Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
SPOUSES
AMADO O. IBAÑEZ and ESTHER A. RAFAEL-IBAÑEZ, Petitioners, - versus - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 192500
Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February
2, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a
petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA)
Resolutions dated July 23, 2009[1]
and December 15, 2009[2]
in CA-G.R. CV No. 92007.
The case originated from a petition
for Injunction and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order filed by petitioners, Spouses Amado O. Ibañez and
Esther A. Rafael-Ibañez, against respondent Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB),
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus,
In a Notice[3]
of the CA dated February 23, 2009, petitioners and their counsel were required
to file their appellants’ brief within 45 days from receipt of the Notice.
On May 8, 2009, the CA issued a
Resolution[4]
which states that:
The
returned copy of this Court’s Notice to File Brief dated February 23, 2009
addressed to Ibañez & Zerrudo Law Office was returned to this Court with
the postal notation “NOBODY TO RECEIVE.”
The Judicial Records Division is ORDERED to resend copy of the said
Notice of Resolution to the aforementioned law office within five (5) days from
receipt hereof.
Thereafter, the appellate court issued another Resolution[5]
dated July 23, 2009, the pertinent portions of which read:
1. The copy of the Resolution dated
February 23, 2009 addressed to plaintiffs-appellants’ counsel Ibañez Zerrudo
Law Office returned to this Court on 08 May 2009 with postal notation “Nobody
to Receive” is NOTED.
2. Plaintiffs-appellants’ Urgent
Motion for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and or Temporary
Restraining Order against the issuance of a writ of possession is DENIED
considering that an order for a writ of possession issues as a matter of
course, pursuant to R.A. 3135, as amended.
3.
Per Judicial Records Division’s
(JRD) report dated 10 June 2009 NO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF has been filed as per
docket book entry despite receipt by defendants-appellants themselves on 12
March 2009 of the Notice to File Brief,
the instant appeal is considered ABANDONED and accordingly DISMISSED pursuant
to Sec. 1 (e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[6]
Aggrieved, petitioners
filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Admit Appellants’
Brief.[7]
They explained that they and their counsel could not have received a copy of
the Notice sent by the court because their counsel, together with his
secretary, was then on official business in Iloilo City, and that their law office in Malate, Manila
was under renovation.
In a Resolution[8]
dated December 15, 2009, the appellate court denied petitioners’ motion. The CA
reiterated that petitioners received the Notice to file appellants’ brief on
March 12, 2009. It also explained that though the Notice was given to petitioners
themselves, it was a sufficient notice to counsel since petitioner Amado Ibañez
is one of the members of the law firm representing petitioners. Lastly, the
court held that the fact that petitioners’ counsel and his secretary were out
of town and that their law office was under renovation at the time could not
justify their failure to file the appellants’ brief.
Petitioners now come
before this Court insisting on the admission of their appellants’ brief, though
belatedly filed, considering that they did not receive the Notice to file the
same. They point out that it was impossible for them to receive the Notice
since it was sent not to the residential address of petitioners but to PVB’s
counsel at 101 Herrera corner Dela Rosa Streets,
In its Comment,[10]
PVB confirms that the Notice to File Appellants’ Brief contained the following
addresses:
Ibañez and Zerrudo Law Office
Cor. Dagonoy, Malate
1000
Sps. Amado O. Ibañez and
Esther A. Rafael-Ibañez
101 Herrera cor. Dela Rosa Sts.
1200
PVB contends that the Notice
was sent to petitioners’ counsel’s address, only that, there was nobody to
receive the same. As to the wrong address of petitioners where the CA Notice
was sent, PVB blames petitioners for using different addresses in their various
pleadings filed in court. Thus, PVB insists that there was no justification for
the belated filing of the appellants’ brief.
We grant the petition.
The sole issue for resolution is the propriety of the
dismissal of petitioners’ appeal for their failure to file the appellants’
brief within the reglementary period.
It is noteworthy that the
dismissal of petitioners’ appeal was based on the JRD’s report that no
appellants’ brief has been filed despite receipt by petitioners themselves of
the Notice sent by the appellate court. The CA thus considered the appeal
abandoned, and accordingly dismissed the same. Upon receipt of the Resolution
dismissing their appeal, petitioners moved for reconsideration and explained
that no appellants’ brief was filed as they had not received the CA Notice to
file their brief. The CA, however, sustained its earlier Resolution on the
mistaken belief that the Notice addressed to petitioners was received by the
addressees in the ordinary course of mail as shown by the registry return card.
It appears from the records that the CA overlooked material
and substantial facts which warrant the reversal of its assailed resolutions. First,
it is undisputed that a Notice to file brief was sent by the CA to petitioners’
counsel of record. However, that Notice was returned to the court with the
notation “Nobody to Receive.” This is the reason why the CA directed the JRD to
resend the same to the law firm. Yet, no notice was resent to the counsel. Second,
instead of sending the Notice to the counsel in the law firm’s address, the JRD
sent it to petitioners themselves, but to a wrong address. Not only was the Notice
sent to an address which was not
petitioners’, but it was sent to the address of PVB’s counsel. In its December 15, 2009 Resolution, the CA
ratified such act of the JRD, ratiocinating that Amado Ibañez is a member of
the law firm representing petitioners and, thus, notice to him was already
notice to counsel. Lastly, relying on the JRD’s report that petitioners
themselves received the Notice and that they failed to file the required
appellants’ brief within 45 days from receipt of the Notice, the CA dismissed
the appeal. As claimed by petitioners and as admitted by PVB, the Notice
addressed to petitioners was wrongly sent to PVB’s counsel’s address at 101
Herrera corner Dela Rosa Streets,
Indeed, the failure to
file appellants’ brief within the period granted by the appellate court results
in the abandonment of the appeal which can lead to its dismissal upon failure
to move for its reconsideration.[13] However, since it was
duly proven that neither petitioners nor their counsel actually received the Notice
to file brief sent by the CA, there was no abandonment of the appeal. The CA
has, therefore, erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal.
One final note. We cannot
help but be disturbed by the carelessness exhibited by the CA, particularly the
JRD, in the sending of notices to parties. We call the attention of the CA to
take to heart what this Court said in Heirs
of Juan Valdez v. Court of Appeals:[14]
Had the CA exercised due care and
attention in the performance of [its] duties, the present petition would have
been avoided. Truly, as public officers, we are bound by our oath to bring to
the discharge of our duties the prudence, caution, and attention which careful
men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. To do less affects not
only the substance of our actions, but the all important perception of the
public we serve of the kind of justice we dispense. The image of a court of
justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the
people manning the courts – from the justices, judges, the clerks of court, to
the lowest-ranked personnel. It is the duty of each one of us to maintain the
judiciary’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[15]
We also deplore and must
express our disappointment at the total lack of candor of the counsel for PVB.
By not informing the CA that its office had received the Notice intended for
petitioners because of the erroneous address, counsel for PVB had displayed
conduct bordering on bad faith – and had contributed to the undue delay in the
disposition of this case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Resolutions
dated July 23, 2009 and December 15, 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 92007 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for
proper proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
ROBERTO
A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Resolution 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
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution 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] Rollo, p. 6.
[2] Penned
by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Mariflor P.
Punzalan Castillo and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; id. at 16-17.
[3]
[4]
[5] Supra note 1.
[6] Emphasis
supplied.
[7] Rollo, pp. 7-12.
[8] Supra
note 2.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Tamayo v. Court of Appeals, 467 Phil.
603, 608 (2004).
[14] G.R.
No. 163208, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 89.
[15]