625 Phil. 192
CARPIO, J.:
1. Pending hearing a preliminary injunction be issued against the [RTC] enjoining and prohibiting to implement the writ of executed [sic] (Exh. M);
2. Annulling the writ of execution dated August 23, 2003;
3. Annulling the last portion of the decision in Civil Case No. 1218 which states: ["]to deliver the possession of the land in question to the plaintiffs. (par. 5 Decision dated November 3, 1993)."
4. Ordering the denial and or dismissal of the motion for contempt filed by the private respondent against the petitioners.[8]
In the partial return, dated December 9, 2004, of Sheriff Crispino Magbitang acting per order, dated December 1, 2004 of this Court, he confirmed that when he went to the subject property on December 7, 2004, about 3:00 p.m., he saw six (6) men "tilling and plowing the land-in-question" but who, upon seeing him, stopped working, gathered their agricultural implements and left. x x x Dorenzo Domingo, brother of defendant Marcelino Domingo, confirmed to the sheriff the re-entry on the land in question by his brother, the barangay captain of the place where said land is situated, who bragged of an alleged decision of the DARAB regional office in San Fernando City, Pampanga, making him the legal owner of the subject land.
The evidence of the plaintiffs also showed that defendant Marcelino Domingo had actually fenced the subject property.
This Court, notwithstanding its already final order of May 26, 2004, finding and declaring defendant Marcelino Domingo in contempt of court as well as the order of June 23, 2004 wherein it warned of the automatic re-issuance of a warrant of arrest against him and any other acting in his behalf in the event of reentry and retaking possession of the subject property, set the present motion for hearing on December 15, 2004 to afford defendant Marcelino Domingo the opportunity to explain his side even only for the purpose of mitigating the legal consequences of his very stubborn arrogance that amounted to open defiance of the power of contempt of this Court.
Unfortunately, not only did defendant Marcelino Domingo refuse to receive the notice of the hearing set on December 15, 2004, but he actually disregarded it by failing to appear on said date.
Again, to give the defendant another chance, the hearing set on December 15, 2004 was reset to December 20, 2004, as requested by defendant's counsel Atty. Restituto M. David x x x but again, none of them appeared on said date nor file [sic] any comment on the same.
With defendant Marcelino Domingo's cavalier attitude towards it, this Court now feels its authority ignored and belittled and its power of contempt challenged and tested of its worth by said defendant who, ironically, as barangay head and, as such, a person in authority himself, should first be the paragon in upholding the rule of law.
Even if granted that defendant Marcelino Domingo had awarded [sic] ownership of the subject land by the DARAB, still he could not have taken the law in his own hands by simply taking over thereof without any judicial order and thereby ousting therefrom the plaintiffs who [sic], this Court, had given legal possession thereof pursuant to a decision of the Court of Appeals which had already long become final and executory.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present motion is granted:
- Ordering the issuance of a continuing warrant of arrest and detention of defendant Marcelino Domingo at the Nueva Ecija Provincial Jail, Caalibangbangan, Cabanatuan City for a period of Thirty (30) days until further order from this Court;
- Ordering defendant Marcelino Domingo's further detention at the said jail until he shall have effectively surrendered and redelivered possession of the subject property to the plaintiffs;
- Ordering the forfeiture in favor of the plaintiffs of all the movable improvements put or introduced on the subject property by defendant Marcelino Domingo;
- Ordering the issuance of a writ of execution for the satisfaction of the fine of P25,000.00 per the Order, dated May 26, 2004[;]
- Ordering the issuance of a [sic] continuing warrants for the arrest of all other persons working, cultivating, tilling and planting on the subject landholding in behalf of defendant Marcelino Domingo, and under his control, direction and supervision.[12]
From the documents submitted by the movant, it appears that the subject property of 4.1358 hectares covered by TCT No. 87365 is the only landholdings owned by Julio Domingo. He was only an administrator of the 5.8831 hectares, therefore, the 4.1358 hectares cannot be covered by land reform law either under PD 27/RA 6657 since the same is way below the ceiling mandated by agrarian reform law.[14]
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay of June 22, 2004 on the basis of which this Court ordered his release from jail, defendant Marcelino never mentioned anything about the distinction of his possession of the subject property between that in the concept of owner and in the concept of a tenant-lessee. Even if he did, that would not have mattered because the concept of possession in the instance [sic] case was never in issue. Besides, his undertaking in the said sworn statement was clearly worded that he would never again re-enter or retake possession of the subject land either by himself of [sic] by his agents and he would bar others from entering the same.
It will now appear that he had foisted a contumacious lie to this Court with his declaration in the said sworn statement to obtain his release from jail. This warrant his being cited for another contempt of this Court.
Actually even if defendant Marcelino had been awarded ownership of the subject land by the DARAB, still he could not have taken the law in his own hands by simply taking over thereof without any judicial order and thereby ousting therefrom the plaintiffs who [sic], this Court, had given legal possession thereof pursuant to a decision of the Court of Appeals which had already long become final and executory.
But the fact is, the Order of the DARAB relied upon by the defendant Marcelino did not grant him any specific portion of the land declared to be within the coverage of PD27/RA 6657 because the same was yet, by its terms, to be distributed to the qualified beneficiaries thereof and defendant Marcelino being only one of such beneficiaries.
What accentuates defendant Marcelino contemnary [sic] act of reentering and retaking possession of the subject land was the fact that he did so without even waiting for the finality of the order relied upon by him. As it has turned out the DAR - Region III had reversed its order of October 4, 2004 in another order, dated February 17, 2005, copy of which was presented by the plaintiff to this Court by way of manifestation filed on February 23, 2005, "SETTING ASIDE the Order, dated October 4, 2004, and a new one is hereby issued DENYING the petition for coverage filed by Marcelino Domingo for utter lack of merit".
It is now very clear to this Court that defendant Marcelino's re-entry and retaking possession and cultivation of the subject land was sheer display of stubborn arrogance and an open, deliberate and contemptuous defiance of its order and processes.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant Marcelino Domingo is hereby denied and further ordering that:
- The order granting the issuance of a warrant of arrest against defendant Marcelino Domingo is hereby maintained;
- Defendant Marcelino Domingo is again found and declared in contempt of Court and penalized with imprisonment of Twenty (20) days;
- Defendant Marcelino Domingo's further detention at the Nueva Ecija Provincial Jail until he shall have effectively surrendered and redelivered possession of the subject land to plaintiffs;
- Ordering the forfeiture in favor of the plaintiffs of all the movable improvements put or introduced on the subject property by defendant Marcelino Domingo[;]
- Ordering the issuance of a writ of execution for the satisfaction of The fine of P25,000.00 per the Order, dated May 26, 2004[;]
- Ordering the issuance of a continuing warrants [sic] for the arrest of all other persons working, cultivating, tilling and planting on the subject landholding in behalf of defendant Marcelino Domingo, and under his control, direction and supervision.[16]
This petition for certiorari faces outright dismissal for three (3) fundamental reasons, namely:
(1) There is no written explanation to justify service by mail in lieu of the preferred mode of personal service, this in violation of Section 11, Rule 13, of the [Rules of Court] x x x.
Net result: The petition is deemed NOT filed.
(2) The following copies of pertinent pleadings and orders that would support the allegations in the petition have not been attached thereto as annexes, to wit:(a) The complaint for annulment of sale with damages filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija;
(b) The RTC decision of November 3, 1993;
(c) The petition for coverage under PD 27 filed with DAR, Regional Office, San Fernando, Pampanga;
(d) The October 4, 2004 DAR order;
(e) The motion for reconsideration filed with DAR, Reg. III, San Fernando, Pampanga;
(f) DAR order of February 17, 2005; and,
(g) The notice of appeal filed on March 8, 2005.
this in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules x x x.
(3) The prayer for temporary restraining order failed to manifest willingness to post the necessary injunctive bond, in violation of Section 4, Rule 58.[17]
While it is true that petitioner failed to incorporate a written explanation to justify service by mail in lieu of the preferred mode of personal service in his Petition, it was grave abuse of discretion for public respondent Court of Appeals to dismiss his Petition on this ground. x x x [L]itigations should be decided as much as possible on their merits rather than technicalities x x x.
x x x Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is "merely directory" and it is incumbent upon the court to use its discretion in determining whether substantial justice will be served (or rights unjustifiably prejudiced) if it resolves to dismiss a petition because of non-compliance with a mere directory rule.[22]
SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing. -- Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.
Pursuant x x x to Section 11 of Rule 13, service and filing of pleadings and other papers must, whenever practicable, be done personally; and if made through other modes, the party concerned must provide a written explanation as to why the service or filing was not done personally. x x x
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 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 parcel 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 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 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. This Court cannot rule otherwise, lest we allow circumvention of the innovation introduced by the 1997 Rules in order to obviate delay in the administration of justice.
x x x x
x x x [F]or the guidance of the Bench and Bar, strictest compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 is mandated.[24] (Emphasis supplied)
Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.
x x x x
The acceptance of a petition for certiorari as well as the grant of due course thereto is, in general, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Although the court has absolute discretion to reject and dismiss a petition for certiorari, it does so only x x x when there are procedural errors, like violations of the Rules of Court.[26]