Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81154:gr-172590-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:14:51+00:00

Document:
MARY LOUISE R. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v.ENRIQUE HO, Respondent.
As her petition for review was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on a technical ground, petitioner now invokes the liberal application of the rules of procedure.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 is the July 14, 2005 Resolution2 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 89793 which dismissed the petition for review of petitioner Mary Louise R. Anderson (Anderson) because the certification against forum shopping attached thereto was signed by counsel on her behalf without the proper authority. Likewise assailed is the CAs May 4, 2006 Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
On June 5, 2003, Anderson filed a Complaint4 for Ejectment against respondent Enrique Ho (Ho) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City.5 She alleged that through her mere tolerance, Ho is in possession of her parcel of land at Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-1933686 (Roosevelt property). As she was already in need of the said property, Anderson served upon Ho a Demand Letter to Vacate but despite receipt thereof, Ho refused. Because of this, Anderson prayed that the MeTC order Ho to vacate the Roosevelt property and pay her damages and attorneys fees.
In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim,7 Ho denied that his occupation of the Roosevelt property is through Andersons mere tolerance. He claimed that since Anderson is an American citizen, he managed her affairs in the Philippines and administered her properties in Quezon City and Cebu. When Anderson sought his assistance in ejecting her relatives from the Roosevelt property and in demolishing the St. Anthony de Padua Church built thereon, Ho (1) secured the services of a lawyer to file an ejectment case against the occupants of the property; (2) dutifully appeared in court on Andersons behalf who was then in the United States of America (U.S.A.); and (3) was able to secure a judgment from the court in favor of Anderson. For all these, Anderson did not pay Ho a single centavo and instead executed a written document dated January 14, 19998 which states that as partial payment for Hos services, Anderson is authorizing him "to make use of the Roosevelt property as his residence free of charge provided he vacates [it] if there is a buyer for the lot" and "that the balance of Hos compensation shall consist of 10% of the proceeds of the sale of any or all of her properties located in Roosevelt Avenue, M.H. del Pilar Street and Ana Maria Street, all in Quezon City; Cebu City; and Cebu province". In view of this, Ho averred that he possesses the property not through mere tolerance but as part of his compensation for services rendered to Anderson. Hence, he is entitled to the continued possession thereof until such time that the property is sold and he is paid the 10% of the proceeds of its sale.
On June 25, 2004, the MeTC rendered a Decision9 dismissing the case for lack of cause of action. It gave much weight to the written document executed by Anderson wherein she gave her consent for Ho to occupy the Roosevelt property provided that the latter shall vacate the same if there is already a buyer for the lot. There being no allegation that the said property already has a buyer, she could not eject Ho therefrom.
The evidence of the parties thus stands upon an equipoise. With the equiponderance of evidence, the Court is inclined to consider the dismissal of the complaint as without prejudice depending on the outcome of the determination in the proper forum whether or not the written document dated January 14, 1999 x x x was falsified.
WHEREFORE, the Court modifies the Decision dated June 25, 2004 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No. 30840 by dismissing the complaint without prejudice.
The Court resolves to DISMISS herein Petition for Review as the certification against forum shopping was executed not by the petitioner herself but by her counsel without attaching therewith any special authority to sign on her behalf.
Anderson filed a Motion for Reconsideration.23 During its pendency, she also filed a Manifestation24 to which was attached an Affidavit25 and a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)26 authorizing her counsel to cause the preparation and filing of the Petition for Review and to sign and execute the verification and certification against forum shopping on her behalf. She explained in the Affidavit that at the time the petition was filed, her health condition hindered her from going to the proper authority to execute the necessary SPA so she just verbally instructed her lawyer to draft the petition and cause the filing of the same. Nevertheless, upon learning of the dismissal of her case, she returned to the Philippines even against her doctors advice and executed an SPA in favor of her counsel. She thus prayed that the subsequently submitted documents be considered in resolving her pending Motion for Reconsideration.
The CA, however, remained unswayed and denied the Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution27 dated May 4, 2006.
Anderson prays for the relaxation of the rules on certification against forum shopping and cites a number of jurisprudence wherein the Court considered the subsequent submission or correction of a certificate of non-forum shopping as substantial compliance. One in particular is Donato v. Court of Appeals28 which she claims to be on all fours with the present case. Moreover, Anderson stresses that the merits of the case should at all times prevail over the rigid application of technical rules. She then proceeds to discuss her arguments relating to the substantial merits of her petition.
On the other hand, Ho points out that despite the extensions granted by the CA within which to file the Petition for Review, Anderson still failed to sign the certification against forum shopping. This, he avers, demonstrates Andersons brazen disregard of technical rules. Anent the argument of substantial compliance, Ho cites Mendigorin v. Cabantog29 where the Court reiterated its earlier pronouncement that substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter involving strict observance of the rule regarding a certificate of non-forum shopping.30 At any rate, Ho insists that Anderson has no sufficient cause of action for ejectment and damages against him.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, x x x, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of substantial compliance or presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons.
Unlike in Donato38 and the other cases cited by Anderson, no sufficient and justifiable grounds exist in this case as to relax the rules on certification against forum shopping.
The petition for review filed before the CA contains a certification against forum shopping but said certification was signed by petitioners counsel. In submitting the certification of non-forum shopping duly signed by himself in his motion for reconsideration, petitioner has aptly drawn the Courts attention to the physical impossibility of filing the petition for review within the 15-day reglementary period to appeal considering that he is a resident of 1125 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia, U.S.A. where he needs to personally accomplish and sign the verification.
We fully agree with petitioner that it was physically impossible for the petition to have been prepared and sent to the petitioner in the United States, for him to travel from Virginia, U.S.A. to the nearest Philippine Consulate in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. in order to sign the certification before the Philippine Consul, and for him to send back the petition to the Philippines within the 15-day reglementary period. Thus, we find that petitioner has adequately explained his failure to personally sign the certification which justifies relaxation of the rule.
Moreover, simultaneous with the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, the proper certificate of non-forum shopping was submitted by the petitioner in Donato. Notably in this case, the SPA was submitted two months after the filing of Andersons Motion for Reconsideration. It took that long because instead of executing an SPA before the proper authorities in Hawaii and sending the same to the Philippines, Anderson still waited until she came back to the country and only then did she execute one. It thus puzzles the Court why Anderson opted not to immediately submit the SPA despite her awareness that the same should have been submitted simultaneously with the Petition for Review. Hence, it cannot help but conclude that the delay in the submission of the SPA is nothing but a product of Andersons sheer laxity and indifference in complying with the rules. It is well to stress that "rules are laid down for the benefit of all and should not be made dependent upon a suitors sweet time and own bidding."41 They should be faithfully complied with42 and may not simply be ignored to suit the convenience of a party.43 Although they are liberally construed in some situations, there must, however, be a showing of justifiable reasons and at least a reasonable attempt at compliance therewith,44 which unfortunately are not obtaining in this case.
In view of the foregoing, this Court affirms the CAs dismissal of Andersons Petition for Review.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Resolution dated July 14, 2005 and May 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89793 are AFFIRMED.
* Per raffle dated December 10, 2012.
2 CA rollo, p. 221; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court).
3 Id. at 246; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court) and Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court).
5 The case was raffled to Branch 32 of said court and docketed as Civil Case No. 30840.
6 CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
9 Id. at 158-162; penned by Judge Angelene Mary W. Quimpo Sale.
10 Id. at 37-47; penned by Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada.
12 See Motion for Reconsideration, id. at 210-216.
14 See allegation in the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review, id. at 2.
18 See Minute Resolution dated June 23, 2005, id. at 13.
19 The petition was filed on time since June 19, 2005 or the last day of the extended time to file the same was a Sunday.
20 CA rollo, pp. 18-36.
28 426 Phil. 676 (2003).
29 436 Phil. 483 (2002).
31 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168313, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 322, 331.
32 G.R. No. 154704, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 35.
34 Gutierrez v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 488 Phil.110, 121 (2004).
35 Id. citing Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 703, 720 (1998).
36 Fuentebella v. Castro, G.R. No. 150865, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 183, 191.
37 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, supra note 31.
40 Samson v. Judge Daway, 478 Phil. 784, 794 (2004).
41 Philippine National Bank v. Deang Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 177931, December 8, 2008, 573 SCRA 312, 323.
42 Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No.186400, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 429, 437.
43 Iloilo La Filipina Uygongco Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170244, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 178, 191.
44 Mediserv, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161368, April 5, 2010, 617 SCRA 284, 296-297.
45 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Hon. Natividad, 497 Phil. 738, 744-745 (2005).

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