You are on page 1of 1

Manila Hotel v. CA Rule 46, Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance.

GR # 143574 | 384 SCRA 515 | July 11, 2002 - It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of
Petition: For review on certiorari service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the
Petitioner: Manila Hotel Corporation court indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall be accompanied by a
Respondent: Court of Appeals and Samuel Acordo clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order,
(Rule 65, Sec. 1 & Rule 46, Sec. 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) resolution or ruling subject thereof, such material portions of the record as
are referred to therein, and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto.
DOCTRINE
The rules may only be relaxed when rigidity would result in a defeat of equity and RULING & RATIO
substantial justice. 1. YES
- The failure of Manila Hotel to comply with the requirements is sufficient
FACTS ground for dismissal.
- Samuel Acordo (Acordo) was hired by Hotel as Food and Beverage Director - The issue posed before the CA is the validity of the Acordos termination.
by Manila Hotel (Hotel). Hence, the need to append copies of the LAs decision and the position
o His services were terminated on the ground of loss of confidence papers of the parties.
- Acordo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. o Oversight and excusable negligence have become an all too
- LA: Dismissed the complaint. familiar and ready excuse.
o Acordo, a managerial employee, was hired to improve profits (he o Rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and
failed). orderliness.
o Hotel was ordered to pay Acordo 1-month salary in lieu of the 30- o The rules may only be relaxed when rigidity would result in a defeat
day advance notice of dismissal. of equity and substantial justice.
- NLRC: Reversed LA.
o Hotel failed to prove that Acordo was hired subject to the condition DISPOSITION
of improving profits. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The appealed
- CA: Dismissed Hotels petition. Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57760 are AFFIRMED.
o Petition was not accompanied with copies of the decision of the LA
and the position papers of the parties NOTES
o The certificate of non-forum shopping was signed by Atty. Isidro, the 1. Liberal construction of the rule has been allowed by the SC in the ff. cases:
Hotels lawyer. a. Where a rigid application will result in manifest failure or
o The petition was not accompanied with a board resolution miscarriage of justice.
authorizing Atty. Isidro to act for Manila Hotel. b. Where the interest of substantial justice will be served.
- CA: Dismissed Hotels motion for reconsideration c. Where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound
o Rule 46, Sec. 3: failure to append copies of relevant documents is and judicious discretion of the Court.
sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. d. Where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with
the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. procedure prescribed.
- Praying for a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure.

ISSUE/S
1. W/N the failure of Manila Hotel to comply with the requirements is sufficient
ground for dismissal.

PROVISIONS
Rule 65, Section 1. Petition for certiorari.
- 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.

Page 1 of 1