Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RICARDO C. CADAYONA v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 158708 2010-08-18	JUSTINA MANIEBO v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
The petitioner was not entitled to a liberal construction of the rules of procedure. Although her petition cited decisions of the Court declaring that only the copies of the decisions or final orders assailed on appeal needed to be certified,[23] it is acknowledged even in the cited decisions of the Court that there should at least be a substantial compliance with the rules. She should not forget that her petition for review in the CA was essentially assailing not only CSC Resolution 02-1028 (denying her motion for reconsideration) but also CSC Resolution No. 02-0433 (the very decision of the CSC finding her guilty of possession of the spurious report of rating, falsification, grave misconduct, and dishonesty, and imposing the penalty of dismissal from the service). In Heirs of Generoso A. Juaban v. Bancale,[24] where only the order denying the respondents' motion for reconsideration was alleged as the subject of the appeal, the Court went beyond the literal content of respondents' notice of appeal and held that the appeal should be construed to include the final order that the respondents were seeking to be reconsidered when they filed their motion for reconsideration, because such approach was more in accord with the intent of the parties. Considering that the petitioner's appeal also assailed CSC Resolution No. 02-0433, she should have furnished the CA with a certified true copy of that resolution.
	GR No. 172891 2007-11-22	SPS. HENRY LANARIA AND LATE BELEN LANARIA AS SUBSTITUTED BY FRANCIS JOHN LANARIA v. FRANCISCO M. PLANTA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In an En Banc Decision promulgated on 3 February 2000, this Court declared that Rule 42, governing petitions for review from the RTC to the Court of Appeals, requires that only the judgments or final orders of the lower courts need to be certified true copies or duplicate originals.[24] This rule was reiterated in Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz[25] emphasizing that supporting documents of the petition are not required to be certified true copies. Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz stressed:In Cadayona v. CA, the Court interpreted the requirement under Section 6(c) of Rule 43, which was similar to Section 2(d) of Rule 42, and held that "we do not construe the above-quoted section as imposing the requirement that all supporting papers accompanying the petition should be certified true copies." It is sufficient that the assailed judgment, order or resolution be a certified true copy. Jurisprudence[26] on this matter has consistently held that in petitions for review as governed under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court, only judgments or final orders of the lower courts need to be certified true copies or duplicate originals.
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
From the foregoing premises, the inescapable conclusion is that only plain and clear copies of the material portions of the records are required under Sec. 3 of Rule 43. This finding is buttressed by our ruling in Cadayona v. CA, where it was held that only judgments or final orders of the lower courts are needed to be certified true copies or duplicate originals.[17] There is no plausible reason why a different treatment or stricter requirement should be applied to petitions under Rule 43.
	GR No. 169501 2007-06-08	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. ROSARIO T. ALZUL VELASCO, JR., J.
From the foregoing premises, the inescapable conclusion is that only plain and clear copies of the material portions of the records are required under Sec. 3 of Rule 43. This finding is buttressed by our ruling in Cadayona v. CA, where it was held that only judgments or final orders of the lower courts are needed to be certified true copies or duplicate originals.[17] There is no plausible reason why a different treatment or stricter requirement should be applied to petitions under Rule 43.
	GR No. 138193 2003-03-05	OSM SHIPPING PHILIPPINES v. NLRC PANGANIBAN, J.
Section 3 of Rule 46 does not require that all supporting papers and documents accompanying a petition be duplicate originals or certified true copies. Even under Rule 65 on certiorari and prohibition, petitions need to be accompanied only by duplicate originals or certified true copies of the questioned judgment, order or resolution. Other relevant documents and pleadings attached to it may be mere machine copies thereof.[12] Numerous decisions issued by this Court emphasize that in appeals under Rule 45 and in original civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rules 46 and 56, what is required to be certified is the copy of the questioned judgment, final order or resolution.[13] Since the LA's Decision was not the questioned ruling, it did not have to be certified. What had to be certified was the NLRC Decision. And indeed it was.
	GR No. 136096 2001-02-07	NELIA ATILLO v. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY GONZAGA-REYES, J.
In the recent case of Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz[7] the CA dismissed the petition of therein petitioner for failure to attach the certified true copies of such material portions of the record as would support the allegations in the petition. We ruled that based on the case of Cadayona vs. CA[8], not all of the supporting papers accompanying the petition should be certified. The documents attached by therein petitioner consisted only of the original duplicate copies of the assailed decisions and orders of the lower court but the Contract to Sell, a document central to the dispute, was not annexed. Nonetheless, we declared that there was substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 since the MTC Decision attached to the petition reproduced verbatim the Contract to Sell. Moreover, we noted that therein petitioner annexed in the Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision copies of the Contract to Sell, the Original Certificate of Title, the Tax Declaration of the land in dispute, and the notarized rescission of the Contract to Sell. The efforts of therein petitioner to substantiate her allegations in her petition were clearly evident, thereby warranting reasonable leniency. Thus, we remanded the case to the CA so that it could decide the case on the merits.
	GR No. 140436 2000-07-18	CORNELIA P. CUSI - HERNANDEZ v. SPS. EDUARDO DIAZ AND AMELIA MANGAHAS PANGANIBAN, J.
The fact that no certified true copy of the Contract to Sell was attached to the Petition before the CA did not weaken the petitioner's case. In Cadayona v. CA,[13] the Court interpreted the requirement under Section 6 (c) of Rule 43,[14] which was similar to Section 2 (d) of Rule 42, and held that "we do not construe the above-quoted section as imposing the requirement that all supporting papers accompanying the petition should be certified true copies."