544 Phil. 369
CARPIO, J.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the [respondents] and all persons acting in their behalf to vacate immediately the property subject of this case and to surrender possession thereof to the [petitioners]; [respondents] are further ordered to pay [petitioners] attorney's fee in the sum of P5,000.00 and the cost of the suit.MCDP filed a notice of appeal with the Regional Trial Court.
SO ORDERED.[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING the appealed decision of the lower court.Respondents received the Regional Trial Court's decision on 23 June 2000. On the other hand, petitioners allegedly received their copy of the Regional Trial Court's decision only on 7 January 2002. Petitioners filed their petition with the appellate court on 16 January 2002.
Consequently, a new judgment is rendered DISMISSING the complaint in the above-entitled case. The compulsory counterclaims are also dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[6]
For failure of the petitioners to attach to their petition copies of the complaint, answer, parties' position papers filed with the Municipal Trial Court, and parties' appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court, in violation of Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the present petition for review is DISMISSED OUTRIGHT, pursuant to Section 3 of the same Rule.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on 1 March 2002. However, petitioners did not submit copies of the complaint and answer filed with the Municipal Trial Court. Neither did petitioners submit copies of the appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioners characterized the Court of Appeals' ruling as "overly harsh in applying the Rules, applying technicality rather than substance in disposing their petition."
SO ORDERED.[7]
The lacking pleadings filed with the lower courts are, however, indispensable for the purpose of determining the veracity of the allegations of the petitions that the "[Regional Trial Court] erred in inserting an alien cause of action that the complained acts of [respondents] was 'an exercise of the power of eminent domain' even if there is no pending case for expropriation" ([Rollo], p. 10), and that the [respondents] purportedly made admissions in their answer (Ibid., p. 11). Accordingly, there is nothing technical in requiring the petitioners to submit copies of said pleadings.[8]
Form and contents. - The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.Section 3 of the same Rule states that non-compliance with any of Section 2's requirements is a ground for the dismissal of the petition. Section 3, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
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. (Emphasis added)
Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.In his motion for reconsideration, petitioners' counsel, instead of submitting the pleadings required by the Court of Appeals, continued to assert that "the complaint, or answer, filed with the Municipal Trial Court and parties' appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court are not indispensable to support the allegations in view of the clear and concise statement of the matters in dispute by both court of origin and appellate and the parties' position paper."[10]
[I]t is not disputed that it is petitioner who knows best what pleadings or material portions of the record of the case would support the allegations in the petition. Petitioner's discretion in choosing the documents to be attached to the petition is however not unbridled. The [Court of Appeals] has the duty to check the exercise of this discretion, to see to it that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory. The practical aspect of this duty is to enable the [Court of Appeals] to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition. Moreover, Section 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that if petitioner fails to comply with the submission of "documents which should accompany the petition," it "shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof." In this case, the insufficiency of the supporting documents combined with the unjustified refusal of petitioner to even attempt to substantially comply with the attachment requirement justified the dismissal of her petition.Rules of procedure must be used to facilitate, not to frustrate, justice.[12] However, petitioners and their counsel should bear in mind that the right to appeal is not a natural right. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.[13] A party who seeks to appeal must comply with the law's requirements; otherwise, he forfeits his privilege. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice which is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure.[14]