Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
ISIDRO ANADON and G.R.
NO. 159153
ROMULO ANADON,
Petitioners,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and
NACHURA,
JJ.
MIGUELINA HERRERA and
JUANITO PANTINOPLE, Promulgated:
Respondents. July
9, 2007
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
In a Decision dated
On
On
a motion to dismiss filed by respondents, the Court of Appeals (CA), in a
Resolution dated
Hence, the present petition for review
attributing the following errors committed by the CA:
(a) THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN TOWING THE LINE WITH THE DEFENDANTS RESORTING TO TECHNICALITY AND ESPOUSING FRAUD AT THE EXPENSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, EQUITY AND FAIR PLAY; AND
(b) FOR UPHOLDING THE GRAVE MISAPPREHENSION
BY THE RTC OF THE FACTS AND THE LAW, WHICH IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED WILL SURELY
CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.[7]
The crux of herein petition is the
determination of the timeliness of petitioners' appeal to the CA.
The CA ruled:
In the instant
case, although plaintiffs-appellants received an unreadable copy of the
decision, it appears that they were fully aware that their complaint was
dismissed since the dispositive portion of the
decision which they even quoted in the Manifestation/Motion was very
clear. From the alleged date of receipt
of the decision which contained unreadable pages, it took them ten (10) days,
or on
x x x
When
plaintiffs-appellants received a copy of the alleged unreadable decision on
Petitioners insist that their receipt of the
“unreadable copy” of the RTC Decision did not toll the running of the reglementary period within which to appeal. They argue that the Manifestation/Motion[9]
filed before the RTC was actually a motion for reconsideration, and the RTC
order directing the Clerk of Court to furnish them a copy of its Decision is an
acknowledgment that the “unreadable copy” was not a correct copy of the
Decision, and the approval of their notice of appeal meant that the same was
filed on time; and that the CA's dismissal of their appeal is a “resurrection”
of the lack of due process initially committed by the RTC.[10]
The
petition is impressed with merit.
The
right to appeal is neither 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. Thus, one who seeks to
avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the
Rules. Failure to do so often leads to
the loss of the right to appeal.[11] Nevertheless, it is an essential part of our
judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a
party of the right to appeal, but rather,
ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and
just disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints of technicalities.[12]
Herein
petitioners received a copy of the RTC Decision on
The
CA, however, found that petitioners' time to appeal had already lapsed, stating
that petitioners were well aware that their complaint for Annulment
of Document, Quieting of Title and Damages had been dismissed by the RTC per its Decision, as the dispositive portion was legible, and all they had to do was
file a one-page Notice of Appeal.
The Court finds that the CA should not
have simply dismissed the appeal and instead, it should have given due course to the Notice of Appeal.
It
has been held that when non-compliance with the Rules of Court is not intended
for delay or does not prejudice the adverse party, the dismissal of an appeal on a mere technicality may be stayed and the court may,
in its sound discretion, exercise its equity jurisdiction.[13]
In this case, respondents will not suffer any disadvantage or prejudice if
petitioners' appeal is given due course.
Also, the Court finds that petitioners' justification in not filing the
Notice of Appeal after their initial receipt of the RTC Decision has sufficient
basis and was obviously not intended for delay. It should be noted that what petitioners
received was an unreadable copy of the RTC Decision. While it may be true that all petitioners
had to do was file a one-page Notice of Appeal, still, it would simply be inequitous to expect petitioners to merely rely on the dispositive portion of the RTC Decision, so as to know what
exactly they must do. Should they file a
motion for reconsideration or should they appeal? As it is, they did not have any well-informed
idea as to how the RTC resolved the merits of their case, which particular
portion of the RTC Decision they will appeal, and whether their appeal involves
pure questions of law, or of law and facts.
The
emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the
amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause free
from the constraints of technicalities. While it is
desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously observed,
courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really
impair the administration of justice.[14] Even the RTC apparently found petitioners'
reason to be valid as it subsequently directed the clerk of court to furnish
petitioners with certified xerox copies of the
Decision. The RTC even relaxed strict
compliance with the rules when it gave due course to petitioners' Notice of Appeal. If the rules are
intended to ensure the orderly conduct of litigation, it is because of the
higher objective they seek which is the protection of the substantive rights of
the parties.[15] The CA, therefore, seriously erred in
considering petitioners' Notice of Appeal not to have been timely filed.
Moreover,
a reading of the
Manifestation/Motion filed by petitioners on
Thus, the filing of the
Manifestation/Motion in effect interrupted the running of the period within
which to appeal. Only ten (10) days
lapsed from the time petitioners received a copy of the RTC Decision on
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, pp. 164-170.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring, CA rollo, pp. 15-18.
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 11.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 16-17.
[9]
[10] Rollo, pp. 11-13.
[11]
Neypes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 141524,
[12]
Salazar
v. Court of Appeals, 426 Phil. 864, 877 (2002).
[13] Villena v. Rupisan, G.R. No. 167620, April 4, 2007; Superlines Transporation, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company, G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007.
[14]
Cando v. Olazo, G.R. No. 160741,
[15] Villena v. Rupisan, supra note 13.
[16] Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125485, September 13, 2004, 438 SCRA 201, 214-215.