Gonzales v.

Gonzales

G.R. No. 151376; February 22, 2006

Facts:

Petitioner Filmeno Gonzales filed an ejectment suit against respondent Quirino Gonzales before
MTC QC Br. 35. During the pendency of the case, respondent passed away and was substituted
by his wife, Eufemia Gonzales.

On April 10, 1997, Respondent moved for the suspension of the proceedings on the ground that
she instituted a case for an annulment of title against petitioner before RTC QC Br. 84. MTC
denied such motion and submitted the case for decision. On August 1, 1997, MTC ruled in favor
of petitioner and ordered the respondent to vacate the property and pay for the rentals.

Respondent appealed before the RTC and was ordered by the latter to submit a memorandum
discussing the errors of the MTC. However, instead of filing a memorandum of appeal, she
moved for the consolidation of such case with the annulment of title she filed before the RTC
QC Br. 84. RTC denied the motion for consolidation for lack of merit and ordered the issuance
of writ of execution for the judgment of the MTC.

On November 11, 1997, RTC directed the dismissal of respondents appeal for failing to file the
necessary memorandum of appeal. Respondent then filed an Omnibus Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration praying that the counsel be allowed to submit required appeal memorandum
or adopt the respondents position in the memorandum filed before the MTC. RTC denied the
motion for lack of merit and for being dilatory. Still, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order of the Honorable Court praying for the reconsideration of her Omnibus Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration. RTC likewise denied the same for lack of merit and for being in the
nature of a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading.

Respondent then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the CA. CA partially granted the
petition and reversed the order dated November 11, 1997. Petitioner then filed a motion for
reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether CA erred in reversing and setting aside the RTC order dismissing the
respondents appeal for failure to file the necessary memorandum of appeal.

Ruling:

YES, CA erred in granting such petition filed by the respondent. As provided in Section 7(b) of
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for
dismissal of appeal. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to submit or file a
memorandum of appeal within 15 days from receipt of order enjoining the filing of said
pleading. Even though there is no prohibition to the adoption of a partys position paper earlier
filed, such option must be manifested during the period within which to file the required
memorandum of appeal. In the case at bar, respondent failed to file such memorandum of
appeal within the allotted period. Respondents manifestation of adopting her position paper in
the MTC only came about after the dismissal of the appeal had already been ordered. Hence,
RTC did not err in dismissing the respondents appeal.