THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232784. April 1, 2019.]
MARIA TEODORA A. BALLOS, petitioner, vs.JAMES REY F. GONZALES AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232784 (Maria Teodora A. Ballos vs. James Rey F. Gonzales and Republic of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review filed by Maria Teodora A. Ballos (Ballos) under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assails the Resolution 1 dated August 11, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City, dismissing her Appeal for failure to file an Appellant's Brief despite receipt of notice by her counsel, and its Resolution 2 of June 16, 2017, denying her Motion for Reconsideration.
Ballos and respondent James Rey F. Gonzales (Gonzales) met in October 2004 at a cellular shop in Sogod, Southern Leyte. Ballos was then asking what her number was in the new sim card she bought, while Gonzales was also present at the time to visit the store owner. Unknown to Ballos, Gonzales was able to get her number and later began sending her text messages. Eventually, they became close as they continued to send text messages to each other. Thereafter, they started to see each other and, after around three months of dating, they became lovers.
According to Ballos, she noticed during the course of their relationship that Gonzales has a jealous streak and would sometimes act unreasonably whenever she would merely say "hi" or "hello" to her friends. He would immediately react saying "Kinsa man to (Who was he?)?!" Hence, to avoid such a reaction, Ballos no longer greeted her friends. There was even a time when out of jealousy, Gonzales drove his motorcycle fast as if he wanted them both to die.
In December 2006, Ballos was assigned in M. Lhuillier-Lilo-an, Southern Leyte Branch. Being a collector in Emcor Marketing, Gonzales kept going to her work place until they eventually had sexual intercourse. Ballos then introduced Gonzales to her parents and the latter would stay late in their house or even spend the night there whenever he visited. Hence, Ballos' parents began to question their relationship. Due to societal pressures, the parties decided to get married on January 20, 2006. 3 Out of this union, they begot a child named James Matthew F. Gonzales. 4 cSEDTC
During their marriage, the parties lived at Gonzales' parents' house in Banday, Tomas, Oppus, Southern Leyte. There, Ballos found out that while she was Gonzales' girlfriend, the latter also had another girlfriend named Abegail. She also learned that there was another woman named Rachel with whom Gonzales had a child. However, whenever she would ask Gonzales about it, all he would say was "wa man." Despite this, Gonzales continued his womanizing ways, thus causing Ballos too much stress that led to miscarriage in her first pregnancy.
When Ballos gave birth to their son, she thought that the responsibility of fatherhood would make Gonzales change his old ways. But this did not happen. Instead, he lived like a bachelor and sometimes, he would even stay somewhere overnight. One time, Ballos' cousin even saw Gonzales riding his motorcycle with another woman, too sweet and too close while riding in tandem to be just friends. The woman was later identified to be a certain Divina, Gonzales' fourth woman. Despite this, Ballos still chose not to believe her cousin.
Meanwhile, as days went by, Ballos observed that Gonzales could not separate himself from his cellular phone. Sometimes he would even bring it to the comfort room and Ballos could hear him talking to someone. It was then when Ballos confirmed the marital infidelities of Gonzales. By December 2010, Gonzales was already with his 5th woman and he started to fail to give her his income.
One day, Ballos' feeling of betrayal and anger pushed her to confront Gonzales which, thus, resulted in a fight. Ballos received fist blows and manhandling from Gonzales but she fought back parrying the attacks from the latter. This prompted Ballos to leave Gonzales. However, after a week of separation, Ballos went back to Gonzales in order to keep their family intact. But instead of feeling guilty for what happened, Gonzales even told Ballos "Nalipay ko nagbuwag ta" (I am happy that we got separated). Since then, there was no more communication with Gonzales and neither did the latter give support to their son.
Thus, for Gonzales' unfaithful, pervert and irresponsible ways and his abandonment of his obligation to support, Ballos filed a petition 5 for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sogod, Southern Leyte, Branch 39.
Despite service of summons, Gonzales failed to file an answer nor appear during the hearing. Hence, the trial court was constrained to direct the public prosecutor to intervene and investigate whether there was collusion between the parties.
However, no collusion between the parties was found by the public prosecutor. Hence, after pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
On January 16, 2015, the RTC rendered a Decision 6 granting the petition and declaring the marriage between Ballos and Gonzales null and void ab initio, to wit:
WHEREFORE, finding sufficient evidence to prove psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, this court GRANTS the petition and hereby DECLARES the marriage between the parties absolutely NULL and VOID ab initio.
Furthermore, the permanent custody of the child James Matthew is hereby awarded to the petitioner.
The decree of absolute nullity shall be issued upon the finality of the decision.
Let copies of this decision be furnished the parties, the counsel for petitioner, the Solicitor General and the Public Prosecutor.
SO ORDERED. 7
However, upon motion 8 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to reconsider the aforesaid decision, the trial court granted the motion and reversed its earlier ruling in an Order 9 dated June 10, 2015. Giving weight to the OSG's argument, the trial court ruled that as Ballos failed to bring any other witness to corroborate her accusations against Gonzales, the same, even assuming to be all true, do not constitute psychological incapacity, thus:
x x x The Court found, that other than the testimony of the petitioner, no other witness [was] presented to corroborate her accusations against the respondent. Even assuming that the respondent was guilty of infidelity, did not support the petitioner and eventually abandoned her, these actuations of the respondent do not by themselves constitute psychological incapacity, within the contemplation of the Family Code. The respondent may be the most irresponsible husband in the world, but it does not mean that he is psychologically incapacitated. 10 SDAaTC
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of this Court dated January 16, 2015 granting the petition and declaring the marriage between the petitioner and respondent null and void, is hereby ordered Set Aside and this petition is ordered DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED. 11
Aggrieved, Ballos moved 12 for the reconsideration of the June 10, 2015 Order of the trial court. However, this was denied in an Order 13 dated August 24, 2015 "for lack of merit." 14
Undaunted, Ballos appealed to the CA, Cebu City. However, despite receipt by her counsel of the notice given by the CA to file her appellant's brief, the latter still failed to do so. Thus, in a Resolution 15 dated August 11, 2016, the CA dismissed the appeal, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure to file the appellant's brief.
SO ORDERED. 16
In due time, Ballos filed her Motion for Reconsideration (with Leave to Admit Appellant's Brief) 17 but this was denied by the CA in its Resolution 18 dated June 16, 2017, thus:
WHEREFORE, appellant's MotionforReconsideration of the Resolution dated 11 August 2016 is hereby DENIED. The Office of the Solicitor General's Motion to be Impleaded as an Additional Appellee is merely NOTED.
SO ORDERED. 19 (Emphasis in the original.)
Hence, the instant petition for review where Ballos faults the CA for "not applying substantial compliance" 20 despite her leave to submit her Appeal Brief with justifying reasons for the late submission of the same, and for erroneously applying the concept of psychological incapacity. 21
Ruling of the Court
The Court is not persuaded.
It has been consistently held that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. 22 Instead, it is a mere statutory privilege hence, may only be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 23 Such being the case, the appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court which are, in the first place, designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. 24
In this case, Ballos failed to filed her Appellant's Brief despite receipt of notice by her counsel. In fact, the delay in the filing of her Appellant's Brief was for seven (7) months, a fact which the counsel should have discovered sooner had he been diligent in pursuing the case of his client. Sadly, this is where negligence of counsel would necessarily bind the client.
The CA observed thus:
Likewise noted is the fact that appellant's counsel is the law firm of W.B. Calamba and Partners signifying that Atty. Winsor B. Calamba is not the sole partner or member of that firm.
xxx xxx xxx
His familial, paternal and personal excuses do not justify the belated filing of the brief. The brief could have been prepared, finalized and filed by another partner or member of the law firm which, after all, is the real counsel of the appellant. 25
Indeed, at this time and age where the court dockets are almost clogged, the Rules of Court must be followed with great respect and its observance, therefore, cannot be subject of the appellant's whim and caprices.
Nonetheless, this notwithstanding, the petition should still be dismissed.
For one, as found by the trial court, there was no sufficient proof to bolster the claim of psychological incapacity. What were shown before the court were mere self-serving allegations of respondent's womanizing ways as no witnesses were even presented to prove the same. acEHCD
Two, the fact that the expert witness presented declared respondent to be afflicted with anti-social personality disorder, a psychological illness, renders it more necessary to show that respondent has been subjected to at least an interview to bolster that claim. Sadly, this was not shown at all.
Hence, as Ballos failed to support her allegations with any evidence makes the rule on totality inapplicable in the case as the allegations remain as that — mere allegations — that cannot be bolstered by a mere declaration of an expert witness.
While as a general rule there is no need for an actual medical examination to prove the psychological incapacity of the spouse, it would have been of great help to the other spouse's case had evidence been presented to medically or clinically identify the respondent's alleged illness.
The case of Rep. of the Phils. v. Quintero-Hamano26 holds that:
We now proceed to determine whether respondent successfully proved Toshio's psychological incapacity to fulfil his marital responsibilities.
Petitioner showed that Toshio failed to meet his duty to live with, care for and support his family. He abandoned them a month after his marriage to respondent. Respondent sent him several letters but he never replied. He made a trip to the Philippines but did not care at all to see his family.
We find that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshio's act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. After respondent testified on how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped respondent's case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through an expert witness. This respondent did not do. 27
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions dated August 11, 2016 and June 16, 2017 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 05745 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."(HERNANDO, J., on leave; CARANDANG, J., additional Member per S.O. No. 2624 dated November 29, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Pablito A. Perez; rollo, pp. 82-84.
2.Id. at 108-112.
3.Id. at 37.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 29-35.
6. Rendered by Executive Judge Rolando L. Gonzalez; id. at 53-58.
7.Id. at 58.
8.Id. at 59-67.
9.Id. at 68-70.
10.Id. at 68-69.
11.Id. at 70.
12.Id. at 71-78.
13.Id. at 79-80.
14.Id. at 80.
15. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Pablito A. Perez; id. at 82-84.
16.Id. at 83.
17.Id. at 85-88.
18.Id. at 108-112.
19.Id. at 112.
20.Id. at 19.
21.Id.
22. Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Elvira Villareal, et al., 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Rollo, pp. 109-110.
26. 472 Phil. 807 (2004).
27. Id. at 816.