G.R. No. 189151 - Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo vs. Court of Appeals and Amado Bravo, Jr.

The petitioners, Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo, were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Br. 23-749-03 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela, against respondent Amado Bravo, Jr.
On January 21, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision adverse to the petitioners.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the RTC on April 25, 2008 (received May 6, 2008).
The petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 7, 2008.

Former counsel for the petitioners withdrew, and the Law Firm of Lapeña & Associates formally entered their appearance with the CA in January 2009.
On January 20, 2009, the CA noted the substitution of lawyers and directed the appellants to remit a deficient amount of P20.00 within 5 days.
On January 30, 2009, the CA issued a resolution requiring the filing of the appellant's brief within 45 days from receipt.

Amado Bravo, Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated April 2, 2009, alleging that the petitioners failed to file their appellant's brief within the 45-day reglementary period.
The petitioners opposed, contending that they did not receive the January 30, 2009 CA resolution requiring the filing of their brief.

On May 18, 2009, the CA dismissed the appeal for abandonment due to failure to file the required brief within the reglementary period.
The CA clarified on May 25, 2009, that the January 30, 2009 resolution was received by a certain Ruel de Tomas on February 5, 2009.
The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on June 5, 2009, asserting non-receipt of the resolution, and in a June 16, 2009 manifestation claimed that "Ruel de Tomas" was not an employee or authorized person of their counsel.
On June 29, 2009, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration.

The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, asserting improper service of the resolution and requesting the dismissal be set aside in the interest of justice and equity.

Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the Court of Appeals for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period was proper.
Whether the petitioners properly availed themselves of the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the CA resolutions dismissing their appeal.