ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 143997. August 28, 2000]

CHARLIE VELGA, et al. vs. DR. FLORANTE E. JONSAY, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 28 2000.

G.R. No. 143997 (Charlie Velga, et al. vs. Dr. Florante E. Jonsay, et al.)

The instant case arose from a dispute involving several parcels of land in Maparaan St., Barangay Central, Quezon City. Two civil cases were filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96 of Quezon City. The first case (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-21727), an action for accion publiciana and damages, was filed by Dr. Florante and Luzviminda Jonsay (respondents herein) against Nick Bertuldo, et al. the second case (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-24605) was filed by Jose Calizo, et al. for the rescission of the deed of sale covering the subject lots between Armando and Dolores Barican and respondents and the annulment of their title thereto.

Petitioners were intervenors in said cases. They claim that they are in actual possession of the subject lots. They allege that they have occupied the subjects lots since 1981. After due trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondents in Civil Case No. Q-94-21727 and ordered defendants therein to vacate the subject property. In Civil Case No. Q-95-24605, petitioners' complaint in intervention was dismissed.

Petitioners then appealed the trial court's decision to the CA. Acting thereon, the CA required petitioners to file their brief. However, petitioners failed to seasonably file the same within the period provided by law. Instead, petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Intervenor-Appellant's Brief which, however, was denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution dated 13 March 2000. The brief was, thus, ordered expunged from the records.1 Rollo , pp. 42-43. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution of 6 June 2000.2 Id., at 49-50. Petitioners received a copy of the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on 14 June 2000.

In this petition, petitioners essentially claim that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their Motion to Admit Intervenor-Appellant's Brief.

The petition is bereft of merit.

Clearly, the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners' Motion to Admit, the same having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the Rules of Court specifically provides as follows:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:

x x x

(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules;

Petitioners' omission patently ran afoul of their duty to file the same as mandated by Rule 44, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. The failure of an appellant to file an appellant's brief is ground for the dismissal of the appeal.3 Aquino vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 578, 585 (1999). The CA, therefore, acted within its jurisdiction in rendering the assailed resolutions.

Besides, the instant petition is evidently used as a substitute for the remedy of appeal. After their motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, petitioners should have filed a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45 of the Rules of Court) of the assailed CA resolutions. They had fifteen (15) days to file said petition from their receipt of a copy of the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration on 14 June 2000. Petitioners failed to do so; hence, the assailed resolutions already became final.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE