4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly petition before the Appellate Court was not accompanied by an explanation why they resorted to other modes of service as required by the rules. Instead, they argue that there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the rule as the petition contains the required affidavit of service that shows that the petition has indeed been served on the parties concerned. Moreover, petitioners claim that their failure to indicate an explanation was a purely technical error which does not call for an outright dismissal of the petition. Citing the oft-quoted doctrine laid down in Alonso vs. Villamor[20], they argue that technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance, should deserve scant consideration from the courts[21]. We are not persuaded. In the case at bar, there was no substantial compliance made by petitioners of the requirement in Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The utter disregard of the rules made by petitioners cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction and substantial compliance.[22] The fact that an affidavit of service accompanied their petition does not amount to a substantial compliance with the requirement of an explanation why other modes of service other than personal service were resorted to. An affidavit of service, under Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is required merely as proof that service has been made to the other parties in a case. Thus, it is a requirement totally different from the requirement that an explanation be made if personal service of pleadings was not resorted to. In fact, a cursory reading of the affidavit of service[23] attached by petitioners in their petition before the Court of Appeals shows that it merely states that a certain Rogelio Mindol served copies of the pleading to the counsel of private respondent, the NLRC, and the Solicitor-General by registered mail. There is not even a hint of an explanation why such mode of service was resorted to. With respect to petitioners' reliance on the much-abused doctrine laid down in the case of Alonso vs. Villamor and other analogous cases, we adhere to our pronouncement in the case of Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals[24]. "To our mind, if motions to expunge or strike out pleadings for violation of Section 11 of Rule 13 were to be indiscriminately resolved under Section 6 of Rule 1[25] or Alonso vs. Villamor and other analogous cases, then Section 11 would become meaningless and its sound purpose negated." We are aware that in the cited case, the violation of Section 11, Rule 13 committed by the party therein was eventually condoned and the pleading was allowed to remain in the records. However, such action by the Court was premised on the fact that counsel therein may not have been fully aware of the requirements and ramifications of the said provision as the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure had only been in effect for a few months. Such circumstance does not obtain in the case at bar considering that it has been years since the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, our https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52244 5/7