427 Phil. 762
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"WHEREFORE, we RESOLVED to DISMISS, as we hereby OUTRIGHTLY DISMISS, the present Petition for Review.”[3]The second Resolution[4] denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
“1. Respondent filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Branch XI), a complaint against petitioners for Unlawful Detainer, docketed as Civil Case No.163168-CV and entitled, ‘Uni-Tan Marketing Corporation, Plaintiff, versus SPS. Antonio & Aileen Lim, Defendants’.
“2. After the parties had filed their respective position papers, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a Decision dated August 6, 1999, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:'WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering-“3. On August 27, 1999 and within the reglementary period therefor, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal manifesting that they [were] appealing the said Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28. The appeal was docketed [as] Civil Case No. 99-951-39 and entitled, ‘UNI-TAN Marketing Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sps. Anton Lim and Eileen Lim, Defendants-Appellants.’
‘1. The defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the premises known as 1578-C Mayhaligue St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, and surrender its peaceful possession to the plaintiff;
‘2. The defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P12,500.00 per month starting May, 1998, and every month thereafter until they shall have finally and actually vacated the subject premises;
‘3. To pay the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees; and to pay the costs of the suit.’
“4. On February 7, 2000 the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision reversing the Decision of the inferior court by dismissing the complaint. The dispositive portion thereof reads thus:‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court and declaring the defendants as not liable for payment of any monthly rentals from May 1998 to the present; they are also not liable for attorney’s fees and costs of suit; in short, the Complaint of the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed.
'SO ORDERED.’xxx xxx xxx
“6. Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration therefrom praying among others, that their properties which had been unlawfully levied upon and sold on execution during the proceedings before the lower court be returned to them.
“7. On August 18, 2000 the Regional Trial Court resolved the Motion for Partial Consideration in an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads:‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered reversing the judgment of the MTC and declaring defendant as not liable for payment of monthly rentals from May, 1998 to the present. They are also not liable for attorney’s fees and costs of suit.“8. Petitioners were not satisfied with the aforequoted August 18, 2000 Order of the Regional Trial Court. As such, they filed before the Court of Appeals the subject Petition for Review to [r]eview the February 7, 2000 Decision and August 18, 2000 Order of the Regional Trial Court. The Petition for Review was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 61515 and entitled, ‘Spouses Anton and Eileen Lim, Petitioners, versus, Uni-Tan Marketing Corporation, Respondent.’
‘The plaintiff and/or the Branch Sheriff who conducted the execution sale on September 29, 1999, Ferdinand Mercado[, is] ordered to return and deliver all other items listed in the inventory which were not included in such sale.
‘As to the seventeen (17) items sold on execution, the same thing happened because the defendants-appellants failed to post a supersedeas bond. Neither the plaintiff nor the sheriff could thus be faulted.
‘In short the complaint of the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed.
‘SO ORDERED.’xxx xxx xxx
“10. The Court of Appeals thereafter issued the assailed November 6, 2000 Resolution dismissing the Petition for Review on the ground that the filing thereof was ‘procedurally flawed’ x x x.xxx xxx xxx
“12. Notwithstanding the matters set forth in petitioner[s’] Motion for Reconsideration, the Court of Appeals issued the assailed February 27, 2001 Resolution, denying said motion.”[6]
“A. Petitioners had in fact substantially complied with all the requirements in Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court; and
“B. Petitioners have a sufficient cause of action and the records will readily show that the Regional Trial Court committed a reversible error in failing to award them actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees.”[7]
“Sec. 2. 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.” (Italics supplied)A careful reading of the above-cited provision reveals that herein petitioners had the option of submitting either: (1) a duplicate original or (2) a true copy of the assailed decision or final order certified correct by the clerk of court of the regional trial court. A “duplicate original” need not be certified correct.
“For the guidance of all concerned, the following clarifications and supplemental rules in complying with the requirement of Paragraph (3) of Revised Circular No. 1-88 are hereby announced for strict compliance:In the instant case, petitioners claim that they attached a “duplicate original” copy of the MTC Decision to their CA Petition. However, an examination of the copy shows that it does not contain any of the above-described markings or indications that would qualify it as a “duplicate original copy” within the contemplation of the Rules. Thus, petitioners’ contention of substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules must necessarily fail, because the copy of the MTC Decision which they submitted was in fact not a duplicate original. Verily, the CA’s dismissal of their Petition was an inevitable consequence of their failure to observe the mandatory dictates of the Rules as well as the supplemental Supreme Court circulars relative to it.‘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. x x x.
‘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. x x x.xxx xxx xxx
‘5. 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 therefor as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. Failure to do so shall result in the rejection of such annexes and the dismissal of the case. x x x.’” (Italics supplied)
“Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. -- If judgment is rendered against defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. x x x.”Indeed, immediate execution in an ejectment judgment in favor of the plaintiff is normal. The defendant may stay it only by perfecting an appeal, filing a supersedeas bond, and making a periodic deposit of the rental or reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the property during the pendency of the appeal.[13]