G.R. No. 193271 - LOLITA M. SANTIAGO, VS. SILVESTRE H. BELLO IV.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED with finality. SO ORDERED , (emphasis supplied) On December 14, 2009, Santiago filed a -petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA against CSP Zuño's resolution. Santiago argued that CSP Zuño committed grave abuse of discretion in resolving that there was probable cause to indict her for estafa because: (1) he did not conduct a preliminary investigation; and (2) she only appealed the finding of probable cause to prosecute her for violating B.P. 22, not the dismissal of the estafa complaint. The petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 111852. On January 26, 2010, the CA dismissed the petition because: (1) the attached orders/resolutions were not certified true copies; (2) the petitioner failed to indicate the material dates showing the timeliness of the petition; and (3) there was no explanation why the petition was not personally served on the respondents. On February 2, 2010, Santiago moved for reconsideration. Her then counsel, Atty. Onofre Manalad, admitted that he received the CSP resolution on November 24, 2009. He explained that he forgot to include the material dates and the explanation in good faith because he had recently suffered a "mild stroke," causing him a temporary bout of forgetfulness. He also explained that he had attached his duplicate original copy of the resolution. He further appealed to the CA to take a more liberal approach in the interest of justice. On August 9, 2010, the CA denied reconsideration. Citing Limpot v. Court of Appeals, [3] it emphasized: (1) that claims for substantial justice will not automatically result in an exemption from technical rules; and (2) that rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantial rights. On August 27, 2010, Santiago filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition The petitioner argues: (1) that the dismissal of the complaint for estafa had already attained finality because it was not appealed to the Secretary of Justice; (2) that CSP Zuño had acted without authority and with grave abuse of discretion when he reopened the dismissed complaint for estafa and reversed the unappealed resolution of the City Prosecutor; and (3) that the CA had violated her right to the equal protection of law when it dismissed her petition for certiorari. In his Comment dated February 10, 2012, the respondent maintains that: (1) the CA has the power to deny and dismiss a petition for non-compliance with the rules; and (2) Atty. Manalad's excuse of "mild stroke" is unsubstantiated. However, he believes that CSP Zuño inadvertently committed a glaring error in the August 9, 2010 resolution because the only subject of the petition for review was the finding of probable cause for violating B.P. 22. Our Ruling This Court is confronted with the following issues: (1) whether or not the CA erred when it dismissed the petition for certiorari for noncompliance with