G.R. No. 127393 - SPOUSES VALENTINO ORTIZ AND CAMILLA MILAN ORTIZ, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND BERNARDINA RODRIGUEZ.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for not being sufficient in form and substance, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED due course and accordingly DISMISSED outright." [3] The factual background of this petition is as follows: The spouses Francisco and Bernardina Rodriguez, herein private respondents (hereafter the "Rodriguezes"), filed an action for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque, Branch 77, against Valentin and Camilla Ortiz, herein petitioners (hereafter the "Ortizes"), who are lessees of Cristopher and Angelica Barramedas, on the ground that they are the real owners of the house and lot or the subject property. MeTC, Branch 77, awarded the possession of the property in favor of the Rodriguezes. The Ortizes appealed the Parañaque MeTC decision to the RTC of Parañaque, Branch 257. On August 30, 1996, the latter court found no reversible error in the assailed judgment, and thus affirmed it in toto. On September 27, 1996, the Rodriguezes filed the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution of judgment, which was opposed by the herein petitioners on October 24, 1996. Upon the Parañaque RTCs denial of the Opposition to Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, the petitioner Ortizes appealed to the Court of Appeals ("CA"). The petition was dismissed on the following grounds: (1) the certification of non-forum shopping was signed by the counsel and not by the petitioners themselves, and (2) the copy of the RTC decision is not duly certified as a true copy as required by Sec. 3 (b), Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of CA. Further, the supposed duplicate original copy of said decision does not bear the dry seal of the trial court, but merely stamped "Original Signed," which appears above the name of the judge. Hence, the petitioners now come before us, and raise the following grounds in support of the petition: "I The Court of Appeals is clear contravention of the rules of Court, and the ruling in Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 192, Loyola v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 477 and Kavinta v. Castillo, 249 SCRA 604 gravely erred in dismissing the Ortizes' petition review, and/or in failing to reconsider such dismissal. II. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in failing to rule on the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the MTC which had decided the issue of ownership. III. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in ignoring the issue of forum shopping raised against the Rodriguezes, and thus sanctioned a violation of Circular Nos. 28-91 and 04-94." [4] From the foregoing factual and procedural antecedents, the main issue for our resolution is: DID THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 41 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT AS AMENDED, FOR FAILURE OF PETITIONERS TO FAITHFULLY COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SC CIRCULAR NO. 28-91 AND SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULARS NO. 3-96? To resolve the issue, it should be recalled that Revised Circular No. 28-91 [5] provides that the party mus