FACTS:

This case involves a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance filed by Macrosman Dona (respondent) against Martin Peñoso and his mother Elizabeth Peñoso (petitioners) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. The respondent alleged that the petitioners constructed their house in front of his house and lot against his objections, thereby constituting a public nuisance.

In their defense, the petitioners argued that their house was constructed by the late Praxido Peñoso, Martin's father and Elizabeth's husband, before the respondent arrived in the area. They also claimed that their house did not constitute a public nuisance and did not cause harm to the respondent. Furthermore, they asserted that the respondent had no authority to file the complaint.

On October 1, 1997, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, stating that the respondent had no cause of action against them and that the house in question was constructed on public property. The MTC ordered the dismissal of the complaint and the payment of attorney's fees to the petitioners.

The respondent appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which, on January 2, 2002, reversed the MTC's decision. The RTC declared the petitioners' house as a nuisance and ordered them to remove it at their own expense. The RTC also awarded attorney's fees and litigation expenses to the respondent.

The petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the requirement of submitting a written explanation on why personal service was not done and for insufficient payment of docket fees. The petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA.

Hence, the petitioners filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari questioning the dismissal of their petition by the CA. They argued that the CA erred in dismissing their petition because they subsequently complied with the requirements and because their pleading had prima facie merit.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to include the required explanation on why personal service upon the respondent was not done and for failure to pay the requisite docket fees.

RULING:

1. The Petition has merit. The Court held that while Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court requires that the service and filing of pleadings should be done personally whenever practicable, the rule allowing other modes of service with a written explanation is discretionary. The Court may exercise its discretion considering the practicability of personal service, the importance of the subject matter or the issues involved, and the prima facie merit of the pleading sought to be expunged. In this case, the Court found that the petitioners' pleadings have prima facie merit, particularly on the issues of whether their house is a public nuisance, whether it was constructed on an abandoned road, and whether the alleged nuisance is specially injurious to the respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

• Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court requires that service and filing of pleadings should be done personally whenever practicable.

• The court may exercise its discretion to allow other modes of service with a written explanation if the practicability of personal service, the importance of the subject matter or the issues involved, and the prima facie merit of the pleading are considered.

• The rule requiring a written explanation for non-personal service is mandatory.