Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
ADELIA C. MENDOZA and as
Attorney-in-Fact of ALICE MALLETA, Petitioners, -
versus – UNITED
COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, INC., Respondent.
|
G.R.
No. 165575 Present:
CARPIO,
j., Chairperson, nachura,
PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: February 2, 2011 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of
the Court of Appeals’ Resolution dated July 2, 2004, in CA-G.R. CV No. 79796,
and its Resolution dated September 9, 2004, denying petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Appellants’ Brief filed by petitioners
for failure to comply with the requirements under Section 13, Rule 44 of the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
The facts are as follows:
On
In their Complaint, herein petitioners
stated that on P4,925,000.00.[3] On P31,300,00.00 to UCPB. On
Petitioners contended that the
foreclosure proceedings violated due process and the legal requirements under
Act No. 3135, as amended, on the following grounds:
a)
There was no
valid and legal notice to petitioner Adelia Mendoza of the foreclosure
proceedings;
b)
There was no
valid and legal notice of the auction sale;
c)
There was no
valid and legal notice of the consolidation of ownership;
d)
There was no
valid publication and notice as required by law;
e)
There was a
violation of Republic Act No. 3765, “An
Act to Require the Disclosure of Finance Charges in Connection with Extensions
of Credit,” specifically Section 6 of the law;
f)
There was no
clear and accurate financial statement showing the application of payments of
the plaintiffs (petitioners herein); and
g)
There was no
valid letter of demand showing the clear finance charges.
Petitioners prayed that the foreclosure
proceedings and Certificate of Sale be annulled, and that if ever any new title
is issued in lieu of their Transfer Certificates of Titles,[4] the same should be cancelled and annulled;
that respondent be ordered to pay petitioners attorney’s fees of P50,000.00
and litigation expenses of P20,000.00.
In its Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim,[5]
respondent UCPB denied that petitioners entered into a Real Estate Mortgage
Contract with it in the amount of P4,925,000.00, the truth being that
petitioner Adelia Mendoza executed several promissory notes in the total
principal amount of P27,500,000.00, and to secure these obligations she
executed, together with petitioner Alice Malleta, several real estate mortgages
over several parcels of land in favor of UCPB.
Respondent denied that the
foreclosure proceedings were legally defective, as the said proceedings were
done in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended. It countered that the law does not require
personal notice to the mortgagor of the foreclosure proceedings and the auction
sale, as the publication of the notice of sale in a newspaper of general
circulation constitutes constructive notice to the whole world. Moreover, there is no legal requirement of
personal notice to the mortgagor of the consolidation of ownership, as the
registration of the certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds constitutes
notice to the whole world that the mortgagor or any interested party has one year
from the date of such registration to redeem the foreclosed properties. Respondent claimed that it complied with the
posting requirements, and that it had also complied with the provisions of Republic
Act No. 3765 and had regularly furnished petitioners with statements of account
pursuant to standard banking practice.
Respondent contended that petitioners
knew that the foreclosure was forthcoming due to their default in the payment
of their obligations. Petitioners had been sent several verbal and written
demands to pay their obligations and had been warned that failure to settle their
obligations would result in the foreclosure of their properties. Further, petitioners had one year from the
date of registration of the certificate of sale to redeem their property, but they
failed to do so.
Respondent denied that there was “non-disclosure
of finance charges without lawful and legal demand,” since it had regularly
sent petitioners statements of account and had regularly given verbal and
written notices to pay their obligations.
It also denied the allegations of lack of reconciliation and
verification of accounts. In this
regard, respondent stated that petitioners could have easily verified their
account with the account officers of UCPB, but they failed to do so.
As special and affirmative defenses,
respondent stated that on August 9, 1994, petitioner Mendoza applied for and
was granted a credit line in the amount of P25 million, which is
supported by a Loan Agreement.[6] On P2.5
million, as evidenced by a Loan Agreement.[7] Petitioner P27.5 million) and executed promissory notes[8]
therefor. Among other conditions, the promissory notes carried acceleration
clauses, making these notes immediately due and payable even before maturity in
case an event of default occurred, including, but not limited to, payment of
principal and interest amortizations.
Moreover, respondent stated that on
According to respondent, on October
6, 1995, petitioner Mendoza executed a
real estate mortgage over 12 parcels of land,[9]
all registered in her name, as additional security for the said promissory
notes.
Respondent stated that petitioner
Respondent averred that on
On
The public sale was conducted on P31,300,000.00 to UCPB as
the highest and winning bidder. A Certificate of Sale[16]
was issued in favor of UCPB, which was duly registered in July 2000 at the back
of the certificates of title of the mortgaged properties with the Register of
Deeds of Lipa City.
Petitioners failed to redeem the
foreclosed properties within the one-year redemption period that expired on
Respondent stated that on P58,692,538.63,
as evidenced by a Statement of Account.[17]
According to respondent, the proceeds
of the foreclosure sale amounted to P31,300,000.00, leaving a deficiency
of P27,392,538.63, an amount which it is entitled to payment from
petitioner Mendoza, together with penalties and interest due thereon.
Respondent prayed that, after
hearing, judgment be rendered (1) dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit;
(2) on the counterclaim, ordering petitioners to pay the deficiency claim of P27,392,538.63,
including the penalties and interests due thereon from August 27, 1998, and P1
million as attorney’s fees and P200,000.00 as litigation expenses.
On
Respondent stated that since
Petitioners, through counsel Atty.
Jose P. Malabanan, filed an Opposition to
the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Set the Case for Pre-trial,[20] and
stated therein that their counsel on record is Atty. Monchito C. Rosales, who
died on December 22, 2002; that Atty. Jose P. Malabanan forgot the case because
of the death of Atty. Rosales (who is his law partner), and that he was setting
the case for pre-trial. Petitioners
prayed that the Opposition and motion to set the case for pre-trial be granted.
On
The Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order dated
Thereafter, petitioners appealed the trial
court’s Orders to the Court of Appeals, and filed an Appellant’s Brief on
On May 20, 2004, respondent filed a
Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground that the Appellant’s Brief failed to comply
with the requirements under Section 13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Respondent contended that the
Appellant’s Brief contained only the following topics: (1) Prefaratory Statement; (2) Statement of
Facts and Antecedent Proceedings; (3) Parties; (4) Statement of the Case; (5)
Issues; (6) Arguments/Discussion; and (7) Prayer. The Appellants’ Brief did not have the following
items: (1) A subject index of the matter
in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged,
textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited;
(2) an assignment of errors; (3) on the authorities cited, references to the
page of the report at which the case begins and page of the report on which the
citation is found; (4) page references to the record in the Statement of Facts and Statement
of the Case.
Respondent contended that the absence of a specific
assignment of errors or of page references to the record in the Appellants’
Brief is a ground for dismissal of the appeal under Section 1 (f), Rule 50 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[23]
On
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the defendant-appellee UCPB’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal is hereby GRANTED. This appeal is ordered DISMISSED for failure to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.[25]
The Court of Appeals held that the
right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the
right must faithfully comply with the rules.
It found that the Appellants’ Brief failed to comply with Section 13,
Rule 44 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, thus:
In this case, the plaintiff-appellant’s brief failed to provide an index, like a table of contents, to facilitate the review of appeals by providing ready references to the records and documents referred to therein. This Court has to thumb through the brief page after page to locate the party’s arguments, or a particular citation, or whatever else needs to be found and considered. In so doing, the plaintiff-appellant unreasonably abdicated her duty to assist this Court in the appreciation and evaluation of the issues on appeal.
Further, the statement of facts is not supported by page references to the record. Instead of reasonably complying with the requirements of the rules, plaintiff-appellant annexed the plain photocopy of the documents being referred to in the statements of facts. Thus, if only to verify the veracity of the allegations in the brief and the existence of the attached documents, this Court has to pore over the entire records of this case.
There is no merit in the plaintiff-appellant’s argument that the “Assignment of Error” was merely designated as “Issues” but the substance thereof remains and should not cause the dismissal of the appeal. The Supreme Court categorically stated in De Liano vs. Court of Appeals that the statement of issues is not to be confused with the assignment of errors because they are not one and the same, for otherwise, the rules would not have required a separate statement of each.[26]
Petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in its
Resolution dated
Hence, petitioners filed this petition
raising the following issues:
I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE PETITIONERS’ SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE [WITH] SECTION 13, RULE 44 [OF] THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
II
THE HONORABLE
III
THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LIPA CITY, BRANCH 12 ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE POSTING REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 3, ACT NO. 3135 IS FATAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.
IV
THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AND AUCTION
V
RESPONDENT UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK VIOLATED SECTION 4 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3765 ON THE REQUIREMENT OF FULL DISCLOSURE OF FINANCE CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT.
VI
PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES.[27]
The main issue is whether or not the
Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal on the ground that their
Appellants’ Brief failed to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure as the said brief did not have a subject index, an
assignment of errors, and page references to the record in the Statement of
Facts.
Petitioners argue that the absence of
a subject index in their Appellants’ Brief is not a material deviation from the
requirements of Section 13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, and that each portion of the 12-page brief was boldly designated to
separate each portion.
Moreover, petitioners contend that
while the “assignment of errors” was not designated as such in their
Appellants’ Brief, the assignment of errors were clearly embodied in the “Issues”
thereof, which substantially complies with the rules.
The petition is without 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.[28]
An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly
comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court.[29]
In regard to ordinary appealed cases
to the Court of Appeals, such as this case, Section 13, Rule 44 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the contents of an Appellant’s Brief, thus:
Sec. 13. Contents of
appellant’s brief.—The appellant’s brief
shall contain, in the order herein indicated, the following:
(a) A subject index of the matter in the
brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases
alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the
pages where they are cited;
(b) An assignment of errors intended to be
urged, which errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated
without repetition and numbered consecutively;
(c) Under the heading “Statement of the
Case,” a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of
the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the nature of
the judgment and any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature
of the controversy, with page references to the record;
(d) Under the heading “Statement of Facts,” a
clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both
parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof
relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with
page references to the record;
(e) A clear and concise statement of the
issues of fact or law to be submitted to the court for its judgment;
(f) Under the heading “Argument,” the
appellant’s arguments on each assignment of error with page references to the
record. The authorities relied upon
shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins and the page
of the report on which the citation is found;
(g) Under the heading “Relief,” a
specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks; and
(h) In cases not brought up by record on
appeal, the appellant’s brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the
judgment or final order appealed from.
In this case, the Appellants’ Brief
of petitioners did not have a subject index.
The importance of a subject index should not be underestimated. De Liano v. Court of Appeals[30] declared
that the subject index functions like a table of contents, facilitating the
review of appeals by providing ready reference.
It held that:
[t]he
first requirement of an appellant’s brief is a subject index. The index is intended to facilitate the
review of appeals by providing ready reference, functioning much like a table
of contents. Unlike in other
jurisdictions, there is no limit on the length of appeal briefs or appeal
memoranda filed before appellate courts.
The danger of this is the very real possibility that the reviewing
tribunal will be swamped with voluminous documents. This occurs even though the rules
consistently urge the parties to be “brief” or “concise” in the drafting of
pleadings, briefs, and other papers to be filed in court. The subject index makes readily available at
one’s fingertips the subject of the contents of the brief so that the need to
thumb through the brief page after page to locate a party’s arguments, or a
particular citation, or whatever else needs to be found and considered, is
obviated.[31]
Moreover, the Appellants’ Brief had
no assignment of errors, but petitioners insist that it is embodied in the “Issues”
of the brief. The requirement under
Section 13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for an “assignment of errors” in paragraph (b)
thereof is different from a “statement of the issues of fact or law” in paragraph (e) thereof. The statement of
issues is not to be confused with the assignment of errors, since they are not
one and the same; otherwise, the rules would not require a separate statement
for each.[32] An assignment of errors is an enumeration by the
appellant of the errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court for
which he/she seeks to obtain a reversal of the judgment, while the statement of
issues puts forth the questions of fact or law to be resolved by the appellate
court.[33]
Further, the Court of Appeals found
that the Statement of Facts was not supported by page references to the record.
De
Liano v. Court of Appeals held:
x x x
The facts constitute the backbone of a legal argument; they are determinative
of the law and jurisprudence applicable to the case, and consequently, will
govern the appropriate relief.
Appellants should remember that the Court of Appeals is empowered to
review both questions of law and of
facts. Otherwise, where only a pure
question of law is involved, appeal would pertain to this Court. An appellant, therefore, should take care to
state the facts accurately though it is permissible to present them in a manner
favorable to one party. x x x Facts which are admitted require no further
proof, whereas facts in dispute must be backed by evidence. Relative thereto, the rule specifically
requires that one’s statement of facts should be supported by page references
to the record. Indeed, disobedience
therewith has been punished by dismissal of the appeal. Page references to the
record are not an empty requirement. If a statement of fact is unaccompanied by
a page reference to the record, it may be presumed to be without support in the
record and may be stricken or disregarded altogether.[34]
The assignment of errors
and page references to the record in the statement of facts are important in an
Appellant’s Brief as the absence thereof is a basis for the dismissal of an
appeal under Section 1
(f), Rule 50, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, thus:
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:
x x x x
(f ) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to the record as required in section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44.
Rules 44 and 50 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases
before the Court of Appeals.[35] Rules of procedure exist for a noble purpose,
and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to
defeat such purpose.[36] The Court of Appeals noted in its Resolution
denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration that despite ample opportunity,
petitioners never attempted to file an
amended appellants’ brief correcting the deficiencies of their brief, but
obstinately clung to their argument that
their Appellants’ Brief substantially complied with the rules. Such obstinacy is incongruous with their plea
for liberality in construing the rules on appeal.[37]
De Liano v. Court of
Appeals held:
Some may argue that adherence to these formal requirements
serves but a meaningless purpose, that these may be ignored with little risk in
the smug certainty that liberality in the application of procedural rules can
always be relied upon to remedy the infirmities. This misses the point. We are not martinets; in appropriate
instances, we are prepared to listen to reason, and to give relief as the
circumstances may warrant. However, when
the error relates to something so elementary as to be inexcusable, our
discretion becomes nothing more than an exercise in frustration. It comes as an unpleasant shock to us that
the contents of an appellant’s brief should still be raised as an issue
now. There is nothing arcane or novel
about the provisions of Section 13, Rule 44. The rule governing the contents of
appellants’ briefs has existed since the old Rules of Court, which took effect
on
In fine, the Court
upholds the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal of
petitioners on the ground that their Appellants’ Brief does not comply with the
requirements provided in Section
13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
the dismissal is supported by Section 1 (f), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure and jurisprudence.[39] With the dismissal of the appeal, the other
issues raised by petitioners need not be discussed by the Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Resolutions dated July
2, 2004 and September 9, 2004, in CA-G.R. CV No. 79796, are hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second
Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 41-91.
[3] Annex “A,” id. at 47.
[4] Annexes “A-1” to “A-63,” records, pp. 14-76.
[5] Records, p. 96.
[6] Annex “1,” id. at 107.
[7] Annex “2,” id. at 113.
[8] Annexes, “3,” “4,” “5,” id. at 119, 120, 121.
[9] Annex “8,” id. at 133.
[10] Annex “9,” id. at 143.
[11] Annex “10,” id. at 145.
[12] Annex “11,” id. at 148.
[13] Annexes “10” and “11,” id. at 145, 148.
[14] Records, p. 149.
[15]
[16] Annex “15,” id. at 169.
[17] Annex “17,” id. at 238.
[18] Records, p. 239.
[19] 148-B Phil. 43, 50 (1971).
[20] Records, p. 245.
[21]
[22]
[23] Rule
50, 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:
x x x x
(f ) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to the record as required in section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44.
[24] CA rollo, p. 135.
[25] Id. at 147.
[26]
[27] Rollo, pp. 7-8.
[28] Mejillano v. Lucillo, G.R. No. 154717, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 1, 9-10.
[29] Id. at 10.
[30] 421 Phil. 1033 (2001).
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Lumbre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160717, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 419, 431.
[36] Id. at 434.
[37] Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 113890,
[38] De Liano v. Court of Appeals, supra note 30, at 1046-1047.
[39] Id.; Estate of Tarcila Vda. de Villegas v. Gaboya, G.R. No. 143006, July 14, 2006, 495 SCRA 30, 41, citing Del Rosario v. Court of Appeals, supra note 37 and Bucad v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 423 (1993).