477 Phil. 600
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
It should be emphasized at the outset that the only issue proper for determination through a petition for certiorari is whether or not the tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Thus, the Court will only consider the issue of whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing outright the petition for review filed by petitioner on the ground that certified true copies of the assailed SSC resolutions were not attached to the petition.I
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON THE ALLEGED GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY IN FORM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 3-B, RULE 6 OF THE REVISED INTERNAL RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AS AMENDED (RIRCA);II
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT RULING THAT THE OBLIGATION OF THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER SALVADOR P. VELASCO WHO HAS BEEN SINGLY ORDERED BY RESPONDENT COMMISSION TO REMIT IN FULL THE SS CONTRIBUTIONS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAS ALREADY BEEN EXTINGUISHED UPON THE DEATH OF THE SAID ORIGINAL PETITIONER;III
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT REVERSING THE FINDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION IN ORDERING PETITIONER SALVADOR P. VELASCO TO REMIT TO THE SSS-INTERVENOR THE AMOUNT OFP774,149.86 AS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1995, WITHOUT ANY DETAILED EXPLANATION AS TO THE INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ENTITLED THERETO AND THE BASIS FOR SAID COMPUTATION; ANDIV
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT IN NOT RESOLVING THE FINDINGS OF RESPONDENT COMMISSION IN GIVING WEIGHT AND PROBATIVE VALUE TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS NOT FORMALLY OFFERED IN EVIDENCE.[2]
SEC. 3. Petitions for Review. – Within the period to appeal, the petitioner shall file a verified petition . . .when the applicable provision to her petition is Section 6, Rule 6 thereof, as amended by Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91, dated February 27, 1991, thus:
(b) What Should Be Filed. – The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the disputed decisions, judgments, or orders, of the lower courts, together with true copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner points out that since their petition for review assails the resolution of a quasi-judicial agency, i.e., the SSC, the applicable provision is Section 6 of the same Rule as amended by Circular No. 1-91, which deals with appeals from administrative tribunals or quasi-judicial agencies. If said provision were applied by the CA, then the petition should not have been dismissed since it clearly states that the petition would be sufficient if accompanied with a duplicate original of the assailed resolution or order. Petitioner insists that what she attached to the petition for review filed with the CA were the duplicate originals of the assailed resolution and order of the SSC.
- Contents of petition. – The petition for review shall contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review, and shall be accompanied by a duplicate original or a certified true copy of the ruling, award, order, decision or judgment appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other supporting papers. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed therein. (Emphasis supplied)
Subsequently, the Court, to clarify the meaning of the requirements of the Rules for petitions “to the Supreme Court, or in petitions or other initiatory pleadings filed in other courts or other quasi-judicial agencies which have adopted the same or similar provisions,” issued Administrative Circular No. 3-96 effective June 1, 1996, specifically stating therein the meaning of “duplicate original copy,” thus:
- Contents of the petition. – The petition for review shall . . . (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other supporting papers; . . .
- Effect of failure to comply with requirements. – The failure of the petitioner to comply with the foregoing requirements regarding . . . the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient grounds for the dismissal thereof.
With the foregoing rules to guide the appellate court, the CA has seriously abused its discretion when it failed to examine the documents attached by petitioner to her petition filed with the CA. By the simple act of examining the document, the CA could have readily found that although at first glance, the copies of the resolution and order of the SSS bear signs of being mere photostatic copies, a closer inspection of said documents readily shows that it indeed bore the marks of a dry seal. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 3-96, the presence of the seal qualifies the document as a duplicate original copy. Evidently, there was compliance with the requirement that a duplicate original copy or a certified true copy of the assailed judgment, resolution or order be attached to the petition.
- 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 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. . . .