ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 132049.� March 22, 2004]
FIL-INT'L. MGMT. CORP. vs. DOMINION INSURANCE CORP.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 22 2004 .
G.R. No. 132049 (Fil-International Management Corporation, vs. Dominion Insurance Corporation.)
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Resolutions dated May 30, 19971 and January 5, 19982 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51057, "Fil-International Management Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Dominion Insurance Corporation, Defendant-Appellee and Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. Intercorp Enterprises, et al., Third Party Defendants"
The controversy stemmed from the complaint for sum of money filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Makati City by Fil-International Management Corporation, petitioner, against Dominion Insurance Corporation, respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 93-2836.
After hearing, the trial court rendered a Decision3 dated August 1, 1995 dismissing petitioner's complaint.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dated May 30, 1997 dismissing petitioner's appeal for its failure to file appellant's brief.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the Appellate Court in a Resolution dated July 31, 2000.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on mere technicalities.
In its comment, respondent averred that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal since appellant (petitioner herein) did not comply with the Rules.
Petitioner contends that a liberal interpretation of the Rules should be our policy guidance and pleads that the instant petition be granted.
In Kowloon House/Willy Ng vs. Court of Appeals,4 we ruled:
"Rules of procedure exist for a purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice where suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner, at the prescribed time, in a peaceful though adversarial confrontation, before a judge whose authority litigants acknowledge. Public order and our system of justice are well served by a conscientious observance of the rules of procedure, particularly by government officials and agencies."
Indeed, the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.5 An appeal is a statutory right, and one who seeks to avail oneself of it must comply with the statute or the rule in effect when that right arose.6
Section 7, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,7 as amended, provides:
"Section 7. Appellant's 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."
Collorarily, Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the same Rules reads:
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
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and fife the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules;
xxx"
Records show that petitioner failed to file the appellant's brief for almost one (1) year. This prompted the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. But devastating to petitioner's cause, according to the Appellate Court, was its utter failure to state, in its motion for reconsideration, satisfactory reasons why it failed to file the appellant's brief. On this point, the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, thus:
"We find Appellant's 'Motion for Reconsideration' filed with this Court on September 5, 1997 barren of merit. The records show that Atty. David Unay, the Counsel of the Appellant received, through George Pesario, on July 26, 1996, the notice for it to file Brief as Appellant within forty-five (45) days from said notice. However, the Appellant failed to file its Brief. On May 30, 1997, the Court was impelled to promulgate a Resolution, dismissing Appellant's appeal for its failure to file its Brief as Appellant. However, the copy sent to Appellant's Counsel was returned to this Court for the reason that, in the meantime, said Counsel had transferred his office. On August 13, 1997, this Court promulgated a Resolution requiring the Division Clerk of Court to send a copy of the aforesaid Resolution to the Appellant itself. On September 5, 1997, new Counsel of the Appellant entered his appearance and filed a 'Motion for Reconsideration' of the Resolution of this Court dated May 30, 1997 appended to which is Appellant's Brief. Appellee filed its Opposition to Appellant's 'Motion for Re consideration.'
"As correctly observed by Appellee, Appellant's 'Motion for Reconsideration' does not even specifically state the reason or justification for its failure to file its Brief for almost one (1) year from receipt of the notice to file Brief issued by this Court. Appellant's averment, in its motion, that its failure to file its Brief was 'due to appellant's mistake and/or excusable neglect' is merely a conclusion and not a factual averment. The failure of Appellant's Counsel to inform the Appellant of the need to file Brief is not a valid justification for such failure to file Brief. Appellant is duty-bound to inquire from time to time from its Counsel or from the Court of the status of the case.� However, the Appellant failed to do so."
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Annex "A", Petition for Review, Ro llo at 42-43.
2 Annex "A-1", id.. at 44-46.
3 Annex "E", id. at 59-78.
4 G.R. No. 140024, June 18, 2003, citing Favila vs. Second Division, 308 SCRA 303 (1999) and CIR vs. CA, 351 SCRA 436 (2001).
5 Bello vs. Francisco, G.R. No. L-16970, January 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 135, citing Aguila vs. Navarro, 55 Phil. 898; Santiago vs. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397.
6 G.R. No. 139943, January 18, 2001, 349 SCRA 596, 603, citing Lazaro vs. CA, 330 SCRA 208 (2000).
7 While the appeal was filed prior to the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the same Rules and not the Revised Rules of Court apply considering that remedial laws have retroactive effect (Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. 138137, March 8,2001, 354 SCRA 100).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
