FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239873. August 15, 2018.]
MARIGOLD DE CASTRO AND FERDIE ALVAREZ, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES BENITO JUAN C. SANTIAGO AND YUBY T. SANTIAGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239873 — Marigold De Castro and Ferdie Alvarez v. Spouses Benito Juan C. Santiago and Yuby T. Santiago
Acting on petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time, the Court resolves to GRANT petitioners a period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
After a careful review of the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: (1) lack of a verified statement as to the date of filing of the motion for reconsideration as required by Sections 4 (b) and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; (2) failure to indicate the current IBP and PTR numbers of petitioners' counsel; and (3) failure of petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in dismissing the appeal for failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners contend that the CA erred in dismissing the appeal as the Appellants' Brief substantially complied with the rules.
The Court does not agree.
In Mendoza v. United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc., 1 the Court, in sustaining the CA's dismissal of the appeal for failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, explained that —
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. 2
In this case, after a perusal of the attached Appellants' Brief, the Court agrees with the observations of the CA, to wit:
Upon examination of the appellants' brief We found the same to be a bit confusing and not organized. On its first page it would appear that the appellants' brief has a subject index as required by paragraph (a) of Section 13 of Rule 44. However, upon reading the same it seems that the said subject index does not reflect the contents of the appellants' brief. On the said subject index "ISSUES" and "ARGUMENTS" are said to be located on page "8" of the appellants' brief, but upon inspection of page "8" of the appellants' brief, the said page contains the "PRAYER" and signature of counsel for the defendants-appellants. Under "ARGUMENTS" in the said subject index it states: "THE PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THEIR LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE FOR AND IN BEHALF OF VENUS MARQUEZ" and "THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE." However, the said arguments do not seem to be related to the actual case as no discussions concerning the "legal capacity to sue for and in behalf of Venus Marquez" can be found in the appellants' brief.
On page 2 of the appellants' brief under "STATEMENT OF CASE" it states: "This is an Appeal to the Court of Appeals from the Decision of Branch 128, Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City dated 09 March 2015 and the Order, dated June 26, 2015." However, upon examination of the records, the Decision appealed from was rendered by the Regional Trial Court Branch 258 of Parañaque City and dated October 21, 2016. Still on page 2 of the appellants' brief, another confusing entry is found under the heading "STATEMENT OF FACTS" which states: "PETITIONER MARIGOLD DE CASTRO, by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully (sic) her Pre-Trial Brief as follows:"
The appellants' brief did not contain any "ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS" or "ARGUMENTS" as required by paragraphs (b) and (f) of Section 13 of Rule 44. On page 8 of the appellants' brief under the heading "PRAYER" it states: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed that Pre-Trial Brief be noted. OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable, under the premises are likewise prayed for." The appellants' brief lacks a specific relief sought by the appellants as required under paragraph (g) of Section 13 of Rule 44. Finally, there are no page references to the case record which are also required by the rules. 3
Considering that the Appellants' Brief miserably failed to comply with the requirements under Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, the Court finds no error on the part of the CA in dismissing the appeal.
Time and time again, the Court has reminded lawyers to be circumspect in handling their client's cases as they are "expected to be familiar with the rudiments of law and procedure and anyone who acquires [their] services is entitled to, not just competent service, but also whole-hearted devotion to [their] client's cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of law, the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary action." 4
ACCORDINGLY, the September 29, 2017 and May 24, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107946 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Petitioner's Second Motion for Extension of Time to file Petition for Review on Certiorari is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 656 Phil. 342 (2011).
2.Id. at 356.
3.Rollo, pp. 30-31.
4.Spouses Soriano v. Reyes, 523 Phil. 1, 14-15 (2006).