SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232345. June 20, 2022.]
ELENA OGOT JONSON, petitioner, vs. AL EUSEBIO LAGRISOLA JONSON, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated June 20, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232345 (ELENA OGOT JONSON, petitioner, v. AL EUSEBIO LAGRISOLA JONSON, respondent). — An appeal should not be dismissed solely based on Rule 50, Section 1 (h) 1 of the Rules of Court where noncompliance with a court order is due to justifiable cause.
This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 assailing the August 31, 2016 3 and June 9, 2017 4 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed Elena Ogot Jonson's (Elena) appeal for failing to comply with its April 22, 2016 Resolution, which had required her to submit proof of service of her pleadings. 5
This case arose from when Elena filed a Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration before the Regional Trial Court on September 2, 1986. 6 She alleged that she was the wife of Alfredo Jonson (Alfredo), who died on May 24, 1985 without a will. They had two daughters, Fredelyn and Aprilyn. At the time of filing, Elena was 40 years old, while Fredelyn and Aprilyn were 6 and 3 years old, respectively. 7
On March 11, 1986, the Regional Trial Court granted the Petition. Eventually, however, due to Elena's failure to prosecute, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice on October 19, 2000. 8
On November 13, 2000, Al Eusebio Lagrisola Jonson (Al Eusebio) filed a Motion to Reopen and to Intervene. Alleging that he was Alfredo's nonmarital 9 child, he claimed a right to Alfredo's estate. 10
On August 13, 2002, the trial court granted Al Eusebio's Motion "in the interest of substantial justice." 11 It then set the case for further proceeding. 12
The trial court later ordered Elena to file a report on the estate's income and to submit an inventory of Alfredo's properties, with which she complied. 13
On August 23, 2004, Elena moved to declare Al Eusebio's intervention improper, but this Motion was denied for lack of merit on December 7, 2004. 14 After pre-trial, trial on the merits followed. 15
Al Eusebio presented himself and a certain Paulino Ramos (Ramos) as witnesses. Al Eusebio testified that he knew that he was Alfredo's nonmarital child as stated by his mother, Merlita Lagrisola (Lagrisola). He recalled how his father was affectionate to him when he was younger. He also used the name "Alfredo Jonson, Jr." from elementary until college upon his mother's order, and only started using his name "Al Eusebio Lagrisola Jonson" after college graduation, it being the name written in his birth and baptismal certificates. He likewise knew that Elena was Alfredo's legal wife and was even introduced to his siblings, Fredelyn and Aprilyn. He narrated that he would usually kiss Elena's hand every time they would meet, and Elena and Merlita used to talk. He was also aware that the properties left by his father were being managed by Elena. 16
For his part, Ramos testified that he knew Alfredo from when he would be asked by the Mayor of Lian, Batangas, a cousin of Alfredo, to accompany Alfredo to his farm. He stated that Merlita had been his neighbor for at least 20 years. Whenever he would drop by Merlita's house, Alfredo would usually be there. He also knew that Al Eusebio was born in Merlita's house with the assistance of a midwife and that he was Alfredo's son because he was the one who registered the birth certificate. He was also introduced to Elena and their children as he frequented Alfredo's house. 17
On April 4, 2014, Elena presented her Judicial Affidavit in lieu of her direct testimony. She claimed that she was not aware of any nonmarital child of her late husband. She only came to know Al Eusebio when he moved to intervene. She also denied knowing, let alone communicating, with Merlita, Paulino, or Al Eusebio. The only time she saw Al Eusebio's birth and baptismal certificates was when they were presented in court. 18
On July 31, 2015, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision 19 in favor of Al Eusebio. It held that Al Eusebio was able to establish his filiation with Alfredo by presenting his birth and baptismal certificates. It likewise found that Elena failed to adduce evidence to counter the authenticity of Al Eusebio's birth certificate. It also gave weight to Al Eusebio's memories of Alfredo, showing Alfredo's love, care, and support for him. Further, the trial court noted that when Al Eusebio requested a DNA test, Elena and her family objected since they did not want to disturb Alfredo's corpse. 20
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petitioner, Elena Ogot Jonson, and her children, Fredelyn O. Jonson and Aprilyn O. Jonson, are hereby ordered to acknowledge the rights of the Intervenor, Al Eusebio Lagrisola Jonson, as the illegitimate child of Alfredo Jonson.
As such, Intervenor Al Eusebio Lagrisola Jonson is entitled to the legitime, which is one-half (1/2) of that of a legitimate child and to other successional rights in intestate succession.
To determine the Intervenor's share to estate, the petitioner, Elena Ogot Jonson, is hereby ordered, under pain of contempt, to make an accounting of the entire estate of the late Alfredo Jonson within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED. 21 (Emphasis in the original)
On February 18, 2016, Elena filed a Notice of Appeal and, after several motions for extension of time, the Appellant's Brief 22 before the Court of Appeals. 23
On April 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution 24 admitting Elena's Appellant's Brief. It also required Elena:
. . . to forward to this Court, within five (5) days from notice, the proof of receipt (Registry Return Card/Postmaster's Certification) of a copy of her brief served upon intervenor-appellee showing the date when counsel for intervenor-appellee received copy of the said brief for the purpose of computing the period within which to file the Appellee's Brief. 25
On July 5, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued another Resolution noting Al Eusebio's Comment on Elena's Motion to Admit. 26
On August 31, 2016, the Court of Appeals rendered a Resolution 27 dismissing Elena's appeal. It found that Elena failed to comply with the directive to submit proof that Al Eusebio or his counsel had received her Brief, despite notice of the Resolution. 28
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' August 31, 2016 Resolution 29 reads:
FOR THIS REASON, petitioner-appellant Elena Ogot Jonson's Appellant's Brief is hereby EXPUNGED from the records and the instant case is deemed DISMISSED in view of her failure to comply with the lawful order of this Court without any justifiable reason, pursuant [to] Section 1 (h), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED. 30 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
Elena moved for reconsideration, 31 arguing that her Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief and her Appellant's Brief were personally served on Al Eusebio's counsel. She pointed out that her submitted pleadings bore a "stamp of date of receipt (February 18, 2016) and signature of the secretary of [Al Eusebio's] counsel," 32 which was why her counsel thought that they need not submit proof of service. Moreover, she said that the April 22, 2016 Resolution explicitly referred to a Registry Return Card or a Postmaster's Certification, which are proofs of service made through registered mail — and since she made a personal service, there was no need for either. 33
On June 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution 34 denying Elena's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Hence, on August 25, 2017, Elena filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari35 against respondent Al Eusebio. She prays that the Court of Appeals' Resolutions be reversed and that it be ordered to rule on the merits. She alternatively seeks that respondent be declared as no nonmarital child of Alfredo. 36
Petitioner reiterates that her Motion to Admit Appellant's Brief and her Appellant's Brief were served on respondent's counsel through personal service. Since the pleadings were served personally, she says that her counsel genuinely thought that they need not comply with the April 22, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which had ordered for the submission of a Registry Return Card or a Postmaster's Certification. 37
In addition, petitioner argues that the appeal filed before the Court of Appeals was meritorious enough to warrant a review of the case on the substance. 38 First, respondent's certificate of birth was not signed by the purported father. 39 Second, the deceased's marital children were not impleaded in the proceedings. 40
In his Comment, 41 respondent claims that the Court of Appeals had already extended much leniency to petitioner, 42 yet petitioner still failed to comply with its lawful order. Citing Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 43 respondent argues that "every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice." 44
Respondent maintains that the Petition has no merit as the trial court correctly decided in respondent's favor based on the evidence presented. He adds that the deceased's marital children are not indispensable parties because their legitimes will not be affected by the trial court's decision recognizing respondent as the deceased's nonmarital child. 45
This Court required petitioner to file a reply in its July 30, 2018 Resolution. 46 Petitioner filed her Motion to Admit (The Attached Reply to Respondent's Comment) on January 18, 2019. 47 She explains that the copy of this Court's July 30, 2018 Resolution was mishandled by a former secretary in her counsel's office, and the counsel only found and opened the envelope containing the July 30, 2018 Resolution on January 7, 2019. 48
Petitioner argues that respondent should no longer make an issue of the Court of Appeals' Resolution to admit petitioner's Appellant's Brief. She emphasizes respondent's nondenial of the factual allegation that a copy of the Appellant's Brief was personally served on respondent's counsel. 49
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based on petitioner Elena Ogot Jonson's failure to comply with its April 22, 2016 Resolution requiring her to submit proof of service of the Appellant's Brief on respondent Al Eusebio Lagrisola Jonson or his counsel.
This Court resolves to grant the Petition and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for a disposition of the case on the merits.
Rule 50, Section 1 (h) of the Rules of Court empowers the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal on the ground of the appellant's "[f]ailure . . . to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause[.]" However, this Court frowns upon the dismissal of a case on purely technical grounds. 50 After all, "[i]t is judicial policy to determine a case based on the merits so that the parties have full opportunity to ventilate their cause and defenses." 51
This Court, in Samala v. Court of Appeals, 52 explained that the purpose of procedural law is to facilitate, not frustrate, the administration of justice:
We said that the general aim of procedural law is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing in mind that procedural rules are created not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. In rendering decisions, courts must not be too dogmatic. A complete view must be taken in order to render a just and equitable judgment. It is far better to dispose of a case on the merits, which is a primordial end, than on technicality that may result in injustice.
The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especially on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this liberality. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts. 53 (Citations omitted)
In Malixi v. Baltazar, 54 the Court of Appeals dismissed a case for the petitioner's failure to comply with an order. This Court found the dismissal counterproductive to judicial economy. Reversing the Court of Appeals' ruling, we said:
[I]n the interest of judicial economy, the Court of Appeals should avoid dismissal of cases based merely on technical grounds. Judicial economy requires the prosecution of cases "with the least cost to the parties" and to the courts' time, effort, and resources. 55 (Citations omitted)
As in this case, Heirs of Batori v. Register of Deeds of Benguet56 also involved an order from the Court of Appeals. The appellant was likewise required to "furnish proof of receipt of appellee's counsel of a copy of the appellant's brief to determine whether the said brief was timely filed." 57 The Court of Appeals issued such order thrice: first, on June 6, 2012; second, on September 25, 2012; and finally, on March 25, 2013. The appellant's request for extension of time to comply was granted, but the proof of receipt was still not submitted. Only eight months after the last order did the Court of Appeals dismiss the appeal. In doing so, it also considered the substance of the case and did not find basis to reverse the trial court's decision. 58
On review, this Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the appeal. It noted that the appellant was given numerous opportunities and ample time to comply with the court order. Further, this Court appreciated that the Court of Appeals reviewed the case yet found it unmeritorious.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals did not extend the same leniency to petitioner in this case.
More important, in Batori, the Court of Appeals nevertheless passed upon the arguments in the appellant's brief and ultimately determined that these were unmeritorious. Thus, "her appeal was dismissed not only for her neglect of procedural rules but for its lack of merit as well." 59 In contrast, the Court of Appeals in this case dismissed petitioner's appeal solely based on her failure to comply with the court's order.
Petitioner's noncompliance with the Court of Appeals' order was not a fatal procedural lapse. The Court of Appeals required petitioner to submit a Registry Return Card or Postmaster's Certification to prove that respondent received a copy of the Appellant's Brief. This purpose was sufficiently satisfied as the copy of the Appellant's Brief submitted to the court bore the signature of respondent's representative and the date of receipt. Indeed, respondent was able to file a Comment on the Motion to Admit the Appellant's Brief. Further, the Court of Appeals took note of the Comment in its July 5, 2016 Resolution. Believing that this rendered the April 22, 2016 Resolution moot, petitioner understandably thought that it was no longer necessary to resubmit the proof of receipt. Her failure to comply with the Court of Appeals' order, therefore, is not "without justifiable cause[.]" 60
The circumstances surrounding this case warrant a relaxation of the rules in favor of substantial justice. The case ought to be reviewed on the merits. As the pending issues require a consideration of evidence presented before the trial court, this Court remands the case to the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' August 31, 2016 and June 9, 2017 Resolutions are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Elena Ogot Jonson's appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 105633 is REINSTATED. Let the case be REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for a disposition of the case on the merits.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rules or COURT, Rule 50, Sec. 1 (h) states:
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[.]
2.Rollo, pp. 14-23.
3.Id. at 27-28. The Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 105633 was penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Special Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
4.Id. at 25-26. The Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 105633 was penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Former Special Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
5.Id. at 27-28.
6.Id. at 33.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9. In Aquino v. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 208912 & 209018, December 7, 2021 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc], this Court recognized the pejorative implication of using the "legitimate"/"illegitimate" dichotomy, as this perpetuates a historical stigma. Thus, we noted that, whenever practicable and not directly referring to statute and jurisprudence, the terms "legitimate" and "illegitimate" shall be replaced by "marital'' and "nonmarital." respectively.
10.Rollo, p. 34.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 34-35.
14.Id. at 35.
15.Id. at 36.
16.Id.at 36-38.
17.Id. at 38-39.
18.Id. at 39-41.
19.Id. at 33-45. The July 31, 2015 Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Mercedes Dagdag-Lindog of the Regional Trial Court of Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch 14.
20.Id. at 41-45.
21.Id. at 45.
22.Id. at 49-59.
23.Id. at 27.
24.Id. at 60.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 61.
27.Id. at 27-28.
28.Id. at 28.
29.Id. at 27-28.
30.Id. at 28.
31.Id. at 29-32.
32.Id. at 30.
33.Id. at 29-31.
34.Id. at 25-26.
35.Id. at 14-23.
36.Id. at 21.
37.Id. at 18-19.
38.Id. at 20-21.
39.Id.
40.Id. at 21.
41.Id. at 83-90.
42.Id. at 85-87.
43. 327 Phil. 780 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division].
44.Rollo, p. 88.
45.Id. at 88-89.
46.Id. at 116.
47.Id. at 117-119.
48.Id. at 117-118.
49.Id. at 124.
50.Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Royal Ferry Services, Inc., 805 Phil. 13, 29 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing Yap v. Court of Appeals, 200 Phil. 509 (1982) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, First Division].
51.Id. citing Bunsay v. Civil Service Commission, 556 Phil. 720, 728 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
52. 416 Phil. 1 (2001) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
53.Id. at 7-8.
54. 821 Phil. 423 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
55.Id. at 452.
56. G.R. No. 212611, February 11, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64986> [Per J. J.C. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
57.Id.
58.Id.
59.Id.
60. RULES OF COURT, Rule 50, Sec. 1 (h).