BERGONIA v. CA

 

SPOUSES DAVID BERGONIA and LUZVIMINDA CASTILLO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (4th DIVISION) and AMADO BRAVO, JR., respondents.

[G.R. No. 189151. January 25, 2012.]

TOPIC: Procedural rules are mandatory

FACTS:

The petitioners were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Br. 23-749-03 RTC Isabela. On January 21, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision adverse to the petitioners. The petitioners consequently sought a reconsideration of the said decision but the same was denied by the RTC in an Order dated April 25, 2008 which was received on May 6, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal.

In January 2009, the Law Firm of Lapeña & Associates filed with the CA its formal entry of appearance as counsel for the petitioners, in view of the withdrawal of the former counsel, Atty. Soriano. The substitution of lawyers was noted in the Resolution dated January 20, 2009. The CA further directed the appellants therein to remit the deficient amount of P20.00 within 5 days from notice. Thereafter, the CA issued a Resolution on January 30, 2009 requiring the filing of the Appellant's Brief within 45 days from receipt.

Respondent Amado Bravo, Jr. (the defendant-appellee therein), filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal stating that the petitioners failed to file their Appellant's Brief within the 45-day period granted to them by the CA in the Resolution dated January 30, 2009. Citing Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal.

In an Opposition/Comment, the petitioners alleged that the Motion to Dismiss filed by the respondent had no basis considering that they or their counsel did not receive any resolution from the CA requiring them to file their Appellants' Brief within 45 days. 

On May 18, 2009, the CA issued the assailed resolution which reads that, the appeal is hereby considered ABANDONED and is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1 (e), Rule 50, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

On May 25, 2009, the CA issued a Resolution which stated, among others, that the January 30, 2009 notice to file brief addressed to petitioners' counsel was received by a certain Ruel de Tomas on February 5, 2009.

On June 5, 2009, the petitioners filed a Compliance and Motion for Reconsideration  praying that the dismissal of their appeal be set aside in the interest of justice and equity. The petitioners claimed that their failure to file their brief was due to the fact that they were never furnished a copy of the said January 30, 2009 Resolution of the CA directing them to file their brief.

Subsequently, in a Manifestation filed on June 16, 2009, the petitioners asserted that their counsel — the Law Firm of Lapeña and Associates — has no employee in the name of Ruel de Tomas.

 

However, they explained that Atty. Torenio C. Cabacungan, Jr., an associate of the law firm personally knows a person named "Ruel" who sometimes visits their office and who may have accidentally received the said January 30, 2009 Resolution of the CA. In such a case, the same should not be considered officially served upon them as the latter was not connected with nor authorized to perform any act for and in behalf of counsel.

The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.

Undaunted, the petitioners instituted the instant petition for certiorari before this Court asserting the following arguments:

(1) their failure to file their appellants' brief was merely due to the fact that they were never properly served with a copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution of the CA;

(2) Ruel de Tomas, the person who apparently received the copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution of the CA, was not their employee; and

(3) the CA, in the interest of justice and equity, should have decided their appeal on the merits instead of dismissing the same purely on technical grounds.

 

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to assail the May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 Resolutions issued by the CA.

2. Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal for their failure to file the appellants' brief within the reglementary period is proper

RULING:

1. No, resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy to assail the May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 Resolutions issued by the CA.

In determining the appropriate remedy or remedies available, a party aggrieved by a court order, resolution or decision must first correctly identify the nature of the order, resolution or decision he intends to assail. 

It bears stressing that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari can be availed of only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states that an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or a particular matter therein.

Concomitant to the foregoing, the remedy of a party against an adverse disposition of the CA would depend on whether the same is a final order or merely an interlocutory order. If the Order or Resolution issued by the CA is in the nature of a final order, the remedy of the aggrieved party would be to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Otherwise, the appropriate remedy would be to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Here, the assailed May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 Resolutions issued by the CA had considered the petitioners' appeal below as having been abandoned and, accordingly, dismissed. Thus, the assailed Resolutions are in the nature of a final order as the same completely disposed of the petitioners' appeal with the CA. Thus, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this court and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

 

2. Yes, the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal for their failure to file the appellants' brief within the reglementary period is proper.

Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court succinctly provides that:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules; . . .

In a long line of cases, this Court has held that the CA's authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief is a matter of judicial discretion. Thus, a dismissal based on this ground is neither mandatory nor ministerial; the fundamentals of justice and fairness must be observed, bearing in mind the background and web of circumstances surrounding the case. 

Having in mind the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, we find that the petitioners' excuse for their failure to file their brief was flimsy and discreditable and, thus, the propriety of the dismissal of their appeal. Indeed, as aptly ruled by the CA, the records of the case clearly showed that the petitioners, through their counsel, received the January 30, 2009 Resolution which required them to file their appellants' brief. Thus:]

The records of this case are clear that the Resolution of 30 January 2009 requiring the [petitioners] to file the required brief was received by a certain Ruel de Tomas for [petitioners'] counsel on 05 February 2009. Hence, mere denial by [petitioners'] counsel of the receipt of his copy of the Resolution cannot be given weight in the absence of any proof that the said person is neither an employee at his law office nor someone unknown to him. Likewise, it is highly implausible that any person in the building where [petitioners'] counsel holds office would simply receive a correspondence delivered by a postman. 

Verily, the petitioners were only able to offer their bare assertion that they and their counsel did not actually receive a copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution and that the person who apparently received the same was not in any way connected with their counsel. There was no other credible evidence adduced by the petitioners which would persuade us to exculpate them from the effects of their failure to file their brief.

The Court notes that, in concluding that the petitioners indeed received a copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution, the CA was guided by the Report of the Judicial Records Division of the CA and by the certification issued by the Postmaster of Quezon City. Indubitably, the petitioners' bare assertions could not overcome the presumption of regularity in the preparation of the records of the Post Office and that of the CA.

The petitioners' plea for the application of the principles of substantial justice in their favor deserves scant consideration. The petitioners should be reminded that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. While the petitioners adverted to several jurisprudential rulings of this Court which set aside procedural rules, it is noted that there were underlying considerations in those cases which warranted a disregard of procedural technicalities to favor substantial justice. Here, there exists no such consideration.

The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 

In Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses Bautista,  this Court clarified that procedural rules are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed:

 

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

 

In an avuncular case, we emphasized that:

 

Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are, thus, enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. The instant case is no exception to this rule.

 

In the present case, we find no cogent reason to exempt the petitioner from the effects of its failure to comply with the Rules of Court.

 

The right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. More so, as in this case, where petitioner not only neglected to file its brief within the stipulated time but also failed to seek an extension of time for a cogent ground before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.

 

In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be better served. For, indeed, the general objective of procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to promote the administration of justice. In this case, however, such liberality in the application of rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result in the wanton disregard of the rules or cause needless delay in the administration of justice. It is equally settled that, save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. 

 

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions dated May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91665 dismissing the petitioners' appeal are AFFIRMED.