TITLE: LEGASPI VS.

CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL

[G.R. No. 169942]
January 24, 2011| Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J. | STATCON: STRICT VS LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION

PETITIONERS:

BARANGAY DASMARIÑAS thru BARANGAY CAPTAIN MA. ENCARNACION R. LEGASPI, petitioner

vs.

RESPONDENTS:

CREATIVE PLAY CORNER SCHOOL, DR. AMADO J. PIAMONTE, REGINA PIAMONTE

TAMBUNTING, CELINE CONCEPCION LEBRON and CECILE CUNA COLINA, respondents.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Barangay Dasmariñas through Ma. Encarnacion Legaspi filed a complaint before the Office of the
Prosecutor of Makati charging Creative Play Corner School and its alleged owners with falsification
and use of falsified documents. Prosecutor noted the absence of any proof that the subject documents
were indeed falsified, hence, declared a dismissal of the case due to failure to establish probable
cause.

Petitioner thus brought the case before the Department of Justice (DOJ) through a Petition for
Review. The DOJ dismissed the petition and also denied its Motion for Reconsideration after finding
that no error would justify the reversal of Prosecutor’s resolution.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. But before petitioner was able to
file its petition, it first sought for an extension time of 15 days within which to file the same due to
counsel’s heavy workload. The CA granted the extension. Subsequently, petitioner asked for another
extension of five days for the same reason given in its first motion for extension, however filed such 5
days later from the date within which to file its petition for review.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the Petition for Review
on a mere technicality, without considering the substantive grounds on which the Petition for
Review was based - NO
RULING:
The Court denies the petition.

RATIO:

Technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving – that is
not applicable in the case at bar; for requesting for 3 extensions of time to file a petition for review.

As to petitioner’s invocation of liberal application of the rules, we cannot heed the same. “It is true
that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly
followed in the interest of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may
be ignored at will. It bears emphasizing that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed
simply because of non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights.” Like
all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.