Case Digest: REYNOSA VALTE v. COURT OF APPEALS et al.

REYNOSA VALTE v. COURT OF APPEALS et al.

433 SCRA 290 (2004), THIRD DIVISION

Petitioner Reynosa Valte filed an Application for Free Patent before the Bureau of Lands District Office. The application was subsequently granted and a free patent was issued in his favor. Jose Gonzales and Pedro Mendoza, on the other hand, filed a protest to the grant of free patent on the ground of fraud. The Regional Executive Director of DENR Region III rendered a decision in favor of Mendoza.

Valte filed an appeal to the Office of the President alleging that he was deprived an opportunity to be heard. After a pre-trial conference, the DENR thereafter dismissed the protest.

On appeal, the Office of the President (OP) reversed the decision of the DENR. The OP ruled that Mendoza and Gonzales are the actual possessors of the land. Valte appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals (CA) but the same was dismissed for not having complied with the rule on non-forum shopping.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Valte‘s petition complied with the rule on forum shopping

HELD:

Valte admits having failed to undertake to report to the appellate court within 5 days from knowledge of any case involving the same issues filed in other courts or tribunals. She argues, however, that such failure maybe overlooked provided there is actually no forum shopping, she citing this Court‘s ruling in, inter alia, Cabardo v. Court of Appeals that failure to state in the certificate of non-forum shopping that he undertakes to inform the Court of any petition which might be filed, as required under Revised Circular No. 28-91, may be overlooked since it does not appear that any petition related to this case has ever been filed in any other court. On the other hand, to dismiss the petition on this ground would be to uphold technicality over substantial justice.

Valte hastens to add that she had not filed in any court, tribunal or agency any action or petition involving the same issues as those presented in the case at bar, hence, she asserts that she had not committed any act of forum shopping.

Special circumstances or compelling reasons have been held to justify relaxing the rule requiring certification on forum-shopping. For technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, granting substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal. The certificate of non-forum shopping is a mandatory requirement. Nonetheless, this requirement must not be interpreted too literally to defeat the ends of justice.