G.R. No. 172891 - SPOUSES HENRY LANARIA AND THE LATE BELEN LANARIA AS SUBSTITUTED BY FRANCIS JOHN LANARIA, VS. FRANCISCO M. PLANTA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. [16] Hence, this petition, wherein petitioners raise the following issues: THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINETEENTH DIVISION, MANILA, ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED OUTRIGHTLY THE PETITION FOR REVIEW DATED 3 AUGUST 2004 ON THE GROUND OF DEFICIENCY IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE TO THE GREATER SACRIFICE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL FORMER NINETEENTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, LIKEWISE GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO ALLOW/ADMIT THE INCLUSION OF PLEADINGS AND OTHER MATERIAL DOCUMENTS SINCE ITS DENIAL WOULD RESULT TO DENIAL OF RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. Petitioners urge this Court to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 27 August 2004 and 12 April 2006 praying that the case be remanded to the Court of Appeals Special Former Nineteenth Division and that said court be directed to reinstate and give due course to the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 85755. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and in not allowing the inclusion of the pleadings and other material documents submitted together with the Motion for Reconsideration because denial thereof would result in the denial of the right to substantial justice. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that the Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it dismissed outright the Petition for Review dated 27 August 2004 due to deficiency in form and substance, and in denying the Motion for Reconsideration thereof. [17] He contends that petitioners' failure to comply with the formal and procedural requirements under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure resulting in the outright dismissal thereof, was proper. Anent the foregoing considerations, this Court finds merit in the instant petition. Respondent vehemently insists petitioners failed to heed the requirements under the Rules pertaining to perfection of appeals, insisting that petitioners did not perfect the appeal. Respondent contends that the documents required to be submitted, i.e. , Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, Answer with Counterclaim, Position Papers, Memorandum on Appeal, and Motion for Reconsideration dated 12 May 2004, were submitted beyond the prescriptive period for filing their appeal as these were submitted only on Motion for Reconsideration. He avers that the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration is evidence that the earlier Petition for Review was clearly deficient in form and substance. Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure embodies the procedure for appeals from the Decision of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Said section reads: SEC. 2. Form and Contents . - The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or j