G.R. No. L-49907 - Balleta, Jr. vs. Leviste

On March 22, 1989, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 47, appointed petitioner Gloria Z. Garbo as administratrix of the intestate estate of Manuel G. Garbo.
On June 21, 1989, the intestate estate of Magdalena B. Garbo—Manuel’s wife—filed a petition for the probate of Manuel’s Last Will and Testament, which devised all his properties and assets exclusively to her.
Petitioner opposed the petition for allowance of the Last Will and Testament.

On August 16, 1990, the probate court issued an Order allowing the Last Will and Testament to be probated.
At the same time, the court appointed private respondent Antonio B. Gradiola (in his capacity as administrator for the estate of Magdalena B. Garbo) as administrator of Manuel’s estate, recalling the letters of administration previously issued to the petitioner.

Petitioner filed her notice of appeal and submitted her record on appeal on August 31, 1990.
The private respondent objected to the record on appeal, arguing that pertinent pleadings were omitted.
An Order dated October 15, 1990, was subsequently issued by the probate court, directing petitioner to submit an amended or corrected record on appeal within ten days from receipt.

Instead of filing a properly redrafted record on appeal, petitioner complied by merely attaching the omitted pages to the original record—a method objected to by the private respondent.
On February 5, 1991, the private respondent moved for the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal.
The probate court, via an Order dated February 15, 1991, dismissed petitioner’s appeal after noting that she failed to submit the required comment or a properly amended record within the five-day period provided.

On September 6, 1990, the probate court directed the issuance of letters of administration in favor of the private respondent.
Petitioner, protesting the issuance (arguing it was unjustified due to her pending notice of appeal and the non-finality of the August 16, 1990 Order), filed a motion for reconsideration on September 27, 1990.
The motion for reconsideration was denied by the probate court on January 29, 1991.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals to set aside:

The probate court’s Order dated February 15, 1991, dismissing her appeal.
The Order dated September 6, 1990, directing the issuance of the letters of administration.

On July 17, 1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition without pronouncing on costs.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was also denied.

Petitioner raised a single issue before the Supreme Court: whether the dismissal of her appeal by the probate court (and its affirmation by the Court of Appeals) was proper given her failure to file the amended record on appeal as clearly directed.
She argued that she had substantially complied with the order and invoked a liberal application of the rules, citing Grearte v. The London Assurance.

Whether the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal by the probate court—and its subsequent affirmation by the Court of Appeals—was proper since petitioner failed to file her amended record on appeal in strict compliance with the court’s directive.
Whether the alleged substantial compliance and the invocation of a liberal interpretation of the procedural rules, as argued by petitioner citing Grearte v. The London Assurance, should excuse her deviation from the prescribed filing requirements.