Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila



SECOND DIVISION

SPOUSES DAVID BERGONIA and
LUZVIMINDA CASTILLO,
Petitioners,



- verss -




COURT O! APPEALS "#
t$
DIVISION%
G&R& No&
'()'*'

Present:

CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
PEREZ,
SERENO,
REYES, an
and AMADO BRAVO, +R&,
Res,ondents&
PER!AS"#ERNA#E, JJ.

Promul$ate:

%anuar& '(, ')*'

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

RE-ES, J&.

+his is a petition for certiorari uner Rule ,( of the Rules of Court file b&
the spouses -a.i #er$onia an !u/.imina Castillo 0petitioners1 assailin$ the
Resolutions issue b& the Court of Appeals 0CA1 on Ma& *2, '))3
*
4*5 an %une
'3, '))3
'
4'5 in CA"67R7 C8 No7 3*,,(7

9 Aitional Member in lieu of Associate %ustice Arturo -7 #rion per Special Orer No7
**:; ate %anuar& 3, ')*'7
*4*5 Penne b& Associate %ustice Anres #7 Re&es, %r7, <ith Associate %ustices =ernana
!ampas"Peralta an Apolinario -7 #ruselas, %r7, concurrin$> rollo, p7 *;7
'4'5 I7 at *("*,7
+he petitioners <ere the plaintiffs in Ci.il Case No7 #r7 '?":;3")? entitle
Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo v. Amado Bravo, Jr. in the
Re$ional +rial Court 0R+C1, #ranch '?, Ro@as, Isabela7 On %anuar& '*, '))2, the
R+C renere a ecision a.erse to the petitioners7 +he petitioners conseAuentl&
sou$ht a reconsieration of the sai ecision but the same <as enie b& the R+C
in an Orer ate April '(, '))2 <hich <as recei.e on Ma& ,, '))27 On Ma& :,
'))2, the petitioners file a Notice of Appeal7
?
4?5

In %anuar& '))3, the !a< =irm of !apeBa C Associates file <ith the CA its
formal entr& of appearance as counsel for the petitioners, in .ie< of the <ithra<al
of the former counsel, Att&7 Panfilo Soriano7 +he substitution of la<&ers <as note
in the Resolution
;
4;5 ate %anuar& '), '))37 In the same resolution, the CA
further irecte the appellants therein to remit the eficient amount of P')7))
<ithin ( a&s from notice7 +hereafter, the CA issue a Resolution on %anuar& ?),
'))3 reAuirin$ the filin$ of the AppellantDs #rief <ithin ;( a&s from receipt7

On April 2, '))3, responent Amao #ra.o, %r7 0the efenant"appellee
therein1, file a Motion to -ismiss Appeal
(
4(5 ate April ', '))3 statin$ that the
petitioners faile to file their AppellantDs #rief <ithin the ;("a& perio $rante to
them b& the CA in the Resolution ate %anuar& ?), '))37 Citin$ Section * 0e1,
Rule () of the Rules of Court, responent pra&e for the ismissal of the
petitionersD appeal7

?4?5 I7 at *:"*27
;4;5 I7 at ')7
(4(5 I7 at '*"''7
In an OppositionEComment promptl& file on April 2, '))3,
,
4,5 the
petitioners alle$e that the Motion to -ismiss file b& the responent ha no basis
consierin$ that the& or their counsel i not recei.e an& resolution from the CA
reAuirin$ them to file their AppellantsD #rief <ithin ;( a&s7
:
4:5

On Ma& *2, '))3, the CA issue the assaile resolution
2
425 <hich reas:

=or failure of the plaintiffs"appellants to file the reAuire appellantDs brief
<ithin the re$lementar& perio <hich e@pire on '' March '))3, as per %uicial
Recors -i.ision Report ate )( Ma& '))3, the appeal is hereb& consiere
ABANDONED an is hereb& DISMISSED pursuant to Section * 0e1, Rule (),
*33: Rules of Ci.il Proceure7

SO ORDERED7 0citation omitte1


On Ma& '(, '))3, the CA issue a Resolution
3
435 <hich state, amon$
others, that the %anuar& ?), '))3 notice to file brief aresse to petitionersD
counsel <as recei.e b& a certain Ruel e +omas on =ebruar& (, '))37

On %une (, '))3, the petitioners file a Compliance an Motion for
Reconsieration
*)
4*)5 pra&in$ that the ismissal of their appeal be set asie in the
interest of Fustice an eAuit&7 +he petitioners claime that their failure to file their
brief <as ue to the fact that the& <ere ne.er furnishe a cop& of the sai %anuar&
?), '))3 Resolution of the CA irectin$ them to file their brief7
,4,5 I7 at '?"';7
:4:5 I7 at ';7
2425 Supra note *7
3435 Rollo, p7 ?*7
*)4*)5 I7 at ',"?)7

SubseAuentl&, in a Manifestation
**
4**5 file on %une *,, '))3, the petitioners
asserte that their counsel G the !a< =irm of !apeBa an Associates G has no
emplo&ee in the name of Ruel e +omas7 Ho<e.er, the& e@plaine that Att&7
+orenio C7 Cabacun$an, %r7, an associate of the la< firm personall& Ino<s a
person name JRuelK <ho sometimes .isits their office an <ho ma& ha.e
accientall& recei.e the sai %anuar& ?), '))3 Resolution of the CA7 In such a
case, the same shoul not be consiere officiall& ser.e upon them as the latter
<as not connecte <ith nor authori/e to perform an& act for an in behalf of
counsel7

On %une '3, '))3, the CA enie the motion for reconsieration7
*'
4*'5

Lnaunte, the petitioners institute the instant petition for certiorari before
this Court assertin$ the follo<in$ ar$uments: 0*1 their failure to file their
appellantsD brief <as merel& ue to the fact that the& <ere ne.er properl& ser.e
<ith a cop& of the %anuar& ?), '))3 Resolution of the CA> 0'1 Ruel e +omas, the
person <ho apparentl& recei.e the cop& of the %anuar& ?), '))3 Resolution of the
CA, <as not their emplo&ee> an 0?1 the CA, in the interest of Fustice an eAuit&,
shoul ha.e ecie their appeal on the merits instea of ismissin$ the same
purel& on technical $rouns7

+he sole issue for resolution is the propriet& of the ismissal of the
petitionersD appeal for their failure to file the appellantsD brief <ithin the
re$lementar& perio7
**4**5 I7 at ?'"?;7
*'4*'5 Supra note '7

+he petition is enie7

At the outset, this Court notes that the petitionersD resort to a petition for
certiorari uner Rule ,( of the Rules of Court is not the proper reme& to assail
the Ma& *2, '))3 an %une '3, '))3 Resolutions issue b& the CA7 In eterminin$
the appropriate reme& or remeies a.ailable, a part& a$$rie.e b& a court orer,
resolution or ecision must first correctl& ientif& the nature of the orer,
resolution or ecision he intens to assail7
*?
4*?5

It bears stressin$ that the e@traorinar& reme& of certiorari can be a.aile
of onl& if there is no appeal or an& other plain, spee&, an aeAuate reme& in the
orinar& course of la<7
*;
4*;5 On the other han, Section *, Rule ;* of the Rules of
Court states that an appeal ma& be taIen from a Fu$ment or final orer that
completel& isposes of the case or a particular matter therein7

Concomitant to the fore$oin$, the reme& of a part& a$ainst an a.erse
isposition of the CA <oul epen on <hether the same is a final orer or merel&
an interlocutor& orer7 If the Orer or Resolution issue b& the CA is in the nature
of a final orer, the reme& of the a$$rie.e part& <oul be to file a petition for
re.ie< on certiorari uner Rule ;( of the Rules of Court7 Other<ise, the
appropriate reme& <oul be to file a petition for certiorari uner Rule ,(7

*?4*?5 See Ramundo v. !sagon "da. de Suarez, 67R7 No7 *;3)*:, No.ember '2, '))2, (:'
SCRA ?2;, ;);7
*;4*;5 RL!ES O= COLR+, Rule ,(, Section I7
In Repu#lic v. Sandigan#aan $%ourth Division&,
*(
4*(5 this Court lai o<n
the follo<in$ rules to etermine <hether a courtDs isposition is alrea& a final
orer or merel& an interlocutor& orer an the respecti.e remeies that ma& be
a.aile in each case, thus:

Case la< has con.enientl& emarcate the line bet<een a final Fu$ment
or orer an an interlocutor& one on the basis of the isposition mae7 A
Fu$ment or orer is consiere final if the orer isposes of the action or
proceein$ completel&, or terminates a particular sta$e of the same action> in such
case, the reme& a.ailable to an a$$rie.e part& is appeal7 If the orer or
resolution, ho<e.er, merel& resol.es inciental matters an lea.es somethin$
more to be one to resol.e the merits of the case, the orer is interlocutor& an the
a$$rie.e part&Ds reme& is a petition for certiorari uner Rule ,(7 %urispruence
pointel& hols that:

As istin$uishe from a final orer <hich isposes of the
subFect matter in its entiret& or terminates a particular proceein$
or action, lea.in$ nothin$ else to be one but to enforce b&
e@ecution <hat has been etermine b& the court, an interlocutor&
orer oes not ispose of a case completel&, but lea.es somethin$
more to be aFuicate upon7 +he term JfinalK Fu$ment or orer
si$nifies a Fu$ment or an orer <hich isposes of the case as to all
the parties, reser.in$ no further Auestions or irections for future
etermination7

On the other han, a court orer is merel& interlocutor& in
character if it lea.es substantial proceein$s &et to be ha in
connection <ith the contro.ers&7 It oes not en the tasI of the
court in aFuicatin$ the partiesD contentions an eterminin$ their
ri$hts an liabilities as a$ainst each other7 In this sense, it is
basicall& ,rovisiona/ in its a,,/i0ation7 0citations omitte1


Here, the assaile Ma& *2, '))3 an %une '3, '))3 Resolutions issue b&
the CA ha consiere the petitionersD appeal belo< as ha.in$ been abanone
an, accorin$l&, ismisse7 +hus, the assaile Resolutions are in the nature of a
final orer as the same completel& ispose of the petitionersD appeal <ith the CA7
+hus, the reme& a.ailable to the petitioners is to file a petition for re.ie< on
*(4*(5 67R7 No7 *('?:(, -ecember *,, ')**7
certiorari uner Rule ;( <ith this court an not a petition for certiorari uner Rule
,(7

E.en if <e are to assume arguendo that the petitionersD resort to the
e@traorinar& reme& of certiorari is proper, the instant petition <oul still be
enie7 A petition for certiorari <ill prosper onl& if $ra.e abuse of iscretion is
alle$e an pro.e to e@ist7
*,
4*,5 +he abuse of iscretion must be so patent an
$ross as to amount to an e.asion of a positi.e ut& or a .irtual refusal to perform a
ut& enFoine b& la< or to act at all in contemplation of la<, as <here the po<er is
e@ercise in an arbitrar& an espotic manner b& reason of passion or hostilit&7
*:
4*:5 Here, there <as no hint of <himsicalit& or $ross an patent abuse of iscretion
on the part of the CA <hen it ismisse the appeal of the petitioners for the failure
of the latter to file their appellantsD brief7

Section * 0e1, Rule () of the Rules of Court succinctl& pro.ies that:

Section *7 6rouns for ismissal of appeal7 G An appeal ma& be ismisse
b& the Court of Appeals, on its o<n motion or on that of the appellee, on the
follo<in$ $rouns:

@ @ @ @

0e1 =ailure of the appellant to ser.e an file the reAuire number of copies
of his brief or memoranum <ithin the time pro.ie b& these Rules> @ @ @


*,4*,5 Beluso v. Commission on 'lections, 67R7 No7 *2):**, %une '', ')*), ,'* SCRA ;(),
;(,7
*:4*:5 'strada v. (on. Desierto, ;2: Phil *,3, *2' 0'));1, citin$ Duero v. CA, ;'; Phil *', ')
0'))'17
In a lon$ line of cases, this Court has hel that the CADs authorit& to ismiss
an appeal for failure to file the appellantDs brief is a matter of Fuicial iscretion7
+hus, a ismissal base on this $roun is neither manator& nor ministerial> the
funamentals of Fustice an fairness must be obser.e, bearin$ in min the
bacI$roun an <eb of circumstances surrounin$ the case7
*2
4*25

Ha.in$ in min the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, <e fin that
the petitionersD e@cuse for their failure to file their brief <as flims& an
iscreitable an, thus, the propriet& of the ismissal of their appeal7 Inee, as
aptl& rule b& the CA, the recors of the case clearl& sho<e that the petitioners,
throu$h their counsel, recei.e the %anuar& ?), '))3 Resolution <hich reAuire
them to file their appellantsD brief7 +hus:

+he recors of this case are clear that the Resolution of ?) %anuar& '))3
reAuirin$ the 4petitioners5 to file the reAuire brief <as recei.e b& a certain Ruel
e +omas for 4petitionersD5 counsel on )( =ebruar& '))37 Hence, mere enial b&
4petitionersD5 counsel of the receipt of his cop& of the Resolution cannot be $i.en
<ei$ht in the absence of an& proof that the sai person is neither an emplo&ee at
his la< office nor someone unIno<n to him7 !iIe<ise, it is hi$hl& implausible
that an& person in the builin$ <here 4petitionersD5 counsel hols office <oul
simpl& recei.e a corresponence eli.ere b& a postman7
*3
4*35


8eril&, the petitioners <ere onl& able to offer their bare assertion that the&
an their counsel i not actuall& recei.e a cop& of the %anuar& ?), '))3
Resolution an that the person <ho apparentl& recei.e the same <as not in an&
<a& connecte <ith their counsel7 +here <as no other creible e.ience auce
*24*25 Bachrach Corporation v. )hilippine )orts Authorit, 67R7 No7 *(33*(, March *', '))3,
(2) SCRA ,(3, ,,;, citin$ )hilippine *erchant *arine School, !nc. v. Court o+ Appeals, ;?'
Phil :?? 0'))'1> Aguam v. Court o+ Appeals, ?22 Phil (2: 0')))1> Catindig v. Court o+ Appeals,
*:: Phil ,'; 0*3:317
*34*35 Rollo, p7 *,7
b& the petitioners <hich <oul persuae us to e@culpate them from the effects of
their failure to file their brief7

+he Court notes that, in concluin$ that the petitioners inee recei.e a
cop& of the %anuar& ?), '))3 Resolution, the CA <as $uie b& the Report of the
%uicial Recors -i.ision of the CA an b& the certification issue b& the
Postmaster of Mue/on Cit&7 Inubitabl&, the petitionersD bare assertions coul not
o.ercome the presumption of re$ularit& in the preparation of the recors of the
Post Office an that of the CA7
')
4')5

Nonetheless, the petitioners cite a cacophon& of cases ecie b& this Court
<hich, in essence, eclare that ismissal of an appeal on purel& technical $roun
is fro<ne upon an that, as much as possible, appeals ou$ht to be ecie on the
merits in the interest of Fustice an eAuit&7

+he petitionersN plea for the application of the principles of substantial
Fustice in their fa.or eser.es scant consieration7 +he petitioners shoul be
remine that technical rules ma& be rela@e onl& for the furtherance of Fustice an
to benefit the eser.in$7
'*
4'*5 Ohile the petitioners a.erte to se.eral
Furispruential rulin$s of this Court <hich set asie proceural rules, it is note
that there <ere unerl&in$ consierations in those cases <hich <arrante a
isre$ar of proceural technicalities to fa.or substantial Fustice7 Here, there e@ists
no such consieration7
')4')5 )hilippine *erchant *arine School, !nc. v. Court o+ Appeals, ;?' Phil :??, :;* 0'))'17
'*4'*5 Baranga Dasmari,as v. Creative )la Corner School, 67R7 No7 *,33;', %anuar& ';,
')**, ,;) SCRA '3;, ?),, citin$ Al+onso v. Sps. Andres, 67R7 No7 *,,'?,, %ul& '3, ')*), ,',
SCRA *;37

+he petitioners ou$ht to be remine that the bare in.ocation of Pthe interest
of substantial FusticeP is not a ma$ic <an that <ill automaticall& compel this
Court to suspen proceural rules7 Proceural rules are not to be belittle or
ismisse simpl& because their non"obser.ance ma& ha.e resulte in preFuice to a
part&Ns substanti.e ri$hts7 !iIe all rules, the& are reAuire to be follo<e e@cept
onl& for the most persuasi.e of reasons <hen the& ma& be rela@e to relie.e a
liti$ant of an inFustice not commensurate <ith the e$ree of his thou$htlessness in
not compl&in$ <ith the proceure prescribe7
''
4''5

In Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses Bautista,
'?
4'?5 this Court clarifie that
proceural rules are reAuire to be follo<e e@cept onl& for the most persuasi.e of
reasons <hen the& ma& be rela@e to relie.e a liti$ant of an inFustice not
commensurate <ith the e$ree of his thou$htlessness in not compl&in$ <ith the
proceure prescribe:

Oe a$ree <ith the petitionerDs contention that the rules of proceure ma&
be rela@e for the most persuasi.e reasons7 #ut as this Court hel in -alang v.
Court o+ Appeals:

Proceural rules are not to be belittle or ismisse simpl&
because their non"obser.ance ma& ha.e resulte in preFuice to a
part&Ds substanti.e ri$hts7 !iIe all rules, the& are reAuire to be
follo<e e@cept onl& for the most persuasi.e of reasons <hen the&
ma& be rela@e to relie.e a liti$ant of an inFustice not
commensurate <ith the e$ree of his thou$htlessness in not
compl&in$ <ith the proceure prescribe7

In an a.uncular case, <e emphasi/e that:
''4''5 Lazaro v. Court o+ Appeals, ?2, Phil ;*', ;*: 0')))1, citin$ -alang v. CA, 67R7 No7
:,''*, %ul& '3, *33*, *33 SCRA ,2?7
'?4'?5 ;3* Phil ;:, 0'))(17

Proceural rules are tools esi$ne to facilitate the
aFuication of cases7 Courts an liti$ants aliIe are, thus, enFoine
to abie strictl& b& the rules7 An <hile the Court, in some
instances, allo<s a rela@ation in the application of the rules, this,
<e stress, <as ne.er intene to for$e a bastion for errin$ liti$ants
to .iolate the rules <ith impunit&7 +he liberalit& in the
interpretation an application of the rules applies onl& in proper
cases an uner Fustifiable causes an circumstances7 Ohile it is
true that liti$ation is not a $ame of technicalities, it is eAuall& true
that e.er& case must be prosecute in accorance <ith the
prescribe proceure to insure an orerl& an spee&
aministration of Fustice7 +he instant case is no e@ception to this
rule7

In the present case, <e fin no co$ent reason to e@empt the petitioner from
the effects of its failure to compl& <ith the Rules of Court7

+he ri$ht to appeal is a statutor& ri$ht an the part& <ho seeIs to a.ail of
the same must compl& <ith the reAuirements of the Rules7 =ailin$ to o so, the
ri$ht to appeal is lost7 More so, as in this case, <here petitioner not onl& ne$lecte
to file its brief <ithin the stipulate time but also faile to seeI an e@tension of
time for a co$ent $roun before the e@piration of the time sou$ht to be e@tene7

In not a fe< instances, the Court rela@e the ri$i application of the rules
of proceure to affor the parties the opportunit& to full& .entilate their cases on
the merits7 +his is in line <ith the time"honore principle that cases shoul be
ecie onl& after $i.in$ all parties the chance to ar$ue their causes an efenses7
+echnicalit& an proceural imperfection shoul, thus, not ser.e as basis of
ecisions7 In that <a&, the ens of Fustice <oul be better ser.e7 =or, inee, the
$eneral obFecti.e of proceure is to facilitate the application of Fustice to the ri.al
claims of contenin$ parties, bearin$ al<a&s in min that proceure is not to
hiner but to promote the aministration of Fustice7 In this case, ho<e.er, such
li#eralit in the application o+ rules o+ procedure ma not #e invo.ed i+ it /ill
result in the /anton disregard o+ the rules or cause needless dela in the
administration o+ 0ustice7 It is eAuall& settle that, sa.e for the most persuasi.e of
reasons, strict compliance is enFoine to facilitate the orerl& aministration of
Fustice7
';
4';5 0citations omitte1


Reiteratin$ the fore$oin$ in Dimarucot v. )eople o+ the )hilippines,
'(
4'(5
this Court state that:
';4';5 I7 at ;2?";2;7
'(4'(5 67R7 No7 *2?3:(, September '), ')*), ,?) SCRA ,(37

+he ri$ht to appeal is not a natural ri$ht an is not part of ue process7 It is
merel& a statutor& pri.ile$e, an ma& be e@ercise onl& in accorance <ith the
la<7 +he part& <ho seeIs to a.ail of the same must compl& <ith the reAuirements
of the Rules7 =ailin$ to o so, the ri$ht to appeal is lost7

Strict compliance <ith the Rules of Court is inispensable for the orerl&
an spee& isposition of Fustice7 +he Rules must be follo<e, other<ise, the&
<ill become meanin$less an useless7
',
4',5 0citations omitte1


12ERE!ORE, in consieration of the fore$oin$ isAuisitions, the petition
is DISMISSED7 +he assaile Resolutions ate Ma& *2, '))3 an %une '3, '))3
issue b& the Court of Appeals in CA"67R7 C8 No7 3*,,( ismissin$ the
petitionersD appeal are A!!IRMED7

SO ORDERED7



BIENVENIDO L& RE-ES
Associate %ustice


1E CONCUR.


',4',5 I7 at ,,2",,37


ANTONIO T& CARPIO
Associate %ustice




+OSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate %ustice
MARIA LOURDES P& A& SERENO
Associate %ustice




ESTELA M& PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate %ustice


A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the abo.e Resolution ha been reache in
consultation before the case <as assi$ne to the <riter of the opinion of the
CourtDs -i.ision7



ANTONIO T& CARPIO
Associate %ustice
Chairperson, Secon -i.ision


C E R T I ! I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section *?, Article 8III of the Constitution an the -i.ision
ChairpersonNs Attestation, I certif& that the conclusions in the abo.e Resolution ha
been reache in consultation before the case <as assi$ne to the <riter of the
opinion of the CourtDs -i.ision7



RENATO C& CORONA
Chief %ustice