Case Summary (G.R. No. 189151)
Substitution of counsel and Court of Appeals directions
In January 2009 the Law Firm of Lapeña & Associates formally entered their appearance for the petitioners following withdrawal of prior counsel. The CA noted the substitution on January 20, 2009 and issued a separate resolution on January 30, 2009 directing the appellants to file their Appellant’s Brief within 45 days from receipt; the Judicial Records Division later reported that the reglementary period expired on March 22, 2009.
Motion to dismiss filed by appellee and petitioners’ opposition
On April 2, 2009 (filed April 8, 2009), appellee Amado Bravo, Jr. moved to dismiss the appeal under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, asserting failure to file and serve the required brief within the prescribed time. The petitioners promptly opposed, alleging non-receipt of the CA’s January 30, 2009 Resolution and therefore contending they had no deadline to meet.
Court of Appeals’ dismissal and subsequent reconsideration
On May 18, 2009 the CA issued a resolution declaring the appeal abandoned and dismissing it pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50, because the required brief was not filed within the reglementary period. The CA noted service of the January 30 resolution to a person identified as “Ruel de Tomas” on February 5, 2009. The petitioners filed a Compliance and Motion for Reconsideration on June 5, 2009 claiming lack of proper service; they later manifested that Lapeña & Associates had no employee by that name but conceded an occasional visitor named “Ruel” might have received the document inadvertently. The CA denied reconsideration on June 29, 2009.
Relief sought in the Supreme Court and central issue
The petitioners brought a Rule 65 certiorari petition to the Supreme Court, challenging the CA Resolutions of May 18 and June 29, 2009. Their principal contentions were (1) they were never properly served with the January 30, 2009 CA Resolution; (2) the individual who apparently received the resolution was not their employee; and (3) the CA should have resolved the appeal on the merits in the interest of justice rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds. The sole legal issue framed by the Court is whether the CA properly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.
Appropriate remedy analysis: Rule 45 versus Rule 65
The Supreme Court observed that petitioners resorted to Rule 65 certiorari, but under settled rules a party aggrieved by a final CA disposition must ordinarily invoke a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court reiterated the controlling distinction: an order is “final” if it completely disposes of the action or a particular stage of it, in which case appeal (Rule 45) is the remedy; interlocutory orders that leave substantial proceedings to be had are challenged via Rule 65. Because the CA Resolutions dismissed the appeal as abandoned—thus completely disposing of the appeal—the proper remedy would have been a Rule 45 petition for review. The Court nevertheless proceeded to address the merits arguendo.
Standard for certiorari and abuse of discretion
The Court reiterated that certiorari under Rule 65 will only prosper where there is a grave abuse of discretion—conduct arbitrary, despotic, or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The power to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief under Section 1(e), Rule 50 is discretionary with the CA, not mandatory; however, that discretion must be exercised with fairness, considering the circumstances.
Application of Rule 50 §1(e) and the CA’s exercise of discretion
Section 1(e), Rule 50 authorizes dismissal where an appellant fails to serve and file the required brief within the time provided. The Court acknowledged precedent that dismissal on this ground is a matter of judicial discretion that must heed principles of fairness. Applying those standards to the record, the Supreme Court found no patently gross or whimsical abuse of discretion by the CA in dismissing the appeal.
Findings on service, evidentiary weight, and presumption of regularity
The Court emphasized that the CA’s conclusion that the petitioners received the January 30, 2009 resolution was supported by the Judicial Records Division report and certification from the Postmaster of Quezon City. The petitioners’ mere denial of receipt and equivocal assertion that “Ruel” was unrelated to counsel were insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity afforded to official records of the CA and the Post Office. The Court therefore deemed the petitioners’ excuse for non-filing “flimsy and discreditable.”
Substantial justice principle and its limits in this case
Although the Court acknowled
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189151)
Title, Citation, and Panel
- Reported at 680 Phil. 334, Second Division, G.R. No. 189151, January 25, 2012.
- Case captioned: Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals (4th Division) and Amado Bravo, Jr., respondents.
- Resolution authored by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
- Final disposition concurred in by Carpio (Chairperson), Perez, Sereno, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.; an additional member sat in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special Order No. 1174 dated January 9, 2012.
Procedural History — Trial Court to Supreme Court Petition
- Petitioners were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Br. 23-749-03, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela, styled "Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo v. Amado Bravo, Jr."
- RTC rendered a decision adverse to the petitioners on January 21, 2008.
- Petitioners sought reconsideration; RTC denied it in an Order dated April 25, 2008, which was received on May 6, 2008.
- Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on May 7, 2008.
- In January 2009, the law firm of LapeAa & Associates filed a formal entry of appearance as counsel for petitioners following the withdrawal of former counsel Atty. Panfilo Soriano; substitution was noted in the CA Resolution dated January 20, 2009.
- The January 20, 2009 CA Resolution also directed appellants to remit a deficient amount of P20.00 within five days from notice.
- CA issued a Resolution on January 30, 2009 directing filing of the Appellant's Brief within 45 days from receipt.
- Respondent Amado Bravo, Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated April 2, 2009 (filed April 8, 2009) alleging failure to file the Appellant's Brief within the 45-day period; invoked Section 1(e), Rule 50, Rules of Court.
- Petitioners filed an Opposition/Comment on April 8, 2009, contending they or their counsel did not receive the January 30, 2009 Resolution requiring the brief.
- On May 18, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution declaring the appeal abandoned and dismissing it under Section 1(e), Rule 50, stating the reglementary period expired on March 22, 2009 and citing the Judicial Records Division Report dated May 5, 2009.
- CA issued another Resolution on May 25, 2009 noting that the January 30, 2009 notice was received by a certain "Ruel de Tomas" on February 5, 2009.
- Petitioners filed a Compliance and Motion for Reconsideration on June 5, 2009, asserting they were never furnished a copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution.
- Petitioners filed a Manifestation on June 16, 2009 asserting LapeAa & Associates had no employee named Ruel de Tomas and explaining that Atty. Torenio C. Cabacungan, Jr., an associate, knew a person named "Ruel" who sometimes visited the office and who may have accidentally received the resolution; argued such receipt should not be considered official service.
- CA denied the motion for reconsideration on June 29, 2009.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court assailing the CA Resolutions dated May 18 and June 29, 2009.
Core Issue Presented
- Whether the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period was proper.
Preliminary Procedural Determination by the Supreme Court
- The petitioners’ resort to certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy to challenge the CA Resolutions dismissing their appeal.
- The Court explained that the proper remedy depends on whether the challenged disposition is final or interlocutory: a final order is appealable (petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court), while interlocutory matters are subject to certiorari under Rule 65.
- The CA Resolutions dismissed the appeal as abandoned and therefore completely disposed of the petitioners’ appeal, making them final orders; the appropriate remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a Rule 65 petition.