G.R. No.

199107, August 30, 2017 Emancipation Patents and new transfer certificates of title were
issued to farmer-beneficiaries, petitioners included.8
ALFONSO SINGSON CORTAL, JUANITO SINGSON CORTAL,
NENITA CODILLA, GENEROSO PEPITO LONGAKIT, PONCIANA In 1999, Larrazabal Enterprises filed its Action for Recovery of
BATOON, AND GREGORIA SABROSO, Petitioners, v. INAKI A. these parcels against the Department of Agrarian Reform and
LARRAZABAL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY INAKI P. the petitioners before the Office of the Regional Adjudicator,
LARRAZABAL, JR., THE HONORABLE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).9 It
REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII, TACLOBAN CITY AND THE assailed the cancellation of its transfer certificates of title and
HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN the subsequent issuance of new titles to petitioners. It alleged
REFORM, QUEZON CITY IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE that no price had been fixed, much less paid, for the
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD expropriation of its properties, in violation of the just
(DARAB), Respondents. compensation requirement under Presidential Decree No. 27, as
amended. Thus, it prayed for the recovery of these lots and the
cancellation of petitioners' transfer certificates of title.10
DECISION
In their Answer, petitioners denied non-payment of just
LEONEN, J.: compensation. They presented certifications issued by the Land
Bank of the Philippines (Landbank) that the amounts of
Procedural rules must be faithfully followed and dutifully P80,359.37 and P95,691.49 had been deposited as payments in
enforced. Still, their application should not amount to "plac[ing] the name of Larrazabal Enterprises.11 They added that since they
the administration of  justice in a straightjacket."1 An inordinate had paid, the cancellation of Larrazabal Enterprises' transfer
fixation on technicalities cannot defeat the need for a full, just, certificates of title, the subdivision of the parcels, and the
and equitable litigation of claims. issuance of emancipation patents in their favor were all properly
made.12
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, praying that the assailed In his October 15, 1999 Decision,13 Regional Adjudicator
September 30, 20103 and September 7, 20114 Resolutions of the Felixberto M. Diloy (Regional Adjudicator Diloy) noted that there
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04659 be reversed and set was nothing in the records to show that just compensation was
aside, and that the Court of Appeals be directed to give due fixed or paid for the parcels.14 Hence, he ruled in favor of
course to the dismissed appeal of Alfonso Singson Cortal, Juanito Larrazabal Enterprises and ordered that it be restored to
Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla, Generoso Pepito Longakit, ownership of the lots.15
Ponciana Batoon, and Gregoria Sabroso (petitioners).
Petitioners appealed to the DARAB. In its September 16, 2008
The assailed Court of Appeals September 30, 2010 Resolution Decision,16 the DARAB reversed the Decision of Regional
dismissed petitioners' appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Adjudicator Diloy.17 It ruled that Larrazabal Enterprises' action,
Civil Procedure on account of several technical defects. First was which was filed in 1999, was already barred by prescription and
an inconsistency between the listing of petitioners' names in laches, as the assailed Emancipation Patents were issued in
their prior Motion for Extension of Time and subsequent Petition 1988.18 It likewise gave credence to the certificates issued by
for Review, in which the accompanying verification and Landbank, which confirmed the payment of just compensation.19
certification of non-forum shopping were laden with this same
inconsistency and other defects. Second was the non-inclusion of Larrazabal Enterprises filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In its
the original Complaint filed by the adverse party, now private September 30, 2009 Resolution,20 the DARAB reversed its own
respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises, before the Regional decision and granted Larrazabal Enterprises' Motion for
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian Reconsideration.21 It justified its ruling by saying that Larrazabal
Reform. And last was petitioners' counsel's failure to indicate the Enterprises had been denied due process when the parcels were
place of issue of the official receipt of his payment of annual taken from it without having been given just compensation.22
membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.5
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review before the Court of
The assailed Court of Appeals September 7, 2011 Resolution Appeals. In its assailed September 30, 2010 Resolution,23 the
denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.6 Court of Appeals dismissed their Petition for the following formal
errors:
Private respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises (Larrazabal
Enterprises) owned three (3) parcels of land in Sitio Coob, a. the name of Raymundo Claros Codilla was
Barangay Libertad, Ormoc City: Lot No. 5383-G, with an area of indicated in the Motion for Extension of Time
7.6950 hectares and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) to File Petition for Review as one of the
No. 10530; Lot No. 5383-N, with an area of 5.7719 hectares and petitioners, but in the Petition for Review and
covered by TCT No. 10530; and Lot No. 5383-F, with an area of in the Verification and Certification of Non-
8.7466 hectares and covered by TCT No. 16178.7 Forum Shopping, his name was no longer
indicated[;]
In 1988, these three (3) parcels were placed under the
Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of Presidential Decree No. 27, as
amended by Executive Order No. 228. Pursuant to the Scheme,
 b. the Verification and Certification of Non-
Forum Shopping failed to show any Still, this Court has stressed that every party litigant must be
competent evidence of identity of the afforded the fullest opportunity to properly ventilate and argue
petitioners, Alfonso Singson Cortal, Juanito his or her case, "free from the constraints of
Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla, Cenon Baseles, technicalities."34 Rule 1, Section 6 of the Rules of Court expressly
Felimon Almacin Batoon, Rodrigo Panilag stipulates their liberal construction to the extent that justice is
Cabonillas, Generoso Pepito Longakit, Exopiro better served:
Limgas Cabonillas, Jose Panilag Cabonillas, Section 6. Construction. - These Rules shall be liberally construed
Avelino Panilag Cabonillas, Ricardo Estrera in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
German and Victoria Rosales, at least one inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
current identification document issued by an Procedural rules may be relaxed for the most persuasive of
official agency bearing the photographs and reasons so as to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
signatures of petitioners, in violation of Sec. 2. commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
(2) Rule IV of the Rules of Notarial Practice[;] complying with the procedure prescribed.35 This Court has noted
that a strict application of the rules should not amount to
c. petitioners failed to attach the copy of the straight-jacketing the administration of justice36 and that the
Complaint filed by respondent Inaki A. principles of justice and equity must not be sacrificed for a stern
Larrazabal Enterprises before the Office of the application of the rules of procedure.37 In Obut v. Court of
Regional Adjudicator, Tacloban City, docketed Appeals:38
as DARAB Case No. E.O. No. 288 (sic); and We cannot look with favor on a course of action which would
place the administration of justice in a straightjacket for then the
d. counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Norjue I. result would be a poor kind of justice if there would be justice at
Juego did not indicate the place of issue of his all. Verily, judicial orders, such as the one subject of this petition,
[Integrated Bar of the Philippines] number.24 are issued to be obeyed. nonetheless a non-compliance is to be
dealt with as the circumstances attending the case may
Following the dismissal of their Petition for Review, petitioners warrant. What should guide judicial action is the principle that a
filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In its assailed September 7, party-litigant is to be given the fullest opportunity to establish
2011 Resolution,25 the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose
Motion for Reconsideration. life, liberty, honor or property on technicalities. 39 (Emphasis
supplied)
Thus, this Petition was filed. Nevertheless, alluding to the "interest of substantial justice"
should not automatically compel the suspension of procedural
For resolution of this Court is the sole issue of whether or not rules.40 While they may have occasionally been suspended, it
the dismissal of petitioners' appeal was justified by the errors remains basic policy that the Rules of Court are to be faithfully
noted by the Court of Appeals. observed. A bare invocation of substantial justice cannot
override the standard strict implementation of procedural
It was not. rules.41 In Spouses Bergonia v. Court of Appeals:42
The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare invocation of
I "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will
automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules.
Appeal is the remedy available to a litigant seeking to reverse or Procedural rules. are not to be belittled or dismissed simply
modify a judgment on the merits of a case.26 The right to appeal because their non observance may have resulted in prejudice to
is not constitutional or natural, and is not part of due a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be
process27 but is a mere statutory privilege.28 Thus, it must be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when
availed in keeping with the manner set by law and is lost by a they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
litigant who does not comply with the rules.29 commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed.43 (Emphasis supplied)
Nevertheless, appeal has been recognized as an important part In Barnes v. Padilla,44 this Court relaxed the 15-day period to
of our judicial system and courts have been advised by the perfect an appeal to serve substantial justice; and identified
Supreme Court to cautiously proceed to avoid inordinately situations justifying a liberal application of procedural rules:
denying litigants this right.30 [T]his Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial
justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property,
II (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the
merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the
Procedural rules "are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the
of cases [so] [c]ourts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
abide strictly by the rules."31 They provide a system for frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly
forestalling arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in prejudiced thereby.45
dispute settlement. Thus, they are not to be ignored to suit the A petition for review filed out of time was entertained by this
interests of a party.32 Their disregard cannot be justified by a Court in Yong Chan Kim v. People46 as it considered the strict
sweeping reliance on a "policy of liberal construction."33 application of the rules as unjustly depriving the accused of his
liberty. It appeared that no party stood to suffer substantial
injury if the accused were to be extended an opportunity to be After a cursory examination of the instant Petition for Review
heard.47 filed by petitioner under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules in Civil
Procedure, the same reveals the following defects:
Telan v. Court of Appeals48 gave due course to a belatedly filed
petition. Finding that the petitioners were assisted by someone a. the name of Raymundo Claros Codilla was indicated in
who misrepresented himself to be a lawyer, it held that denying the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for
an opportunity for relief to petitioners, despite the Review as one of the petitioners, but in the Petition for
misrepresentation, was tantamount to depriving them of their Review and in the Verification and Certification of Non
right to counsel.49 It underscored that in criminal cases, the right Forum Shopping, his name was no longer indicated[;]
to counsel is immutable as its denial could amount to a
peremptory deprivation of a person's life, liberty, or b. the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum
property.50 It stated that the right to counsel was just as Shopping failed to show any competent evidence of
important in civil cases:51 identity of the petitioners, Alfonso Singson Cortal,
There is no reason why the rule in criminal cases has to be Juanito Singson Cortal, Nenita Codilla, Cenon Baseles,
different from that in civil cases. The preeminent right to due Felimon Almacin Batoon, Rodrigo Panilag Cabonillas,
process of law applies not only to life and liberty but also to Generoso Pepito Longakit, Exopiro Limgas Cabonillas,
property. There can be no fair hearing unless a party, who is in Jose Panilag Cabonillas, Avelino Panilag Cabonillas.
danger of losing his house in which he and his family live and in Ricardo Estrera German and Victoria Rosales, at least
which he has established a modest means of livelihood, is given one current identification document issued by an
the right to be heard by himself and counsel.52 official agency bearing the photographs and signatures
III of petitioners, in violation of Sec. 2.(2) Rule IV of the
Rules of Notarial Practice[;]
Judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are
appealed to the Court of Appeals through petitions for review c. petitioners failed to attach the copy of the Complaint
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 43 was filed by respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises
adopted in order to provide uniform rules on appeals from quasi- before the Office of the Regional Adjudicator, Tacloban
judicial agencies.53 City, docketed as DARAB Case No. E.O. No. 288 (sic);
and
Rule 43 appeals shall be taken through the filing of a verified
petition for review with the Court of Appeals,54 within 15 days d. counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Norjue I. Juego did not
from notice of the appealed action.55 indicate the place of issue of his [Integrated Bar of the
Philippines] number.57
Rule 43, Section 6 specifies the required contents of Rule 43
petitions:
Contrary to the Court of Appeals' conclusion, this Court does not
Section 6. Contents of the Petition. - The petition for review shall
consider these defects to have been so fatal as to peremptorily
(a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without
deny petitioners the opportunity to fully ventilate their case on
impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or
appeal.
respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and
issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c)
IV.A
be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a
certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or
Rule 7, Sections 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of
articulate the basic rules concerning the verification of pleadings
such material portions of the record referred to therein and
and their accompaniment by a certification of non-forum
other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification
shopping:
against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of
Section 4. Verification. - Except when otherwise specifically
Section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath,
dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
verified or accompanied by affidavit.
Rule 43, Section 7 stipulates that failure to comply with these
requisites may be sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal:
A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the
Section 7. Effect of Failure to Comply with Requirements. The
pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of
failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
his knowledge and belief.
requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other
lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition,
A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification
and the contents of and the documents which should
based on "information and belief," or upon "knowledge,
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be
dismissal thereof.
treated as an unsigned pleading.
IV
Section 5. Certification Against Forum Shopping. - The plaintiff or
In its assailed September 30, 2010 Resolution, the Court of
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
Appeals dismissed petitioners' appeal for purely formal defects
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
and without discussing the merits of the case:56
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
(a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed 5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all
any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable
other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common
status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in
or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall the certification against forum shopping substantially complies
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court with the Rule.
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed. 6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be
executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however,
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.61 (Emphasis supplied,
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after citations omitted)
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non- Thus, in Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development
compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute Corporation,62 this Court gave due course to a petition even if the
indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the verification and certification against forum shopping were not
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of signed by all of the parties.63 Though there were 25 petitioners in
the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate Torres, this Court held that the signatures of just two (2) of them
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal in the verification were suitable, substantial compliance
with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a considering that they were "unquestionably real parties in
cause for administrative sanctions. interest, who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief
An affiant verifies a pleading to indicate that he or she has read it to swear to the truth of the allegations in the Petition."64 On the
and that to his or her knowledge and belief, its allegations are lacking signatures in the certificate of non-forum shopping, this
true and correct and that it has been prepared in good faith and Court noted that the petitioners have shown that "there was
not out of mere speculation.58 Jurisprudence has considered the reasonable cause for the failure of some of them to sign the
lack of verification as a mere formal, rather than a jurisdictional, certification against forum shopping, and that the outright
defect that is not fatal. Thus, courts may order the correction of dismissal of the Petition would defeat the administration of
a pleading or act on an unverified pleading, if the circumstances justice."65
would warrant the dispensing of the procedural requirement to
serve the ends of justice.59 In Cavile v. Heirs of Clarita Cavile,66 this Court held that the
signing by only one (1) of the 22 petitioners on the certificate of
Altres v. Empleo,60 outlined the differences "between non- non-forum shopping67 was substantial compliance as the
compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective petitioners had a common interest in the property involved, they
verification, and noncompliance with the requirement on or being relatives and co-owners of that property.68
submission of defective certification against forum shopping":
1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the Cavile69 was echoed in Heirs of Agapito Olarte v. Office of the
requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non- President,70 where the certification of non-forum shopping,
compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective signed by only two (2) of four (4) petitioners,71 was condoned
certification against forum shopping. considering that the petitioners shared a common interest over
the lot subject of that case.72
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect
therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally In the same vein, the inclusion of Raymundo Claros Codilla
defective, The court may order its submission or correction or (Codilla) in the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for
act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that Review but not in the Petition for Review and in the verification
strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order and certificate of non-forum shopping73 should not have been
that the ends of justice may be served thereby. fatal to petitioners' appeal. The defective verification amounted
to a mere formal defect that was neither jurisdictional nor fatal
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one and for which a simple correction could have been ordered by
who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the the Court of Appeals.74 Petitioners here, too, are acting out of a
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and common interest. Even assuming that a strict application of the
when matters alleged in the petition nave been made in good rules must be maintained, the Court of Appeals could just as
faith or are true and correct. easily have merely dropped Codilla as a party instead of
peremptorily and indiscriminately foreclosing any further chance
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance at relief to those who had affixed their signatures.75
therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally
not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, IV.B
unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
"substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances Equally not fatal to petitioners' appeal was their supposed failure
or compelling reasons". to show competent evidence of identities in their petition's
verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
 Even assuming that a photocopy of competent evidence of
Rule IV, Section 2(b)(2) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial identity was indeed required, non-attachment thereof would not
Practice76 stipulates that a notary public is not to perform a render the petition fatally defective. It has been consistently
notarial act if the signatory to the document subject to held that verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional,
notarization is not personally known to the notary or otherwise requirement, affecting merely the form of the pleading such that
identified through a competent evidence of identity: non-compliance therewith does not render the pleading fatally
SECTION 2. Prohibitions. - . . . defective. It is simply intended to provide an assurance that the
allegations are true and correct and not a product of the
.... imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is
filed in good faith. The court may in fact order the correction of
(b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person the pleading verification is lacking or it may act on the pleading
involved as signatory to the instrument or document - although it may not have been verified, where it is made evident
that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed so that
    . . . . the ends of justice may be served.81 (Emphasis supplied, citation
omitted)
(2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise In Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Dela Cruz,82 the
identified by the notary public through competent evidence of petitioner bewailed the notary public's failure to "indicate that
identity as defined by these Rules. the affiants were personally known to the notary public, [or to]
Competent evidence of identity enables the notary to "verify the identify the affiants through competent evidence of identity
genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to other than their community tax certificate."83
ascertain that the document is the party's free act and
deed."77 Rule II, Section 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice The petitioner's objection, while correctly pointing out a
elaborates on what is "competent evidence of identity": deficiency, failed to convince this Court that a fatal defect
Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. - The phrase existed:
"competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of [T]he defect is a technical and minor one; the respondents did
an individual based on: file the required verification and certification of non-forum
(a) at least one current identification document issued by an shopping with all the respondents properly participating, marred
official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the only by a glitch in the evidence of their identity. In the interest of
individual, such as but not limited to, passport, driver's justice, this minor defect should not defeat their petition and is
license, Professional Regulations Commission ID, National one that we can overlook in the interest of substantial justice[.]84
Bureau of Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal In this case, the Court of Appeals' bare reference to petitioners'
ID, voter's ID, Barangay certification, Government Service inadequate proof of identity does not justify the outright denial
and Insurance System (GSIS) ecard, Social Security System of their appeal. The Court of Appeals failed to absolutely
(SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior citizen card, Overseas discount the possibility that petitioners may have been
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, personally known to the notary public, especially considering
seaman's book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant that, by that advanced stage in litigating their claims, they must
certificate of registration, government office ID, certification have already verified several pleadings, likely before the same
from the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled notary public.
Persons (NCWDP), Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) certification; or It is true that the notary public failed to categorically indicate
that petitioners were personally known to him.85Coca-
(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to Cola demonstrates, however, that even if this were the case, the
the instrument, document or transaction who is personally notary public's lapse is not fatal. While the circumstances were
known to the notary public and who personally knows the concededly less than ideal, Coca-Cola did not obsess on how only
individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is community tax certificates were indicated in the verification and
privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each certification of non forum shopping.86
personally knows the individual and shows to the notary
public documentary identification.78 This Court elects to be liberal here, as it was in Coca-Cola. Even
As is evident from Rule IV, Section 2(b)(2) of the 2004 Rules on conceding the lapses noted by the Court of Appeals, petitioners
Notarial Practice, the need for a competent evidence of identity had not gotten themselves into an irremediable predicament.
is not an absolute requirement. It is imperative only when the This Court repeats that, ultimately, a defective verification is
signatory is not personally known to the notary.79 When the merely a formal and not a fatal, jurisdictional defect, which could
signatory is personally known to the notary, the presentation of have very easily been ordered corrected.87 As to the defective
competent evidence of identity is a superfluity. certification of non-forum shopping, the greater cause of justice
should have impelled the Court of Appeals, as this Court
Heirs of Amada Zaulda v. Zaulda,80 which concerned the Court of implored in Altres v. Empleo,88 to have at least enabled
Appeals' prior determination that a senior citizen card is not petitioners to rectify their lapse, rather than completely deny
among the competent evidence of identity recognized in the them a chance at exhaustive litigation by a mere stroke of its
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, referred to the more basic pen.
consideration that a defect in a pleading's verification is merely
formal, and not jurisdictional or otherwise fatal: IV.C
 papers."101
Rule 43, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that
a verified petition for review must "be accompanied by a clearly To be sure, the determination of what is sufficiently pertinent to
legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, require inclusion in a pleading is not a whimsical exercise. Air
judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with Philippines Corporation v. Zamora laid down guideposts for
certified true copies of such material portions of the record determining the necessity of the pleadings or parts of the
referred to therein and other supporting papers."89 records. It also clarified that even if a pertinent document was
missing, its subsequent submission was no less fatal:
In Quintano v. National Labor Relations Commission,90 this Court First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to
faulted the Court of Appeals for dismissing a Rule 65 petition on be attached to the petition, Only those which are relevant and
account of failure to include in the petition a copy of the pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether
Complaint initially brought before the Labor Arbiter. Referencing the document in question will support the material allegations in
Rule 65's own requirement that the petition shall be the petition, whether said document will make out a  prima
"accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or facie  case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to
resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents give due course to the petition.
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non
forum shopping,"91 this Court explained that appending a copy of Second, even if a docurnent is relevant and pertinent to the
an original complaint is not even required: petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents
The Rules do not specify the precise documents, pleadings or thereof can also [be] found in another document already
parts of the records that should be appended to the petition attached to the petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a
other than the judgment, final order, or resolution being position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will
assailed. The Rules only state that such documents, pleadings or suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is
records should be relevant or pertinent to the assailed attached.
resolution, judgment or orders; as such, the initial determination
of which pleading, document or parts of the records are relevant Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case
to the assailed order, resolution, or judgment, falls upon the record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier
petitioner.92 dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the
Given this Rule's generic reference to "copies of all pleadings and documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of
documents relevant and pertinent thereto,"93 this Court justice that the case be decided on the merits.102 (Citations
explained that: omitted, emphasis supplied)
The [Court of Appeals] will ultimately determine if the Here, petitioners' failure to attach a copy of the complaint
supporting documents are sufficient to even make out a prima originally filed by Larrazabal Enterprises before the DARAB
facie case. If the [Court of Appeals] was of the view that the should not have been fatal to their Rule 43 petition. Its inclusion
petitioner should have submitted other pleadings, documents or was not absolutely required, as it was certainly not the award,
portions of the records to enable it to determine whether the judgment, final order or resolution appealed from.103 If, in the
petition was sufficient in substance, it should have accorded the Court of Appeals' judgment, it was a material document, the
petitioner, in the interest of substantial justice, a chance to more prudent course of action would have been to afford
submit the same instead of dismissing the petition outright. petitioners time to adduce it, not to make a justit1cation out of it
Clearly, this is the better policy.94 for dispossessing petitioners of relief.
Quintano was echoed in Panaga v. Court of Appeals.95 There, a
petition for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for IV.D
failure to include an affidavit of proof of service and after
appending only the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the Through Bar Matter No. 287, this court required the inclusion of
National Labor Relations Commission.96 This Court explained that the number and date of [lawyers'] official receipt indicating
the petition's annexes sufficed as the Labor Arbiter's decision payment of their annual membership dues to the Integrated Bar
already recounted the material allegations in the pleadings of of the Philippines for the current year; in lieu of this, a lawyer
the parties and wo4ld have been enough for the Court of may indicate his or her lifetime membership number:104
Appeals to determine whether there was a prima facie case.97 Effective August 1, 1985, all lawyers shall indiqate in all
pleadings, motions and papers signed and filed by them in any
Quintano was further echoed in Valenzuela v. Caltex Philippines, Court in the Philippines, the number and date of their official
Inc.,98 where this Court stated that "the failure to submit certain receipt indicating payment of their annual membership dves to
documents, assuming there was such a failure on respondent's the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the current year;
part, does not automatically warrant outright dismissal of its provided, however, that such official receipt number and date
petition."99 for any year may be availed of and indicated in all such
pleadings, motions and papers filed by them in court up to the
Quintano equally holds true here, Though Quintano was end of the month of February of the next succeeding year. 105
concerned with a Rule 65 petition and this case with a Rule 43 Indicating the place of issue of the official receipt is not even a
petition, the crucial procedural rule here is substantially the requirement. While its inclusion may certainly have been
same as that in which Quintano hinged. As with Rule 65's generic desirable and would have allowed for a more consummate
reference to "copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and disclosure of information, its non inclusion ws certainly not fatal.
pertinent thereto,"100 Rule 43 also only references "material As with the other procedural lapses considered by the Court of
portions of the record referred to . . . and other supporting Appeals, its non-inclusion could have very easily been remedied
by the Court of Appeals' prudent allowance of time and
opportunity to petitioners and their counsel.

This Court entertains no doubt that petitioners' Petition for

Review, which the Court of Appeals discarded, falls within the
exceptions to the customary strict application of procedural
rules. This Court has previously overlooked more compelling
procedural lapse, such as the period for filing pleadings and
appeals. The Court of Appeals was harsh in denying petitioners
the opportunity to exhaustively ventilate and arsue their case.

Rather than dwelling on procedural minutiae, the Court of

Appeals shoqld have been impelled by the greater interest of
justice. It should have enabled a better consideration of the
intricate issues of the application of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law, social justice, expropriation, and just compensation.
The reversals of rulins at the level of the DARAB could have been
taken as an indication that the matters at stake were far from
being so plain that they should be ignored on mere
technicalities. The better part of its discretion dictated a
solicitous stance towards petitioners.

The present Petition must be gnmt d. The Court of Appeals must

give due course to petitioners' appeal to enable a better
appreciation of the myriad substantive issues which have
otherwise not been pleaded and litigated before this Court by
the parties.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED.

The assailed September 30, 2010 and September 7, 2011
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04659
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is ordered to
give due course to the petition subject of CA-G.R. SP No. 04659.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Martires, and Gesmundo,

JJ., concur.