[_] _Atillo vs Bombay__ (Villonco) to the petition.
However, while it is true that it is petitioner who initially exercises
2012| Peralta | Topic the discretion in selecting the relevant supporting documents that will be appended
to the petition, it is the CA that will ultimately determine if the supporting
PETITIONER: Atillo documents are sufficient to even make out a prima facie case.
RESPONDENTS: Bombay
SUMMARY: Petitioner Nelia Atillo entered into a lease agreement with
Buenaventura Bombay (respondent herein) alleged owner of the Alto Commercial
Building. The contract provided that the period of lease was for one year starting FACTS:
1988 and renewable upon mutual consent of the parties. In 1995 petitioner failed 1. The Regional Trial Court rendered the assailed Order reversing the
to pay her rental, a ground for termination of the lease contract. After failure of Decision of the MTC and ruling in favor Bombay. The same Order
petitioner to pay her rentals upon repeated demands from the respondent, the latter awarded back rentals to Bombay and ordered Atillo to vacate the leased
filed an ejectment case against the former with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). premises
In her answer, petitioner alleged that Alto Commercial Building was actually 2. Aggrieved by the RTC Order, Atillo filed a petition for review with the
owned by the heir of Tomas Escaraman, to whom ownership was transferred by Court of Appeals (CA).
Nide Marie Bombay under a ten-year lease agreement or "Kasunduan." Upon 3. the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition of Atillo on the
learning of this development, petitioner entered into a contract of lease with the ground that Atillo failed to
heirs of Escaraman and this was the basis of her refusal to comply with the demand 4. attach the pleadings and other material portions of the record of the case
of the respondent. The MTC dismissed the ejectment case on the ground that the in violation of Rule 42, Section 2 (d) of the Rules of Court
plaintiff (respondent herein) was not the proper party to file the ejectment. On 5. While Atillo has attached original/certified machine copies of the
appeal the decision was reversed by the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner, therefore, decisions of both lower courts, she has not annexed to her petition copies
filed a petition for review with Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the of the pleadings and other material portions of the record, in violation of
petition on the ground that petitioner failed to attached pleadings and other the above-cited ruled
material portion of the records of the case in violation of Rule 42, Section 2(d) of 6. Instead of simply complying with the Rules by submitting the additional
the Rules of Court. Hence, this petition for review annexes cited in our Resolution of dismissal, Atillo has insisted that the
requirement contained in Section 2 (d) of Rule 42 is not mandatory but
The Supreme Court did not agree with the petitioner when she characterized the merely directory and that it is within her discretion or that of her counsel
dismissal of her petition for review by the CA as whimsical. In its previous rulings, to determine what pleading should be attached to the position paper.
the Court had already recognized the fact that the Rules of Court empowered the ISSUE:
CA to require the parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in WON the failure of attaching the pleading and other material portions would render
the interest of substantial justice. However, in this case, the exercise of this power the outright dismissal of the petition. YES
would have been an exercise in futility. Petitioner remained obstinate in her stand RULING:
not to submit additional pleadings and other material portions of the record as
shown in her motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution. Instead of RATIO:
manifesting that she would submit the additional documentary evidence,
petitioner maintained that she had submitted based on her discretion, all that were Text.
necessary to support her allegations. In this case, according to the Court, the 1. "SECTION 2. Form and Contents. — The petition shall be filed in seven (7)
insufficiency of the supporting documents combined with the unjustified refusal legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated
of the petitioner to even attempt to substantially comply with the attachment as such by the petitioner, and shall
requirement justified the dismissal of her petition. Hence, this petition was denied (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower
and the assailed resolution of the Court of Appeals was affirmed courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents;
(b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time;
DOCTRINE: he phrase "of the pleadings and other material portions of the (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised,
record" in Section 2 (d), Rule 42 is followed by the phrase "as would support the the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the
allegations of the petition clearly contemplates the exercise of discretion on the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the
part of the petitioner in the selection of documents that are deemed to be relevant 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."
2. Non-compliance with any of the foregoing requisites is a ground for the
dismissal of a petition based on Section 3 of the same Rule
3. In this case, the mandatory or directory nature of the requirement with respect
to the attachment of pleadings and other material portions of the record is put
in question.The phrase "of the pleadings and other material portions of the
record" in Section 2 (d), Rule 42 is followed by the phrase "as would support
the allegations of the petition" clearly contemplates the exercise of discretion
on the part of Atillo in the selection of documents that are deemed to be
relevant to the petition. However, while it is true that it is Atillo who initially
exercises the discretion in selecting the relevant supporting documents that
will be appended to the petition, it is the CA that will ultimately determine if
the supporting documents are sufficient to even make out a prima facie case.
It can be fairly assumed that the CA took pains in the case at bar to examine
the documents attached to the petition so that it could discern whether on the
basis of what have been submitted it could already judiciously determine the
merits of the petition.
4. In the case of Cdayona vs CA: Substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule
42 since the MTC Decision attached to the petition reproduced verbatim a
document central to the dispute.
5. In the case at bar, Atillano did not even come close to substantially complying
with the requirements of Section 2 (d) of Rule 42. In fact, the CA had no
factual basis upon which it could actually and completely dispose of the case.
6. As mentioned earlier, it is not disputed that it is Atillo who knows best what
pleadings or material portions of the record of the case would support the
allegations in the petition. Atillo’s discretion in choosing the documents to
be attached to the petition is however not unbridled. The CA 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 CA 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 Atillo 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 Atillo to
even attempt to substantially comply with the attachment requirement
justified the dismissal of her petition
