KENNETH C. DUREMDES, PETITIONER, V. CAROLINE G. JORILLA, RODOLFO C.

DE LEON,
MANOLITO SIOSON,[*] ELMER B. GASANG, MICHAEL DE CASTRO, GENNETE E. RIVERA,
SYLVIA ORBASE, IRENE MAGSOMBOL, NENITA R. DOMAGUING, AND CHERILYN PALMA,
RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

INTING, J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari (With Application for a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Resolutions dated
1

July 25, 2017 and September 26, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151644.
2 3

The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by Kenneth Duremdes (petitioner) and affirmed the
Decision dated July 21, 2016 of Branch 97, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City that denied
4

petitioner's Petition for Relief from Judgment due to lack of merit.

Antecedents

On August 27, 2009, respondents Caroline G. Jorilla, Rodolfo C. De Leon, Manolito Sioson, Elmer
B. Gasang, Michael De Castro, Gennete E. Rivera, Sylvia Orbase, Irene Magsombol, Nenita R.
Domaguing, and Cherilyn Palma (collectively, respondents) filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum
of Money plus Damages against petitioner and a certain Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr. (Manginsay).
5 6

The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-09-65496. In their Complaint, respondents sought the
recovery of payments they allegedly made to Vitamins & Cebu Artists International, Inc. (VCAII) as
the latter's alleged victims of illegal recruitment. Respondents alleged that petitioner and Manginsay
7

were majority stockholders of VCAII. 8

On March 20, 2014, the RTC rendered its Decision awarding the respondents actual and moral
9

damages. In the Decision, the RTC explained that summons was served upon petitioner and
10

Manginsay by publication in the March 29 to April 4, 2010, April 5 to 11, 2010, and April 12 to 18,
2010 issues of Viewliner Weekly News. However, petitioner and Manginsay failed to file their
11

respective answers or any responsive pleading. Thus, upon respondents' motion, the RTC declared
petitioner and Manginsay in default and allowed respondents to present their evidence ex parte. 12

Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment dated May 22, 2014 accompanied
13

by his own Affidavit of Merit. In the petition, he sought the annulment of the Decision dated March
14

20, 2014 of the RTC. 15

Petitioner argued, among others, that the RTC Decision dated March 20, 2014 should be set aside
on the ground of fraud considering that respondents knowingly specified an erroneous address for
the purpose of fraudulently gaining a favorable judgment. Petitioner further argued that respondents
16

could have referred to the General Information Sheet of VCAII where the valid address of petitioner
was mentioned. As a result, petitioner was not properly served with summons to be able to answer
17

the allegations of respondents, and for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over his person. 18

Petitioner furthermore argued that respondents committed fraud through the following acts: (1)
violating Section 1(a), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court relating to the institution of criminal and civil
actions, i.e., respondents filed a civil case against petitioner despite the previous filing and dismissal
of criminal cases against him and his co-accused; and (2) stating in their Verification and Certificate
19

of Non-Forum Shopping that they have not filed any similar case despite the fact that they filed the
civil case to recover civil liability even though it was already deemed instituted in the criminal case. 20

Respondents then filed their Answer. Afterwards, petitioner filed his Reply.
21 22
 Ruling of the RTC

Subsequently, on July 21, 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision denying the petition for lack of
23

merit. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Relief from Judgment filed by petitioner-
defendant Kenneth Duremdes, through counsel, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Accordingly and as prayed by the respondents-plaintiffs in their Answer to the Petition, let a Writ of
Execution be ISSUED in view of the Decision dated March 20, 2014 in Civil Case No. Q-09-65496
for collection of sum of money plus damages.

SO ORDERED. 24

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the RTC denied it in its Order dated April 12, 2017.
25

The RTC then ordered the issuance of a writ of execution in view of the finality of the Decision dated
March 20, 2014. 26

Thus, on July 17, 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari (With Application for a Temporary
Restarining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the CA.
27

Ruling of the CA

In its Resolution dated July 25, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition. It ruled that the petition for
28

certiorari was fatally defective based on the following infirmities which the CA enumerated, as
follows:

(1) There is no explanation at all in the present petition and in the petition for relief from judgment as
to why petitioner did not avail of the remedy of appeal upon his receipt of the trial court's Decision
dated March 20, 2014. The petition for relief from judgment, merely alleged:

In this case, petitioner only learned about the said Decision of this Honorable Court dated 20 March
2014 last 25 April 2014. Hence, under Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, petitioner has sixty
days (60) from notice or until 24 June 2014 and six (6) months after the judgment or final order was
entered.

It is basic that a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only in
exceptional cases from final judgments or orders when no other remedy is available. It will not be
entertained when the proper remedy is appeal or certiorari. Apparently, in this case, the petition for
relief from judgment was filed on May 28, 2014 as a substitute for a lost appeal. It necessarily
follows that the present petition for certiorari, an extraordinary remedy, cannot be availed of to cure a
previously lost legal remedy.

(2) There is no original, duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed Decision dated July
21, 2016 attached to the petition, in violation of Section 1, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3, Rule 46,
Revised Rules of Court. The Decision dated July 21, 2016 attached as Annex "C" of the petition was
only marked with "ORIGINAL SIGNED" on page 8 thereof. Apart from this, the Decision dated March
20, 2014 attached to the petition as Annex "A" is an illegible photocopy.

(3) Copies of pertinent pleadings/documents and other relevant portions of the records, such as the
opposition to the motion for reconsideration, reply, writ of execution, among others, are not attached
as annexes to the petition.29

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution dated September
30

26, 2017.
Hence, the petition.

The Court's Ruling

The Court grants the petition.

At the outset, the Court finds no merit in respondents' argument that the present petition should be
dismissed for failure to implead the CA as a public respondent. Suffice it to state that what petitioner
31

filed is a petition for review on certiorari. Unlike in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, wherein the
public respondent is included as a nominal party, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not require the
public respondent to be impleaded. 32

The Court will now discuss the propriety of the CA's dismissal of the petition for certiorari.

Substantial compliance with the formal requirements of a petition for certiorari.

To reiterate, among the grounds relied upon by the CA in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari
were: (1) petitioner failed to attach a certified true copy of the RTC Decision dated July 21, 2016 and
the attached copy merely bore the notation "ORIGINAL SIGNED;" (2) the RTC Decision dated March
20, 2014 attached to the petition was an illegible photocopy; and (3) copies of pertinent
pleadings/documents and other relevant portions of the records, such as the opposition to the
motion for reconsideration, reply, writ of execution, among others, were not attached as annexes to
the petition.

In Jaro v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that while rules of procedure are essential to the proper,
33

efficient and orderly dispensation of justice, such rules are to be applied in a manner that will help
secure and not defeat justice. Thus, the Court has ruled against the dismissed of appeals based
34

solely on technicalities, especially so when the appellant had substantially complied with the formal
requirements. Specifically, the Court ruled that subsequent and substantial compliance may call for
35

the relaxation of procedural rules; thus:

In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz and Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor Relations Commission, we ruled
that the subsequent submission of the missing documents with the motion for reconsideration
amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the failure of the petitioners in these two
cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer scrutinized. What we found
noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein substantially complied with the
formal requirements. We ordered the remand of the petitions in these cases to the Court of Appeals,
stressing the ruling that by precipitately dismissing the petitions "the appellate court clearly put a
premium on technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case." (Emphasis supplied;
37

citations omitted.)

The documents required to be attached in a petition for certiorari that is filed before the CA, such as
the instant case, are found under Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
As explained by the Court in Republic v. Carmel Dev't. Inc., Rule 46 primarily governs original
38

actions for certiorari filed in the CA, but Rule 65 generally serves to supplement it. Specifically,
39

Section 2, Rule 46 expressly states that Rule 46 shall apply to original actions for certiorari, and that
40

except as otherwise provided in Rule 46, the actions for certiorari shall be governed by Rule 65. As 41

such, Rules 46 and 65 co-exist with each other and should be construed so as to give effect to every
provision of both rules. Section 3, Rule 46 provides:
42

SEC. 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements. -

xxxx
x x x [The petition] shall be x x x accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true
copy of the judgment, order, resolution, or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record
as are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. x x x.

xxxx

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient
ground for the dismissal of the petition.

On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 65 provides:

SEC. 1. Petition for certiorari. - x x x x

The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (1a)

In Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, the Court explained that the foregoing rules require two sets of
43

documents to be attached to the petition: (1) a duplicate original or certified true copy of the
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof; and (2) copies of all pleadings and documents relevant
and pertinent thereto. 44

As to the first set of documents, Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 3-96 provides for the definition of
a duplicate original copy, as follows:

1. The "duplicate original copy" shall be understood to be that copy of the decision, judgment,
resolution or order which is intended for and furnished to a party in the case or proceeding in the
court or adjudicative body which rendered and issued the same. x x x.

2. The duplicate original copy must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the corresponding
officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other
official indication of the authenticity and completeness of such copy. x x x. 45

A.C. No. 3-96 also provides for the definition of a certified true copy, as follows:

3. The "certified true copy" thereof shall be such other copy furnished to a party at his instance or in
his behalf, duly authenticated by the authorized officers or representatives of the issuing entity as
herein before specified.

Further, Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court provides that "[t]he certification [of the judgment,
order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition] shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court
or by his duly authorized representative, or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or
office involved or by his duly authorized representative."

As to the second set of documents, mere photocopies may be attached to the petition. Further, as a
46

general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be
dismissed. However, since the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record which
47

must accompany the petition is not specified, the appellate court is left with the discretion to
determine the necessity for copies of pleading and other documents. Thus, the Court in Air
48

Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, provided the guideposts to be, followed, to wit:

First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only
those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the
document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will
make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course
to the petition.

Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it is
shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached to the
petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned
judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is attached.

Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due
course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents
required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.50

Here, the copy of the RTC Decision dated July 21, 2016 with the notation "ORIGINAL SIGNED"
51

attached to the petition for certiorari was not a duplicate copy; thus not compliant with the
requirement under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65. However, after the denial of
his petition for certiorari, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with a certified true copy of the
52

RTC Decision dated July 21, 2016. Hence, the Court considers it as substantial compliance with the
53

requirement under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65.

Further, as regards the Decision dated March 20, 2014 that ruled on the civil case for Collection of
Sum of Money plus Damages against petitioner and Manginsay, the Court deems it proper to explain
that the Decision assailed in the petition for certiorari is the Decision dated July 21, 2016, which
denied petitioner's petition for relief and not the Decision dated March 20, 2014. Thus, a mere
photocopy of the Decision dated March 20, 2014 would have sufficed. Notably, what petitioner
attached in his petition for certiorari was a photocopy of the aforesaid Decision with the notation
"ORIGINAL SIGNED." Considering the characterization of a duplicate original, i.e., duly signed or
54

initialed by the authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall
at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the authenticity and completeness
of such copy, it follows that what petitioner should have submitted was a photocopy of the Decision
dated March 20, 2014, which was signed by the judge and not mere a photocopy bearing the
notation "ORIGINAL SIGNED," in lieu of the judge's signature. In any event, the Court considers as
substantial compliance with the rule the petitioner's attachment of the certified true copy of the
Decision dated March 20, 2014 in his Motion for Reconsideration before the CA. 55

As to petitioner's purported failure to attach copies of other pertinent pleadings/documents and other
relevant portions of the records, petitioner reasoned that his counsel deemed it only necessary to
attach the Petition for Relief and respondent's Answer, and not the Opposition to the Motion for
Reconsideration and the Reply thereto considering that the latter were summarized in the Order
dated April 12, 2017 of the RTC. 56

In any event, petitioner still attached to the Motion for Reconsideration before the CA copies of the
Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated July 21, 2016 and the Reply
57

thereto. Petitioner also explained that a writ of execution has yet to be issued by the RTC at the
58

time of filing the motion for reconsideration. Thus, petitioner attached only the copies of the Urgent
Motion to Issue Writ of Execution and Opposition thereto.
59 60

In fine, the CA should not have been too rigid in applying the rules to dismiss the petition based on
mere technicalities. Applying our pronouncements in Jaro v. Court of Appeals and Air Philippines
61

Corp. v. Zamora, the CA should have considered petitioner's submissions attached to the motion for
62

reconsideration as substantial compliance to the formal requirements under Section 1 of Rule 65.

Propriety of availing oneself of the remedy of a petition for relief despite failure to appeal.
Another ground relied upon by the CA in dismissing the petition for certiorari is petitioner's failure to
explain as to why he did not avail himself of the remedy of an appeal. However, in this particular
case wherein the extrinsic fraud alleged by petitioner allegedly resulted in the lack of valid service of
summons upon him and consequently, the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over his person, the Court rules
that the issues on the availability of an appeal and the propriety of availing oneself of the remedy of
petition for relief may only be resolved by looking into the merits of petitioner's arguments.

First, a discussion on the nature of a petition for relief is proper.

A petition for relief is governed by Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. It provides:

SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. - When a judgment or final
order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the
same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.

In Philippine Amanah Bank v. Contreras, the Court explained the remedy of a petition for relief as
63

follows:

Relief from judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is
entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. It is a remedy, equitable in
character, that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate
remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new
trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he can not
avail of the remedy of petition for relief.
64

Further, in City of Dagupan v. Maramba, the Court explained the grounds for relief from judgment
65

under Rule 38; thus:

Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for relief requires that the negligence be so gross
"that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against it." This excusable negligence
must also be imputable to the party-litigant and not to his or her counsel whose negligence binds his
or her client. The binding effect of counsel's negligence ensures against the resulting uncertainty and
tentativeness of proceedings if clients were allowed to merely disown their counsels' conduct.

Nevertheless, this court has relaxed this rule on several occasions such as: "(1) where [the] reckless
or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when [the rule's]
application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the
interests of justice so require." Certainly, excusable negligence must be proven.

Fraud as a ground for a petition for relief from judgment pertains to extrinsic or collateral fraud. This
court explained this type of fraud as follows:

Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must be extrinsic or collateral. The extrinsic or collateral fraud
that invalidates a final judgment must be such that it prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and
fairly presenting his case or defense and the losing party from having an adversarial trial of the
issue. There is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from fully presenting his case to the court
as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client's interest. Extrinsic fraud can
be committed by a counsel against his client when the latter is prevented from presenting his case to
the court.
On the other hand, mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake of law. A
wrong choice in legal strategy or mode of procedure will not be considered a mistake for purposes of
granting a petition for relief from judgment. Mistake as a ground also "does not apply and was never
intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial [since] such
error may be corrected by means of an appeal."