GR 127393; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127393 December 4, 1998
SPOUSES VALENTIN ORTIZ AND CAMILLA MILAN ORTIZ, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from an ejectment suit filed by the Rodriguezes against the Ortizes in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque. The MeTC ruled in favor of the Rodriguezes, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Ortizes then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC’s order for the issuance of a writ of execution. The CA dismissed the petition outright for procedural deficiencies. The Ortizes filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied, prompting this petition before the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on two primary procedural grounds. First, the required Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was signed only by the petitioners’ counsel, not by the petitioners themselves. Second, the attached duplicate original copy of the RTC decision did not bear the court’s dry seal, merely stamped “Original Signed,” failing to comply with the authentication requirements under the rules.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for review for the petitioners’ failure to faithfully comply with procedural requirements under SC Circular No. 28-91 and SC Administrative Circular No. 3-96?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in strict accordance with procedural rules. The Court held that the rule requiring the party’s personal signature on the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping is mandatory. The attestation demands personal knowledge, which cannot be supplied by counsel without a compelling reason, which the petitioners failed to show. Similarly, the requirement for a duly authenticated copy of the decision, indicated by a dry seal or official mark, is not a mere technicality but a safeguard for authenticity. The petitioners’ claim of good faith and substantial compliance was insufficient to excuse their strict non-compliance. The Court ruled that procedural rules are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice, and their relaxation is warranted only under highly justifiable and compelling circumstances to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice, which were not present here. The dismissal by the CA was therefore proper.