G.R. No. 159127 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, let this case be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. [10] In a Resolution dated May 20, 2003, the CA denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. In denying the motion, the CA found that non-compliance with the requirements as a result of misapprehension and unfamiliarity with the rules is not excusable; that in any case, SC Administrative Circular No. 3-96 dated June 1, 1996 states that subsequent compliance with the requirement shall not warrant a reconsideration. Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari. Petitioner raises the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED ON MERE TECHNICALITY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OF THE PETITIONER EVEN IF THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OF THE PETITIONER DESPITE THE UNIQUENESS OF THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE GRAVE INJUSTICE THAT WILL BE VISITED UPON THE PETITIONER IF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT, A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATION, WILL BE ALLOWED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ORAL CONTRACT THROUGH DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES OF ALL ITS WITNESSES TAKEN OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES. [11] Petitioner argues that the CA focused on technicality rather than substantial justice, notwithstanding that he subsequently complied with all the requirements and attached them to his Motion for Reconsideration; that his failure to attach an affidavit of service was due to his belief that the affidavit can be dispensed with in case of personal service of the petition to the parties who received the same; that Annex H, a letter dated July 12, 2000 sent by private respondent to Fuegomar and R.G. San Luis (herein petitioner) asking for confirmation of the note held by the former regarding the latter's outstanding obligation to it, [12] which was attached to the complaint filed with the RTC, was also blurred; that the blurred copy of Annex J, the Seanet Corporation Loan Amortization Schedule, [13] was due to inadvertence during the reproduction of the numerous annexes; and that he only attached pleadings to the petition filed in the CA which he believed to be important and relevant to the issue submitted in his petition. Petitioner further alleges that the CA failed to appreciate that grave injustice would be done to him if private respondent, a non-resident foreign corporation, would have all its witnesses who are foreigners give their testimonies through deposition upon written interrogatories which would be taken outside of the Philippines and would seek to establish an oral contract not supported by any documentary evidence; that to allow such deposition will prevent the RTC from testing the credibility of the witnesses, and petitioner's right to cross-examine the witnesses would be curtailed if not denied, as he would be limited to cross-interrogatories a