THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 191492, July 04, 2016
PATRICIA SIBAYAN REPRESENTED BY TEODICIO SIBAYAN, Petitioner, v. EMILIO COSTALES, SUSANA ISIDRO, RODOLFO ISIDRO, ANNO ISIDRO AND ROBERTO CERANE., Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
PEREZ, J.:
For resolution of the Court is this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by petitioner Patricia Sibayan represented by Teodicio Sibayan, seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated 2 October 20092 and 26 February 20103 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 91399. The assailed resolutions dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for failure to file her appellant's brief within the reglementary period.
"WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court renders judgment dismissing the herein amended complaint filed by [petitioner] against [respondents].Petitioner timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration14 which was denied by the RTC in an Order15 dated 2 August 2007.
SO ORDERED."13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, the Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief is DENIED. The instant appeal is considered ABANDONED and DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1 (e) Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court."19chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryFaulting her counsel for the non-filing of the Appellant's Brief within the reglementary period, petitioner sought for the reconsideration of the earlier CA Resolution dismissing her appeal. She averred that she should not be allowed to suffer from the consequences of her counsel's negligence and prayed for the liberality of the court to afford her the opportunity to ventilate her case on the merits. To rule otherwise, the petitioner claimed, is tantamount to deprivation of her right to enjoy her property without due process.
"In the case at bench, not only was there a considerable delay of one hundred thirty-nine (139) days in the filing of appellants brief. No justifiable explanation therefor was proffered by [petitioner] other than continuing pressure of work of her counsel or negligence of her counsel. Such unexplained delay is not just a technical lapse which can be excused. Moreover, We thus reiterate that a client is bound by [her] counsel's conduct, negligence and mistakes in handling the case, and the client [might not] be heard to complain that the result might have been different had [her] lawyer proceeded differently. The only exceptions to the general rule which the Supreme Court finds acceptable are when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application of the rule results in the outright deprivation of one's property through technicality. Failure to file the appellant's brief can qualify as simple negligence, but it does not amount to gross negligence. Also, there is no outright deprivation of property. [Petitioner] actively participated in the proceedings before the lower court."21 (Citations omitted)Unflinching, petitioner is now before this Court via this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution on the following grounds:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Issue I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO ADMIT APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND CONSIDERING THE APPEAL AS DISMISSED AND ABANDONED;II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CLASSIFYING ONLY AS SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE THE LONG DELAY OF HER COUNSEL IN FILING THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF THEREBY BINDING HER TO THE AFORESAID NEGLIGENCE;III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER HER RIGHT TO APPEAL WHEN SHE STOOD TO LOSE HER RIGHT TO HER PROPERTY DUE TO THE ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT OF THE RTC.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order.The foregoing Rule should be read in consonance with Section 7, Rule 44, which states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
Section 7. Appellant's brief. — It shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to the record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.Corollarily, the CA has, under the foregoing provision, discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss respondent's appeal.
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:Expounding on the discretion of the appellate court to dismiss or allow the appeal to proceed despite belated service and filing of the required brief, the Court in Diaz v. People,24 held:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules[.]23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The usage of the word may in Section 1 (e) of Rule 50 indicates that the dismissal of the appeal upon failure to file the appellant's brief is not mandatory, but discretionary. Verily, the failure to serve and file the required number of copies of the appellant's brief within the time provided by the Rules of Court does not have the immediate effect of causing the outright dismissal of the appeal. This means that the discretion to dismiss the appeal on that basis is lodged in the CA, by virtue of which the CA may still allow the appeal to proceed despite the late filing of the appellant's brief, when the circumstances so warrant its liberality. In deciding to dismiss the appeal, then, the CA is bound to exercise its sound discretion upon taking all the pertinent circumstances into due consideration.The CA in the case at bar opted to dismiss the appeal interposed by petitioner considering the negligence of the counsel as merely simple which binds petitioner from the adverse consequence thereof. Her invocation of outright deprivation of property did not carry her day before the appellate court as it was observed that she actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court and thus she was afforded therein the unfettered opportunity to ventilate her case.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 7-25.
2 Id. at 26-28; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.
3 Id. at 29-31.
4 Id. at 68-72.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 76-79.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 80-100.
13 Id. at 100.
14 Id. at 101-105.
15 Id. at 110-111.
16 Id. at 113.
17 SEC. 7. Appellant's brief. — It shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to the record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.
18Rollo, pp. 26-31.
19 Id. at 31.
20 Supra note 3.
21 Id. at 27-28.
22 Id. at 15.
23 RULES OF COURT, Rule 50, Sec. 1(e).
24 704 Phil. 146, 157 (2013).
25cralawred Torrecampo v. NLRC, G.R. No. 199617, September 2, 2015.
26 Id.
27Beatingo v. Bu Gasis, 657 Phil. 552, 559 (2011).
28 Id.
29Heirs of the late Cruz Barredo v. Sps. Asis, 480 Phil. 642, 649 (2004).