G.R. No. 241385 - SPOUSES MARIANO CORDERO AND RAQUEL CORDERO, VS. LEONILA M. OCTAVIANO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE . in view of the foregoing and pursuant to Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, the petition is DISMISSED . SO ORDERED . [10] (Emphasis in the original.) Spouses Cordero sought reconsideration invoking substantial compliance with rules requiring statement of material dates. They claimed that the failure to state the date of receipt of the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016 is inadvertent and does not warrant the outright dismissal of their petition for review. Nevertheless, the petition indicated the date of receipt of the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017 denying their motion for reconsideration. This is sufficient to determine the timeliness of the petition. [11] As to the material records of the ease, Spouses Cordero alleged that the CA overlooked the copy of the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016 which was attached as Annex "C" in the petition for review. Also appended in the petition are the RTC Order dated June 22, 2017 and the MCTC Decision dated May 22, 2013 which will enable the CA to evaluate the merits of the case. Furthermore, Spouses Cordero subsequently submitted additional records such as the complaint, answer, memoranda and motion for reconsideration. [12] On June 29, 2018, the CA denied Spouses Cordero's motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was filed one clay late, thus: On 19 December 2017. We rendered a Decision dismissing petitioners' appeal and affirming the Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court x x x in Civil Case C-538. A copy thereof was received by petitioners' counsel on 17 January 2018, x x x. Under the circumstances, petitioner|s| had until 1 February 2018, to file a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner[s], however, did not file such Motion within the period prescribed. Instead, the petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration on 2 February 2018. X X X X ACCORDINGLY , petitioners' motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED . SO ORDERED . [13] Hence, this recourse. The Spouses Cordero argued that their motion for reconsideration was timely filed on February 1, 2018 as evidenced by the affidavit of the clerk who caused the mailing, [14] the registry receipt [15] and the postmaster's certification. [16] They reiterate that the failure to state the date of receipt of the RTC Decision dated December 7, 2016 is not fatal. Also, material records of the case were attached in the petition for review and additional documents were submitted together with their motion for reconsideration. Lastly, the Spouses Cordero maintain that a rigid application of technicalities cannot prevail at the expense of a just resolution of the case. [17] RULING We cannot overemphasize that courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just disposition of his cause. [18] Indeed, the Court has allowed several cases to proceed in the broader interest of justice despite procedural