[44] Magsino v. Guico (PAYAWAL) a.

illegible certified xerox copy of the May 5, 2003 judgment of

August 18, 2014 | Ponente | Petition For Review the MTC in Civil Case No. 4141 (Annex 1);
PETITIONER: JUANITO MAGSINO b. duplicate original copy of the September 17, 2003 order issued
RESPONDENTS: ELENA DE OCAMPO AND RAMON GUICO

SUMMARY: This case is about the required documents needed to be

submitted upon a petition for review. Petitioner lost the forcible entry case
respondent in the MTC. The RTC affirmed the judgement. Thus, the petitioner
appealed to the CA by petition for review. The CA dismissed the petition on
the ground that the petition did not have copies of pleadings and other material
portions such as the:
1. Copy of the complaint filed with the MTC of Taytay
2. Copy of the Answer
3. Copy of the Motion to dismiss
4. Copy of the appeal memoranda filed by the parties

Petitioner arrogantly argues that what he submitted (the decisions of the MTC
and the RTC were sufficient to resolve the issues without resorting to the
record. Petitioner further argues that if the CA needed more info, CA could
just ask for elevation of records.

ISSUE: W/N CA was wrong in dismissing the petition for review on the
ground of non compliance to Rule 42? NO

Applying the Doctrine below:

1. The 4 documents (listed above) were all necessary.
a. The complaint was necessary because it included material facts
and dates necessary to support the petitioners cause of action.
Only from these its allegations could be the true nature of the
action as one for forcible entry and, w/n the court had
jurisdiction.
b. The answer of the respondents was relevant to the appeal
because this is where the respondents put their defenses.
Without this, the CA can’t know the facts of the complaint,
or those admitted by respondents
c. The motion to dismiss may not be so relevant but the CA could
have good reasons for this.
d. The memoranda on appeal the parties filed in the RTC was
necessary. This is mandatory because it contains the
specified errors imputed in the lower court. The RTC only
considers errors specifically assigned in the memo, except
jurisdiction over subject matter plainly, and clerical errors.
2. The only documents attached to the petition were:
 by the RTC in SP Civil Case No. 03-266 affirming the attached documents is whether the accompanying documents support the
judgment of the MTC (Annex 2);26 allegations of the petition.
c. certified xerox copy of the November 6, 2003 order of the RTC
denying the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner
(Annex 3); and
d. original copy of the September 30, 2003 motion for
Procedural rules should be followed except only when, for the most persuasive
reconsideration filed by the petitioner in the RTC (Annex 4).
of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
3. Petitioner could have still submitted the omitted documents but when he
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with
filed the MR to the CA but he did not. He just argued further his point
the prescribed procedure
that CA did not need the documents and that the court should just
order the elevation of the record if the CA needed to be informed.
a. SC said this contention is wrong because the documents under
the RoC are required for the CA to determine if the petition
FACTS:
is patently without merit, without resorting to elevation of
1. Petitioner filed against the respondents a complaint for forcible entry with
the record. Petition for review does not automatically trigger
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining
the elevation of the record.
order in the Metropolitan Trial Court in Antipolo City (MeTC)
2. The petitioner filed a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction but the
In this case, the insufficiency of the supporting documents coupled with the
Municipal Trial Court in Taytay, Rizal (MTC) issued only a writ of
unjustified refusal of the petitioner to even attempt to substantially comply
preliminary injunction.
with the attachment requirement justified the dismissal of his petition.
3. MTC ruled in favor of the Respondents and ordered the petitioner to leave
the property.
DOCTRINE:
4. RTC affirmed the decision.
The SC made 3 guideposts for CA to consider in determining whether or not
5. Petitioner filed an MR but this was denied in the RTC
the rules of procedures should be relaxed, as follows:
6. The petitioner appealed to the CA by petition for review.
7. The CA issued a resolution dismissing the Petition to Review on the ground
1. Not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to
that the petition was not accompanied by the following documents to
the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must
support the allegations in the petition namely:
accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the document in
a. Copy of the complaint filed with the Municipal Trial Court of
question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether
Taytay, Rizal, Answer, and Motion to Dismiss;
said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of
b. Copies of the appeal memoranda filed by the parties.
discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition.
8. Petitioner filed an MR arguing that the decisions of the MTC and the RTC
2. Even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not
submitted with the petition for review were sufficient for the CA to resolve
be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also (sic)
the issues “without resort to[the] record” and that if the CA really wanted
found in another document already attached to the petition. Thus,
to inform itself, all the CA needs to do is simply elevate the records.
if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a
Petitioner also argued
questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of
the judgment is attached.
ISSUE:
3. A petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may
1. WoN CA was wrong in dismissing the petition for review on the ground that
still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon
petitioner did not comply with the Rules of Court? NO
showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required,
or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari ;
decided on the merits.
AFFIRMS the resolutions the Court of Appeals promulgated on January 8, 2004
The guideposts reflect that the significant determinant of the sufficiency of the
and January 28, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 81103; and ORDERS the petitioners to
pay the costs of suit.
RATIO:
Text.
1. The Rule 42 Section 2 (d) states that the petition shall 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.
2. The CA used this in tandem with Section 3 of the Rule: 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.
3. The SC in a previous case set out 3 guideposts for the CA to consider w/n
the rules of procedure should be relaxed. They are as follows: a. Not all
pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the
petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it.
The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support
the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will
make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince
the court to give due course to the petition.
b. Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition,
it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can
also (sic) found in another document already attached to the
petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are
summarized in a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a 7. FOR THE SECOND GUIDEPOST, A perusal of the records indicates that
certified true copy of the judgment is attached.
c. Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case
record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier
dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the
documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of
justice that the case be decided on the merits.
4. The guideposts, which equally apply to a petition for review filed in the CA
under Rule 42, reflect that the significant determinant of the sufficiency of
the attached documents is whether the accompanying documents support
the allegations of the petition.
5. APPLIED IN THIS CASE:
6. Applying the FIRST GUIDEPOST, There were 4 omitted documents stated
by the CA
a. First omitted document was the complaint in Civil Case No. 4141.
Being the initiatory pleading, the complaint included all the
material facts and dates necessary to support the petitioner’s
cause of action for forcible entry. Only from the complaint’s
allegations could the true nature of the action as one for forcible
entry and, consequently, whether the trial court or another court
had jurisdiction over the action be fully determined.
b. The next omitted pleading was the answer of the respondents. The
answer was relevant in the appeal in the CA, for the respondents
as the defendants had set forth their defenses therein. The
omission of the answer from the petition deprived the CA of the
means to know the factual averments of the complaint that were
admitted and those
that were denied.
c. Third omitted document was the motion to dismiss. The CA could
have had good reasons for noting its omission as a ground to dismiss
the petition for review.
d. The fourth omitted document was the memoranda of the parties which
is submitted to the RTC, which should have specified and supported
the errors he imputed to the MTC. Such filing in the RTC could
not be dispensed with, for the RTC would consider only the
errors specifically assigned and argued in his memorandum,
except errors affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as
well as plain and clerical errors. Unless his memorandum was
part of his petition for review, therefore, the CA would likely
find his appeal frivolous, or even consider it dismissible
pursuant to Section 3, Rule 42. For the petitioner to omit the
respondents’ memorandum from his petition for review was
inherently unfair because they had therein submitted matters
precisely to sustain the judgment of the MTC in their favor.
the documents actually attached to the petition for review were limited to the
following, namely: (1) illegible certified xerox copy of the May 5, 2003
judgment of the MTC in Civil Case No. 4141 (Annex 1);25 (2) duplicate
original copy of the September 17, 2003 order issued by the RTC in SP
Civil Case No. 03-266 affirming the judgment of the MTC (Annex 2);26 (3)
certified xerox copy of the November 6, 2003 order of the RTC denying
the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner (Annex 3);27 and (4)
original copy of the September 30, 2003 motion for reconsideration filed
by the petitioner in the RTC (Annex 4)
8. Petitioner argued that the MTC was sufficient basis to resolve the issues he
was raising in his petition for review. However, this copy was illegible.
Moreover, the MTC judgment did not contain the statement of the issues
relied upon by the petitioner in his appeal in the CA, for such statement was
 made only in his memorandum on appeal.
9. FOR THE THIRD GUIDEPOST, the petitioner could still have submitted
the omitted documents at the time he filed his motion for reconsideration vis
à-vis the first assailed resolution of the CA. Yet, he did not do so. Instead, he
boldly proposed in his motion for reconsideration vis-à-vis the first assailed
resolution that the CA should have bowed to the “greater imperative of doing
substantial justice” by not hampering the appeal “sticking unflaggingly to
such rules”.
10. SC disposed of this argument and said that the CA was right in dismissing his
MR.
11. Precisely, the annexes mentioned in Section 2(d) of Rule 42 are required
to be appended to the petition in order to enable this Court to determine
even without consulting the record if the petition is patently without
merit or the issues raised therein are too insubstantial to require
consideration, in which case the petition should be dismissed outright, or
whether there is a need to require the respondent to comment on the
petition. In short, the mere fact that a petition for review is filed does not call
for the elevation of the record, which means that until this Court finds that
the elevation of the record is necessary, such record should remain with the
trial court during the pendency of the appeal in accordance with Section 2 of
Rule 39.
12. In this case the insufficiency of the supporting documents coupled with
unjustified refusal of the petitioner to even attempt to substantially comply
with the attachment required, justifies the dismissal of his petition.
13. The crucial issue to consider then is whether or not the documents
accompanying the petition before the CA sufficiently supported the
allegations therein

ON LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF RULES

14. Resort to a liberal application or suspension of the application of procedural

rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules
must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice. Such rules,
often derided as merely technical, are to be relaxed only in the furtherance of
justice and to benefit the deserving.

15. The petitioner did not deserve the liberal application of the rules of procedure
that he was seeking