power to ensure compliance with all the requirements laid down by the rules. As parties who wish to seek the aid of the courts and avail of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, petitioners should have taken the duty and the responsibility to observe the rules.
To : All Executive Judges and Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial Courts and Shari a District Courts.
"1) Deposits shall be made under a savings account. Current account can also be maintained provided that it is on automatic transfer of account from savings.
"2) Deposits shall be made in the name of the Court.
"3) The Clerk of Court shall be the custodian of the Passbook to be issued by the depository bank and shall advise the Executive Judge of the bank's name, branch and savings/current account number.
"1) Withdrawal slips shall be signed by the Executive Judge and countersigned by the Clerk of Court.
"2) In maintaining a current account, withdrawals shall be made by checks. Signatories on the checks shall likewise be the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court.
The same rule is also embodied in the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.27 Pertinently, the rule is that deposits shall be made in the name of the Court. Perforce, the instant Petition is without merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated 29 June 2005 and 13 January 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 90178, are AFFIRMED. No costs.
3 SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari . ' When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
6 Records, Volume III, p. 398.
11 CA rollo, pp. 28-33.
13 Tan v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., G.R. No. 148420, 15 December 2005, 478 SCRA 115, 120.
14 Manila Midtown Hotels & Land Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 351 Phil. 500, 506 (1998); Solidum v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161647, 22 June 2006, 492 SCRA 261, 269.
15 Balayan v. Acorda, G.R. No. 153537, 5 May 2006, 489 SCRA 637, 643, citing Matagumpay Maritime Co., Inc., v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 144638, 9 August 2005, 466 SCRA 130, 134; Seastar Marine Services, Inc. v. Bul-an, Jr., G.R. No. 142609, 25 November 2004, 444 SCRA 140, 153.
16 De Los Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147912, 26 April 2006, 488 SCRA 351, 358; Teoville Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ferreira, G.R. No. 140086, 8 June 2005, 459 SCRA 459, 472; Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603, 611 (2001).
17 OSM Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 446 Phil. 793, 802-803 (2003).
It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or subject thereof, such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court of by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative.
21 Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 780, 784 (1996).
23 Bago v. People, 443 Phil. 503, 506 (2003).
24 Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146559, 13 August 2004, 436 SCRA 478, 483; Lapid v. Judge Laurea, 439 Phil. 887, 896 (2002).
It shall be the duty and responsibility of the party using the documents required by paragraph 3 of Circular No. 1-88 to verify and ensure compliance with all the requirements thereof as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. Failure to do so shall result in the rejection of such annexes and the dismissal of the case. Subsequent compliance shall not warrant any reconsideration unless the Court is fully satisfied that the non-compliance was not in any way attributable to the party, despite due diligence on his part, and that there are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the Court to make such other disposition as it may deem just and equitable.
26 Judge Madrid v. Ramirez, 324 Phil. 651, 657-658 (1996).
27 See Volume I, Section 2.1.2.2c.1 of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.