SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220644. October 6, 2021.]
MANUEL W. QUIJANO, petitioner,vs. OH JIN SEOK, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220644(Manuel W. Quijano v. Oh Jin Seok). — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated May 21, 2015 2 and August 7, 2015 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103634 which dismissed the appeal of Atty. Manuel W. Quijano (petitioner) for failure to file his appellant's brief within the reglementary period. 4
The Antecedents
Petitioner is the former Manager of the Legal Department of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). During his tenure, the Rationalized Housing Policy was implemented allowing SBMA officials with salary grade 24 and higher to avail themselves of housing units in Binictican Heights. Petitioner availed himself of the housing privilege and was allowed to lease a unit inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ). 5 The housing unit covered two stilt-type and duplex-configured concrete structures located at Nos. 23-A and B, Easy Street, Binictican Heights, SBFZ (subject property). 6
Petitioner entered into a deed of assignment of leasehold rights over the subject property with Oh Jin Seok (respondent), an investor in the SBFZ. 7 Respondent paid in full the amount of P8,001,250.00. He likewise paid all arrears, penalties, and extension charges for the two housing units. Respondent had the units renovated. 8
Respondent was not aware that petitioner had previously sold the subject property to Spouses Zenaida Castillo and Dr. Ernesto Castillo (Dr. Castillo). Consequently, Dr. Castillo asserted his rights over the property by filing Civil Case No. 67-0-200 before Branch 75, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Olongapo City. Because of the case, respondent was dispossessed of the subject property. 9
Aggrieved, respondent filed a cross-claim against petitioner. 10
Eventually, Dr. Castillo moved for the dismissal of the case that he filed. Petitioner did not interpose any objection to the withdrawal of the case. He then submitted a Comment 11 where he undertook to address the counter-claim or cross-claim against any parties in the case. Respondent opposed the dismissal of his cross-claim against petitioner and his opposition was granted. 12
On September 12, 2011, petitioner was declared in default due to his repeated failures to attend the preliminary conference despite receipt of notice thereof. 13 He failed to adduce any iota of evidence to rebut the allegations hurled against him.
On October 14, 2011, petitioner filed a motion to lift the order of default, but the RTC denied it. 14
Meanwhile, petitioner sold again the subject property to Spouses Ramon and Agnes Rodriguez (Spouses Rodriguez). Hence, respondent initiated a third party complaint against Spouses Rodriguez, but it was dismissed. 15
The RTC Ruling
On June 2, 2014, the RTC of Olongapo City ruled in favor of respondent. The dispositive portion of the ruling reads: 16
x x x Ordering Cross-Defendant Manuel Quijano to reimburse to Oh Jin Seok the amount of P8,001,250.00 plus legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum. 17
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a notice of appeal on September 1, 2014. 18
The CA Ruling
On May 21, 2015, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal, viz.:
For failure of the cross defendant-appellant Manuel W. Quijano to file the required appellant's brief within the reglementary period, the instant appeal is considered ABANDONED and accordingly DISMISSED pursuant to Sec. 1 (e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED. 19
On June 18, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and motion to admit attached appellant's brief. CAIHTE
In the Resolution 20 dated August 7, 2015, the CA denied both motions for having been filed out of time, viz.:
Contrary to the claim of cross-defendant-appellant, the Notice to File Appellant's Brief was received by hits on February 27, 2015 as per Registry Return Card, and not on March 25, 2015 as he asserted on his motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED and the Appellant's Brief thereto attached is likewise DENIED ADMISSION.
SO ORDERED. 21
Hence, the instant petition raising the sole issue, to wit:
IS THERE SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE RULING IN THE QUESTIONED DECISION, INSOFAR AS IT PROVIDES THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE MADE LIABLE TO CROSS-CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT MR. OH JIN SEOK THE AMOUNT OF P8,001,250.00 AND LEGAL INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM. 22 (Emphasis Supplied.)
Petitioner maintains that there is neither factual nor legal basis to hold him liable to pay respondent the amount of P8,001,250.00 as there is no showing that the latter was evicted from the subject property due to the fault or negligence of the former. 23
Moreover, petitioner insists that it was only on March 25, 2015 that he was furnished a copy of the notice issued by the CA giving him a period of forty-five (45) days within which to file his appellant's brief in accordance with Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court. That being the case, petitioner had until May 9, 2015 within which to submit his appellant's brief. However, due to the volume of other equally urgent professional legal work, he implored in a motion for extension of time dated May 8, 2015 that he be given an additional period of thirty (30) days or until June 9, 2015 to submit the appellant's brief. He further insists that he was diagnosed with retinal detachment in his right eye and retinal tear in his left eye. Consequently, he underwent general surgery and needed a period of at least one year to fully recover from the operation. Additionally, he avers that he was caught by surprise when he received a copy of the resolution dismissing his appeal on June 4, 2015. Nonetheless, he maintains that the resolution was prematurely issued considering that he requested for an additional period of thirty (30) days or until June 9, 2015 within which to file his brief. 24
In his Comment, 25 respondent states that the facts narrated by petitioner as to the manner on how petitioner acquired the subject property has no relation whatsoever in his transaction with respondent. Hence, he prayed that the instant petition be dismissed and that the decision of the lower court ordering petitioner to reimburse respondent the amount of P8,001,250.00 plus legal interest of 12% per annum be affirmed.
In the Resolution 26 dated January 25, 2017, the Court noted respondent's Comment 27 and required petitioner to file a reply within ten days from notice. However, despite receipt of the resolution, petitioner failed to file his reply.
On December 13, 2017, the Court required petitioner to show-cause why no penalty should be imposed upon him for his non-filing of the reply to the comment on the petition in the Resolution 28 dated January 25, 2017. 29
On February 11, 2019, the Court requested the Postmaster, Olongapo City Office, to inform the Court as to the actual date of delivery of Registered Letter No. 15914-C posted at the Central Post Office, Manila on February 26, 2018 addressed to petitioner, with address at S122, Alpha Building Subic International Hotel, Subic Bay Freeport Zone, 2200 Olongapo. 30 However, no response was made. Thus, on April 10, 2019, the Court reiterated its request to the Postmaster. 31
In a letter dated May 14, 2019, COS/Acting Letter Carrier Czesar U. Mendoza informed the Court that the Registered Letter No. 15914-C addressed to petitioner was delivered on February 25, 2019 to petitioner's authorized representative. 32
In the Resolution 33 dated September 4, 2019, the Court resolved: (1) to impose upon petitioner a fine of P1,000.00 payable within 10 days from notice; and (2) to require petitioner to comply with the Resolution 34 dated December 13, 2017 by filing the reply therein also within 10 days from notice hereof. 35 However, petitioner did not comply.
In a Certification 36 dated March 11, 2020, the Judicial Records Office certified that there is no record of payment made by petitioner in the amount of P1,000.00 as payment for the court fine imposed in the resolution dated September 4, 2019. 37
In the letter dated January 23, 2020, another request was sent to the Postmaster to inquire as to the actual date of delivery of Registered Letter No. 111268 posted on November 6, 2019 addressed to petitioner. 38
In reply, the Postmaster informed the Court that it was delivered to petitioner's authorized agent, Ms. Arielle Jules Manalo on November 20, 2019. 39
In the resolution dated September 2, 2020, the Court resolved to: (1) increase the fine imposed upon petitioner to P2,000.00 payable to the Court within 10 days from notice, or a penalty of imprisonment of five (5) days if the fine is not paid within the said period; and (2) require petitioner to comply with the resolution dated January 25, 2017 by filing a reply within 10 days from notice. 40
Still, petitioner did not comply. DETACa
The issue Before the Court
Whether the CA's dismissal of the appeal due to the late filing of the appellant's brief is proper.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Well settled is the rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. Instead, it is a mere privilege created by law which may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. 41 In particular, Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 7. Appellants 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.
Thus, petitioner must submit the required appellant's brief within 45 days from receipt of notice; otherwise, it would result in the abandonment of the appeal which may be the cause for its dismissal, as in the case. The Court finds no reason to disturb the conclusion of the CA. The record is clear. Petitioner received the notice to file appellant's brief on February 27, 2015 and not on March 25, 2015. Consequently, the CA correctly considered petitioner's appeal as abandoned.
Grasping at straws, petitioner insists that the assailed resolutions were prematurely issued in light of his motion for extension of time dated May 8, 2015 praying for an additional period of 30 days or until June 9, 2015 to file the required appellant's brief. However, the Court must state that the mere filing of a motion for an extension of time to file a brief does not suspend the running of the period sought to be extended. 42 Moreover, the CA denied petitioner's motion for extension of time.
As a last resort, petitioner appeals to the sense of fairness and justice of the Court to give due course to the instant petition. 43 However, it must be stressed that the liberality with which the Court exercises equity jurisdiction is always anchored on the basic consideration that it must be warranted by the circumstances obtaining in each case. 44 Having found petitioner's explanation less than worthy of credence, and without evidentiary support, the Court is constrained to adhere strictly to the procedural rules on the timeliness of submissions before the court.
Nevertheless, to put an end to the controversy in the case, the Court upholds the findings of the RTC.
A perusal of the records clearly shows that petitioner offered to sell the subject property to respondent but without informing the latter that it was already sold to Dr. Castillo. Notably, respondent relied on the representation of petitioner, being the former head of the Legal Department of SBMA, that he was buying leasehold rights without any legal encumbrance. Subsequently, while Civil Case No. 67-0-200 was pending, petitioner sold the subject property again to Spouses Rodriguez. As a result, respondent was summarily dispossessed of the subject property twice despite having paid more than P8,000,000.00 including the payment of penalties, arrears, and extensions thereby allowing petitioner to continue to be the principal lessee of the subject property.
Undoubtedly, petitioner violated Article 1191 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Article 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.
This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons who have acquired the thing, in accordance with articles 1385 and 1388 and the Mortgage Law.
In Golden Valley Exploration, Inc. v. Pinkian Mining Co., 45 the Court elucidated on this provision as follows:
As a general rule, the power to rescind an obligation must be invoked judicially and cannot be exercised solely on a party's own judgment that the other has committed a breach of the obligation. This is so because rescission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and fundamental violations as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement. As a well-established exception, however, an injured party need not resort to court action in order to rescind a contract when the contract itself provides that it may be revoked or cancelled upon violation of its terms and conditions. 46
In this case, it is undisputed that the subject property is the object of the deed of assignment of leasehold rights executed by and between petitioner and respondent. Verily, respondent's inability to acquire rights over said property through the acts of petitioner is considered a substantial breach of the latter's obligations under the contract; thereby allowing recovery on the part of respondent. Hence, there is no cogent reason to reverse the decision of the RTC. Petitioner must return the P8,001,250.00 paid by respondent plus legal interest and cost of suit.
In Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 47 when the judgment of the Court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, legal interest shall be imposed on the sum with a rate of 6% per annum from finality until its full satisfaction. The Court further ruled therein that such rate should be applied prospectively from July 1, 2013. 48 Considering that the RTC Order imposing the legal interest of 12% per annum was rendered on June 2, 2014, it must be modified accordingly. aDSIHc
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions dated May 21, 2015 and August 7, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 103634 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Manuel W. Quijano is ordered to reimburse respondent Oh Jin Seok the amount of P8,001,250.00 plus legal interest at 6% perannum from finality of this Resolution until its full payment.
Furthermore, Atty. Manuel W. Quijano is hereby directed to SHOWCAUSE why he should not be held in contempt for his propensity to ignore at will the lawful orders of the Court as demonstrated by his blatant disregard of the Court Resolutions dated January 25, 2017, 49 December 13, 2017, 50 September 4, 2019, 51 and September 2, 2020. 52
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 18-111.
2. In the petition, the resolution is incorrectly dated as June 04, 2015: retrieved from: <http://services.ca.judiciary.gov.ph/casestatusinquiry-war/faces/jsp/view/ViewResult.jsp> (visited May 14, 2021); penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court), concurring.
3. Rollo, pp. 14-15; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court), concurring.
4. Id. at 15.
5. Id. at 27.
6. Id. at 24-27.
7. Id. at 51.
8. Id. at 123-124.
9. Id. at 123.
10. Id. at 63.
11. Id. at 122-126.
12. Id. at 123.
13. Id. at 60-63.
14. Id. at 63.
15. Id. at 98.
16. Id. at 63; petitioner failed to attach a copy of the RTC Order in his petition.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 64.
19. Retrieved from: <http://services.ca.judiciary.gov.ph/casestatusinquiry-war/faces/jsp/view/ViewResult.jsp?> (visited May 14, 2021); penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court), concurring.
20. Rollo, pp. 14-15; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes (now a retired Member of this Court) and Ricardo D. Rosario (now a Member of the Court).
21. Id. at 15.
22. Id. at 68.
23. Id. at 82.
24. Id. at 19-21.
25. Id. at 122-125.
26. Id. at 128.
27. Id. at 122-125.
28. Id. at 128.
29. Id. at 132.
30. Id. at 133.
31. Id. at 134.
32. Id. at 143.
33. Id. at 139.
34. Id. at 132.
35. Id.
36. Id. at 147.
37. Id.
38. Id. at 142.
39. Id. at 148.
40. Id. at 150.
41. Sibayan v. Costales, 789 Phil. 1, 9 (2016).
42. Garcia v. Buenaventura, 74 Phil. 611, 614 (1944).
43. Rollo, p. 104.
44. National Grid Corporation of the Philippines v. Bautista, G.R. No. 232120, September 30, 2020.
45. 736 Phil. 230 (2014).
46. Id. at 236-237.
47. 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
48. Id. at 283.
49. Rollo, p. 128.
50. Id. at 132.
51. Id. at 139.
52. Id. at 150.