Heirs of Delos Reyes v. Dimagiba

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 216820. August 24, 2016.]

HEIRS OF LUISA DELOS REYES, NAMELY: CELESTINO R. DE GUZMAN AND FRANCISCO R. DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. ISMAELA DIMAGIBA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 August 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 216820 — Heirs of Luisa Delos Reyes, namely: Celestino R. De Guzman and Francisco R. De Guzman v. Ismaela Dimagiba

Assailed in this petition is the June 30, 2014 Resolution 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 97917, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal for failure to comply with the rules, and its January 30, 2015 Resolution, 2 denying their motion for reconsideration.

The Antecedents

Records show that the parties in this case have been in a long legal squabble over the ownership of several parcels of land located in Plaridel, Bulacan. In fact, their dispute reached this Court twice already. The first was the case of Victorio Reyes v. Court of Appeals and Ismaela Dimagiba, 3 and then later, the case of Dionisio Fernandez v. Ismaela Dimagiba. 4

The Fernandez case formed part of the complaints filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 83 (RTC) by Ismaela Dimagiba (respondent). One was filed against Luisa Delos Reyes, Heirs of Maria Fernandez and the Register of Deeds of Bulacan and docketed as Civil Case No. 172-M-95. The other one was filed against Luisa Delos Reyes only and docketed as Civil Case No. 235-M-95. Luisa Delos Reyes is now deceased and represented by her heirs, Celestino R. De Guzman and Francisco R. De Guzman (petitioners).

On May 2, 2008, the RTC rendered a summary judgment in its Order, 5 ruling for respondent and against petitioners on the basis of the Fernandez case, with the fallo reading as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated June 19, 2007 deeming defendant Luisa Delos Reyes to have waived her right to file Comment/Opposition to the instant motion is hereby reconsidered and set aside and said Comment/Opposition be admitted and made part of the records of the instant case.

Further, summary judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

a. Re-affirming the nullity of O.C.T. No. P-13805 of the late Maria Fernandez covering Lot No. 2373, Cad. 335, as previously held by Branch 7 of this Court in its Decision dated June 16, 1992; and

b. Re-affirming the nullity of defendant Luisa Delos Reyes' TCT No. T-61474 and all transfer certificates of title emanating therefrom, namely TCT Nos. T-64881, T-64882, T-64883, T-64884, T-64885, T-64886 and T-64887, for having emanated from a void original certificate of title; and

c. Ordering the defendants to vacate and deliver the possession of the land to the plaintiff; and

d. Declaring null and void defendant Luisa Delos Reyes' OCT No. P-1251 covering Lot No. 2383, Cad. 335, and all its derivative titles, namely TCT Nos. T-138543, T-138544, T-138545, T-138546, T-138547, T-138548, T-138549, T-138550 and T-138551.

e. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 6

On March 1, 2013, upon petitioners' appeal, the CA issued a resolution requiring the counsel of petitioners (defendants-appellants therein) to submit proof of receipt showing the date of receipt by the counsel of respondent (plaintiff-appellee therein) of the Appellants' Brief. The pertinent portion thereof reads:

3. REQUIRE defendant-appellant's counsel, within 5 days from notice, to submit to this Court the proof of receipt (registry return card/postmaster's certification) showing the date of receipt by plaintiff-appellee's counsel of the appellants' brief she filed, for the purpose of computing the period to file appellee's brief. 7 CAIHTE

On July 29, 2013, for failure of petitioners to comply with the CA Resolution of March 1, 2013 despite receipt of their counsel of a copy thereof, the CA issued another resolution directing them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with the appellate court's directive. It reads:

The CMIS verification report (dated July 16, 2013) that no compliance has been filed by defendants-appellant's counsel with the Court's March 1, 2013 resolution is noted. In view of which, appellant is given 5 days within which to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Sec. 1(h), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for their failure to comply with the Court's order/directive within the given period, notwithstanding receipt of the same on March 15, 2013." 8

The Judicial Records Division Report, dated September 27, 2013, stated that no compliance was filed by petitioners despite the receipt by their counsel of the July 29, 2013 CA Resolution on August 16, 2013.

On November 5, 2013, petitioners filed a manifestation praying that their appeal should not be dismissed. They attached to their manifestation the Postmaster's Certification, dated October 11, 2013, as the required certification of proof of receipt by respondent of the Appellants' Brief. There was, however, no date of receipt indicated in the said certification. Again, petitioners failed to comply with the July 29, 2013 CA Resolution.

On June 30, 2014, the CA issued the assailed resolution dismissing petitioners' appeal. The CA explained, among others, that petitioners failed to fully comply with its March 1, 2013 and July 29, 2013 resolutions. Such failure amounted to a refusal to obey not only one but two orders of the appellate court and constituted a ground for the dismissal of the appeal under Section 1 (h) 9 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

Undaunted, petitioners filed the subject petition anchored on the following:

GROUNDS

A. THE TRIAL COURT HAS DECIDED THE CASE CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TOTALLY IGNORING THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS

B. THE TRIAL COURT HAS OVERLOOKED THE IMPORT OF FERNANDEZ RULING.

C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS TO TAKE ITS COURSE, CONSIDERING THAT THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH ITS RESOLUTION BY STATING IN THEIR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, ATTY. RAMON CASANOVA, RECEIVED THE COPY OF THEIR BRIEF ON JANUARY 28, 2013 PER VERIFICATION WITH THE QUEZON CITY POST OFFICE. 10

Petitioners argue that the trial court made a sweeping conclusion in deciding the case through summary judgment based on the Fernandez ruling; that they disputed in their answer and affirmative and special defenses the material allegations in the complaint; that their answer tendered genuine issues as it disputed the material allegations in the complaint; that they had the lawful right and ownership over the subject property in dispute; that the principle of indefeasibility of title had been violated; that the Fernandez case merely settled the extrinsic validity of the will, not its intrinsic validity; that their appeal should have been given due course for substantially complying with the CA resolution; that the dismissal of their appeal was attributable to the inadvertence or palpable mistake of their former counsel, Atty. Macam; that they were just ordinary citizens who had no knowledge about the intricacies of the law and procedure and who entirely depended on the services of their counsel; that they were deprived of due process because of the reckless fault of their counsel; that the mistake of their counsel should not bind them; and that substantive rights must prevail over procedural infirmities.

Respondent's Position

Respondent counters that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a component of due process; that it is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law; that an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down by the Rules of Court; that petitioners twice ignored the CA Order; that the motion for reconsideration by petitioners were belatedly filed; that clients are bound by their counsel's conduct, negligence and mistakes; that the liberalization of the rules cannot be made to apply in this case because of negligence; and that respondent has the rightful ownership over the subject parcels of land.

The Court's Ruling

The pivotal issue before the Court is whether or not the CA was correct in dismissing the appeal filed by petitioners.

The petition lacks merit. DETACa

It has been repeatedly underscored in a long line of jurisprudence that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and must be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court, and the failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal. 11 "Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedevilled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants." 12

Petitioners' failure to comply with

The record shows that the CA issued a Resolution, dated March 1, 2013, directing petitioners' former counsel, Atty. Joie L. Macam (Atty. Macam), to submit proof of receipt showing the date of receipt by respondent's counsel, Atty. Ramon N. Casanova (Atty. Casanova), of their Appellant's Brief.

Despite receipt by Atty. Macam of the said resolution on March 15, 2013, petitioners failed to comply with the directive. So, on July 29, 2013, the CA issued another resolution directing petitioners to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with the CA directive.

Again, despite receipt by Atty. Macam of the second resolution on August 16, 2013, petitioners still failed to comply with the directive therein. On November 5, 2013, petitioners filed a manifestation attaching the Postmaster's Certification, dated October 11, 2013, but there was still no indication as to the date of receipt by Atty. Casanova of their Appellant's Brief. Eventually, the CA dismissed their appeal in its Resolution, dated June 30, 2014. To save their lost cause, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was, however, denied by the CA for being belatedly filed and because petitioners were bound by the negligence of their counsel.

Not only did petitioners fail to comply with the two CA resolutions but they also belatedly filed their motion for reconsideration of the CA Resolution, dated June 30, 2014. Doubtless, petitioners consistently failed to properly follow the procedural rules essential to the administration of justice. Such failure was fatal to their cause and constituted a strong ground for the dismissal of their appeal under Section 1 (h) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court:

By and of itself, a party's failure to comply with the CA directive without justifiable cause is also a ground for the dismissal of an appeal under Section 1(h), Rule 50 of the Rules. 13

Petitioners bound by negligence

Petitioners desperately argue that their failure to comply with the CA resolutions was due to the fault or negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Macam. They claim that after learning about the dismissal of their appeal, they rushed to his office and asked him why he failed to submit the required proof of receipt and requested from him a copy of the return card showing the actual date when Atty. Casanova received their brief. Their efforts, however, were for naught. They likewise blame the Post Office for not issuing a certificate as to the exact date because it required that there should first be a request from the law office of Atty. Macam before it could be released.

The Court finds the excuse of petitioners as flimsy and unconvincing. Considering that the petitioners could not give a justifiable and compelling reason for their failure to comply with the CA resolutions and for the belated filing of their motion for reconsideration, they cannot be exempted from the long standing general rule that clients are bound by the mistakes or negligence of their counsel. In the case of Lagua v. Court of Appeals, 14 the Court was enlightening:

Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client. Otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit, so long as counsel could allege its own fault or negligence to support the client's case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law.

The rationale for this rule is reiterated in the recent case Bejarasco v. People:

The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel's acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself.

It is the client's duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.

Petitioners cannot invoke liberal

Petitioners make a final plea by invoking the liberal application of the Rules to remedy their procedural lapses. Indeed, the Court will not hesitate to relax the rules in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction if there are compelling reasons to do so. Regrettably, petitioners failed to show in their petition strong considerations for the Court to grant it. aDSIHc

It is hard to believe that the petitioners could not have noticed the series of procedural lapses committed by their counsel. They should have been more prudent and diligent enough to closely monitor the actions of their counsel. Better still, they should have terminated his services and engaged a new counsel to handle their case.

Records show that petitioners hired a new counsel but they did not even seek the withdrawal of their former counsel. Unfortunately, for them, their new counsel belatedly filed their motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution dismissing their appeal. Obviously, petitioners were not completely blameless. They were as negligent as their counsel.

Accordingly, they cannot argue that the rules should be relaxed in their favor. They cannot claim either that they were denied due process.

Litigants must bear in mind that procedural rules should always be treated with utmost respect and due regard since these are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Though litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities, this does not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be belittled to suit the convenience of a party. Indeed, the primordial policy is a faithful observance of the Rules of Court, and their relaxation or suspension should only be for persuasive reasons and only in meritorious cases, which, unfortunately, are not attendant in the instant case. 15

Under the above circumstances, there is no need to discuss the other issues raised by petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. (Brion, J., on leave)"

Very truly yours,

 

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 46-49. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.

2. Id. at 51-52.

3. G.R. Nos. L-5618 & L-5620, July 31, 1954.

4. G.R. Nos. L-23638 & L-23662, October 12, 1967.

5. Rollo, pp. 59-68. Issued by Judge Guillermo P. Agloro.

6. Rollo, p. 68.

7. Id. at 46.

8. Id. at 47.

9. 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:

xxx xxx xxx

  (h) Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause.

10. Rollo, p. 15.

11. National Transmission Corp. v. Heirs of Ebesa, G.R. No. 186102, February 24, 2016.

12. Suliman v. People, G.R. No. 190970, November 24, 2014, 741 SCRA 477.

13. Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. v. New Pacific Timber and Supply Co., 647 Phil. 403-416 (2010).

14. Lagua v. Court of Appeals, 689 Phil. 452-462 (2012).

15. Estate of Gutierrez v. Heirs of Spouses Cabangon, G.R. No. 210055, June 22, 2015.