G.R. No. 210233 - Republic vs. Court of Appeals

Parties and nature of action
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as counsel of record; Respondents: spouses Rodolfo Sy and Belen Sy, Lolita Sy, and spouses Teodorico and Leah Adarna.
Cause: Cancellation of miscellaneous sales patents and corresponding certificates of title and reversion of the lands to the public domain on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation; case docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-6785.

Trial court disposition and appellate initiation
RTC, Cebu City, Branch 21 (Presiding Judge Eric F. Menchavez) rendered judgment in favor of respondents on October 10, 2007, dismissing the Republic’s complaint and upholding the regularity and validity of the patents and titles.
A notice of appeal was filed by the Republic through its deputized legal counsel on November 23, 2007. The RTC gave due course to the appeal by order dated December 4, 2007.

Notices, correspondence and handling by DENR and OSG
The DENR Region VII–Legal Division (the deputized special counsel) received the RTC decision on November 14, 2007; the OSG received its copy on April 1, 2008.
The Court of Appeals (CA) sent a Notice to File Brief to Atty. Ferdinand S. Alberca, Special Counsel of the OSG assigned at DENR Region VII, which was received on December 1, 2009. No appellant’s brief was filed thereafter.

CA dismissals, reinstatement and communications breakdown
CA Resolution dated May 6, 2011 dismissed the Republic’s appeal for failure to file the required brief. A copy of this resolution was received by DENR Region VII–Legal Division on May 17, 2011.
DENR transmitted the dismissal resolution to the OSG on May 19, 2011; OSG filed a motion for reconsideration on June 1, 2011.
CA Resolution dated September 14, 2011 granted the OSG’s motion and reinstated the appeal, ordering the Republic to file its appellant’s brief within 45 days. That resolution was furnished to DENR Region VII–Legal Division but not furnished to the OSG.
CA Resolution dated July 5, 2012 again dismissed the appeal for failure to file brief. Entry of Judgment was made on August 21, 2012. CA issued a Resolution dated August 20, 2013 declaring the July 5, 2012 resolution final and executory. The OSG was not furnished with the CA resolutions of September 14, 2011, July 5, 2012, August 20, 2013, nor with the Entry of Judgment dated August 21, 2012.
The OSG became aware of the subsequent CA actions only after the Regional Executive Director of DENR Region VII sent an indorsement dated September 27, 2013.

Relief sought before the Supreme Court
OSG (acting for the Republic) filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing: (a) CA Resolution dated July 5, 2012 dismissing the appeal for failure to file appellant’s brief; (b) CA Resolution dated August 20, 2013 declaring the July 5, 2012 resolution final and executory; and (c) the Entry of Judgment dated August 21, 2012.
OSG’s principal contention: the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and violated the Republic’s right to due process by failing to furnish copies of the CA resolutions and entry of judgment to the OSG (counsel of record), instead sending them to the deputized DENR counsel, thereby denying the OSG the opportunity to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.

Notice and representation
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the Republic’s appeal for failure to file appellant’s brief when the OSG (counsel of record) was not furnished copies of the CA resolutions reinstating the appeal and later dismissing it, and instead the copies were sent to the DENR deputized counsel.
Whether notices, resolutions and entries of judgment served on the deputized DENR counsel are binding on the Republic when such documents were not actually received by the Solicitor General/OSG.

Due process and appellate rights of the State
Whether the Republic (through the OSG) was deprived of due process when the CA declared the reglementary period to have lapsed without the OSG having actual notice.
Whether the belated or non-filing of briefs by the State due to errors or omissions by its officials or agents deprives the government of its right to appeal in land registration or related cases.