Facts:

The case involves the petitioners, the Heirs of the Late Cruz Barredo, against the respondents, Virgilio L. Asis and Maude Masa Asis. The dispute centers around a seven-hectare parcel of land located in Roxas City. On February 3, 1997, the petitioners initiated an action for Cancellation of Certificate of Title and Damages against the respondents. After a trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision on July 21, 2000, dismissing the petitioners' complaint for lack of merit. The RTC ordered the cancellation of the annotation of lis pendens on Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-34929 and required the petitioners to pay the respondents P200,000.00 in attorney's fees and P50,000.00 in litigation expenses. Following this, the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal through their counsel, Atty. Ray B. Fagutao. The Court of Appeals issued a Notice to File Brief on February 7, 2001, granting the petitioners 45 days to submit their brief. However, the petitioners fai...

Facts:

1. Initiation of the Case: On February 3, 1997, the petitioners, Heirs of the Late Cruz Barredo, filed an action for Cancellation of Certificate of Title and Damages against the respondents, Spouses Virgilio L. Asis and Maude Masa Asis, concerning a seven-hectare parcel of land in Roxas City.
2. RTC Decision: After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petitioners' complaint on July 21, 2000, for lack of merit. The RTC also ordered the cancellation of the annotation of lis pendens on the title and directed the petitioners to pay the respondents P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P50,000.00 as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of Appeal: The petitioners, through their counsel Atty. Ray B. Fagutao, filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC forwarded the records to the Court of Appeals.
4. Failure to File Brief: The Court of Appeals issued a Notice to File Brief on February 7, 2001, giving the petitioners 45 days to file their appellants' brief. Despite receiving the notice on February 20, 2001, the petitioners failed to file the brief.
5. Dismissal of Appeal: On November 29, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for abandonment due to the failure to file the brief.
6. Motion for Reconsideration: The petitioners, through new counsel Atty. Diosdado B. Solidum, Jr., filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Petition for Relief from Judgment on March 1, 2002, claiming they received the November 29, 2001 Resolution on December 10, 2001, and that their former counsel’s negligence deprived them of due process.
7. Respondents’ Opposition: The respondents opposed the motion, arguing it was filed out of time and that the petition for relief was improper and unverified.
8. Appellate Court’s Denial: The Court of Appeals denied the motion on April 29, 2002, agreeing with the respondents.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Right to Appeal: The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with procedural rules. Failure to comply with these rules results in the loss of the right to appeal.
2. Negligence of Counsel: A client is generally bound by the negligence or mistakes of their counsel. Exceptions to this rule require a showing of gross negligence, which was not proven in this case.
3. Due Process: Due process was satisfied as the petitioners were given a full trial by the RTC. The dismissal of their appeal was due to their failure to comply with procedural rules, not a denial of due process.
4. Strict Compliance with Rules: Procedural rules must be strictly followed to ensure the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business. Relaxation of these rules is only warranted in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.
5. Award of Damages: The award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses was justified, as the petitioners’ action was deemed unfounded and caused unnecessary litigation.