4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative." As to the second set of documents, mere photocopies may be attached to the petition. [46] Further, as a general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed.[47] However, since the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record which must accompany the petition is not specified, the appellate court is left with the discretion to determine the necessity for copies of pleading and other documents.[48] Thus, the Court in Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora,[49] provided the guideposts to be, followed, to wit: First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition. Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also be found in another document already attached to the petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is attached. Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the higher interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.[50] Here, the copy of the RTC Decision[51] dated July 21, 2016 with the notation "ORIGINAL SIGNED" attached to the petition for certiorari was not a duplicate copy; thus not compliant with the requirement under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65. However, after the denial of his petition for certiorari, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[52] with a certified true copy of the RTC Decision dated July 21, 2016.[53] Hence, the Court considers it as substantial compliance with the requirement under Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Section 1, Rule 65. Further, as regards the Decision dated March 20, 2014 that ruled on the civil case for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages against petitioner and Manginsay, the Court deems it proper to explain that the Decision assailed in the petition for certiorari is the Decision dated July 21, 2016, which denied petitioner's petition for relief and not the Decision dated March 20, 2014. Thus, a mere photocopy of the Decision dated March 20, 2014 would have sufficed. Notably, what petitioner attached in his petition for certiorari was a photocopy of the aforesaid Decision with the notation "ORIGINAL SIGNED."[54] Considering the characterization of a duplicate original, i.e., duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the authenticity and completeness of such copy, it follows that what petitioner should https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374 6/16