Title
De Liano vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 142316
Decision Date
Nov 22, 2001
A third-party mortgagor sought cancellation of real estate mortgages; SMC's appeal dismissed due to procedural non-compliance, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 142316)

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • On March 30, 1998, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 227, rendered a Decision in Civil Case No. Q-95-24332 ordering the cancellation of annotations on TCT No. 299551 and directing the release of pertinent documents, including the owner’s duplicate copy and mortgage contracts.
    • The decision further required San Miguel Corporation (SMC) to pay moral damages of P100,000.00, attorney’s fees of P50,000.00, and costs of suit to Benjamin A. Tango, the private respondent.
  • Parties Involved
    • Petitioners:
      • Francisco A.G. De Liano
      • Alberto O. Villa-Abrille, Jr.
      • San Miguel Corporation (SMC)
    • Respondents:
      • The Honorable Court of Appeals
      • Benjamin A. Tango, a private respondent
    • Other parties include the spouses Bernardino and Carmelita Ibarra, who were involved as third party mortgagors executing accommodation or third party mortgages on behalf of SMC.
  • Procedural History and Filing of Appeal
    • Petitioner SMC, along with De Liano and Abrille, appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals.
    • Counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Edgar B. Afable, filed an Appellants’ Brief which failed to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
      • The brief omitted essential components such as the Subject Index, Table of Cases and Authorities with page references, and the required page references in the Statement of the Case, Statement of Facts, and Arguments.
      • These non-compliances constituted “pure technicalities” as raised by the private respondent.
  • Dismissal of the Appeal
    • On March 8, 1999, the private respondent promptly filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal” citing the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief.
    • The Court of Appeals, relying on Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the appeal.
      • The dismissal was based on the failure to include a specific assignment of errors and proper citations (page references) as mandated by the rules.
    • Despite a subsequent “Motion to Admit Amended Defendants-Appellants’ Brief” filed by counsel, the amended brief still suffered from similar defects and was not in conformity with the prescribed format.
  • Contentions Raised by the Petitioner
    • Petitioner SMC contended that:
      • The dismissal was predicated purely on technical defects despite SMC having attempted to correct these deficiencies.
      • The appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal without examining the merits of the underlying substance of the case, notably, whether a third party mortgagor could unilaterally cancel the mortgage without consent.
    • The petitioner argued that the technical lapses were “harmless errors” and requested liberality in the interpretation and application of the technical rules.
  • Discussion on Appellate Procedure and Requirements
    • Detailed exposition of Section 13, Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court was provided, describing:
      • The necessity of a subject index to facilitate efficient review.
      • The critical role of a properly enumerated assignment of errors.
      • The importance of a clearly stated “Statement of the Case” and “Statement of Facts” with proper page references to the record.
    • Reference was made to precedents such as Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals which underscored that the right to appeal is statutory and requires strict compliance with the procedural rules.
    • The appellate process was further elucidated—explaining that decisions in original jurisdiction cases undergo two distinct stages (completion of records and study/report), and that the merits of an appeal are only examined in the second stage.
    • It was noted that the case was dismissed during the completion stage, thereby precluding any substantive review of the issues raised.
  • Representation and Corporate Accountability
    • It was also observed that Atty. Afable, who filed the briefs, is also an employee of SMC.
    • Despite this, the rule that a corporation is bound by the actions of its duly authorized counsel was affirmed, as evidenced by SMC’s board resolution authorizing Afable’s representation.

Issues:

  • Procedural Non-Compliance
    • Whether the failure to comply with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 44 (such as the absence of a subject index, proper assignments of errors, and page references) justifies the dismissal of the appeal.
    • Whether such technical deficiencies can be treated as “harmless errors” when the substance of the case may have merit.
  • Merits vs. Technicalities
    • Whether the appellate court should have examined the substantive issues of the appeal (i.e., the ability of a third party mortgagor to cancel a mortgage without the consent of the debtor and creditor) before dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds.
    • Whether the failure to cure the defects in the amended brief should lead to the irrevocable dismissal of the appeal.
  • Authority and Representation
    • Whether the corporate status of SMC and the authority of its counsel bind the corporation despite procedural deficiencies in the filing.
    • Whether the principle governing strict compliance in appellate practice applies uniformly regardless of any potential substantive merit.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms