Case Summary (G.R. No. 156809)
Antecedent Facts and MTCC Decision
On January 18, 2000, petitioner’s administrator filed an unlawful detainer action with damages against respondents for occupying portions of the subject land. On June 27, 2000, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 4, Davao City, rendered judgment:
a) Ordered respondents to vacate and remove their structures at their expense;
b) Awarded P500.00 per month per defendant for use and occupation from decision date until vacation;
c) Awarded P5,000.00 attorney’s fee per defendant;
d) Imposed costs of suit.
Compulsory counterclaims were dismissed.
Regional Trial Court Proceedings
Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City. On September 14, 2000, the RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file an appeal memorandum under Section 7(b), Rule 40. On petitioner’s motion, the RTC, on September 22, 2000, remanded the case to the MTCC for execution of the MTCC judgment. Respondents then filed a Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial on October 3, 2000, before the MTCC, which ordered issuance of a writ of execution on October 16, 2000. On October 30, 2000, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, ruling it lacked jurisdiction after dismissing the appeal.
Court of Appeals Decision and Reasoning
Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) to review the RTC’s September 14, 2000 Order. In its July 26, 2002 Decision, the CA:
• Set aside the RTC dismissal of the appeal, distinguishing failure to file a notice of appeal (jurisdictional) from failure to file an appeal memorandum (mere abandonment);
• Emphasized that procedural rules should promote substantial justice rather than defeat it on technicalities;
• Recognized exceptions to the rule binding clients to their counsel’s negligence when gross or palpable mistakes would deprive them of property;
• Held that respondents’ counsel only realized the omission upon receipt of the dismissal order and that relief should be granted.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 10, 2002.
Issue on Appeal and Applicable Rules
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s dismissal of respondents’ appeal for failure to file an appeal memorandum. Key rules considered:
• Rules on Summary Procedure apply to proceedings before the MTCC in unlawful detainer actions and prohibit certain pleadings, but do not govern appeals before the RTC.
• Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that “[f]ailure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.”
Supreme Court Ruling and Legal Basis
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution, ruling as follows:
- Rules on Summary Procedure ceased to apply once the case was appealed to the RTC; thus, respondents’
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 156809)
Antecedent Facts
- On January 18, 2000, Atty. Oswaldo Macadangdang, as court-appointed administrator of the Estate of Felomina G. Macadangdang, filed an unlawful detainer action with damages against twelve respondents.
- Respondents occupied by mere tolerance portions of four parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-6084 to T-6087 in Davao City.
- The MTCC, Branch 4, Davao City, rendered judgment on June 27, 2000:
• Ordering respondents to vacate and remove their structures at their expense;
• Imposing P500.00 monthly rental per defendant from decision date until vacation;
• Awarding P5,000.00 attorney’s fee per defendant;
• Awarding costs of suit;
• Dismissing compulsory counterclaims.
Ruling of the Trial Court
- Respondents appealed to the RTC but failed to file an appeal memorandum.
- On September 14, 2000, the RTC dismissed the appeal for that failure.
- On September 22, 2000, upon petitioner’s motion, the RTC remanded the case to the MTCC for execution of judgment.
- Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial on October 3, 2000.
- On October 16, 2000, the MTCC ordered issuance of a writ of execution after payment of fees.
- On October 30, 2000, the RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration, ruling it lacked jurisdiction after dismissing the appeal.
- Respondents then filed a petition