June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 199101 : June 13, 2012]
MA. REGINA DELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MERLYN S. UY AND GOHOC P. UY
G.R. No. 199101 (Ma. Regina Delarma v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Merlyn S. Uy and Gohoc P. Uy). - Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration dated 17 February 2012 filed by petitioner Ma. Regina Delarma (Delarma), assailing this Court's 5 December 2011 Resolution, which dismissed the Petition on technical grounds and on its failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA).
In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Delarma insists that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing her appeal notwithstanding the existence of evidence on record showing that the transaction concluded between the parties was only simulated. However, it must be underscored that the CA's dismissal of her appeal was not on the basis of the substantive issue/s of the case, but on her failure to file the requisite appellant's brief within the reglementary period and despite the grant of two extension periods.
This Court holds that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Delarma's appeal. The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, which may be exercised only in accordance with the law and the rules.[1] In this regard, worth noting is the pronouncement in Beatingo v. Gasis:[2]
The failure to file the Appellant's Brief, though not jurisdictional, results in the abandonment of the appeal which may be the cause for its dismissal. It is true that it is not the ministerial duty of the CA to dismiss the appeal. The appellate court has the discretion to do so, and such discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case.
The question of whether or not to sustain the dismissal of an appeal due to petitioner's failure to file the Appellant's Brief had been raised before this Court in a number of cases. In some of these cases, we relaxed the Rules and allowed the belated filing of the Appellant's Brief. In other cases, however, we applied the Rules strictly and considered the appeal abandoned, which thus resulted in its eventual dismissal. In Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court of Appeals, we revisited the cases which we previously decided and laid down the following guidelines in confronting the issue of non-filing of the Appellant's Brief:
(1) The general rule is for the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal when no appellant's brief is filed within the reglementary period prescribed by the rules;
(2) The power conferred upon the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal is discretionary and directory and not ministerial or mandatory;
(3) The failure of an appellant to file his brief within the reglementary period does not have the effect of causing the automatic dismissal of the appeal;
(4) In case of late filing, the appellate court has the power to still allow the appeal; however, for the proper exercise of the court's leniency[,] it is imperative that:
(a) the circumstances obtaining warrant the court's liberality;
(b) that strong considerations of equity justify an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice;
(c) no material injury has been suffered by the appellee by the delay;
(d) there is no contention that the appellee's cause was prejudiced;
(e) at least there is no motion to dismiss filed.
(5) In case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable period; and
(6) Inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse as to call for the appellate court's indulgence except:
(a) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law;
(b) when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or
(c) where the interests of justice so require.
In this case, we finely no reason to disturb the appellate court's exercise of sound discretion in dismissing the appeal. We must emphasize that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The Court cannot say that the issues being raised by petitioner are of such importance that would justify the appellate court to exempt her from the general rule, and give due course to her appeal despite the late filing of her Appellant's Brief.
There is nothing in the present case that warrants a relaxation of the rule allowing the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file an appellant's brief. The CA has already granted petitioner's counsel two extension periods within which to file the brief. Despite this liberality, he still failed to file it and, in lieu thereof, prayed that her Motion for Reconsideration be deemed as her appellant's brief. Thus, the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The 15 October 2010 and 8 July 2011 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be allowed.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Lopez v. Quezon City Sports Club, G.R. No. 164032, 19 January 2009, 576 SCRA 188, 196.[2] G.R.No. 179641, 9 February 2011, 642 SCRA 539, 546-548.