De Leon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rodolfo de Leon filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against spouses Estelita and Avelino Batungbacal. The complaint alleged that Estelita executed a promissory note for P500,000 with a 5% monthly interest, which remained unpaid due to a dishonored check. Estelita admitted the loan obligation, but Avelino denied liability, claiming his wife lacked authority to bind the conjugal partnership and contracted the debt without his consent. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted a partial judgment against Estelita for P500,000 plus interest, which was not appealed and partially executed. Subsequently, the RTC ordered Avelino to pay the loan amount and interest, finding it benefited the conjugal partnership. Avelino appealed this decision. Estelita also filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC denied as untimely. The private respondents' appeal was docketed with the Court of Appeals (CA). Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal, citing various procedural defects and the untimeliness of Estelita's appeal. The CA denied the motion to dismiss and virtually admitted an amended appellants' brief. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading to the appeal being deemed submitted for decision. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolutions denying his motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. He argues the CA acted without jurisdiction in entertaining Estelita's appeal, as the partial judgment against her had become final and executory, and her subsequent appeal was filed out of time. Petitioner also contends the CA gravely abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss, which was based on defects in the appellants' brief, and in admitting the amended appellants' brief filed without leave of court and beyond extensions. The petition further argues the CA erred in requiring him to file an appellee's brief and in deeming the appeal submitted for decision without it.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the appeal filed by private respondent Estelita Batungbacal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred or committed grave abuse of discretion when it considered the appeal as submitted for decision without petitioner's brief.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The resolutions dated January 13, 1999, and April 19, 1999, of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The Court of Appeals is ordered to proceed with the appeal and decide the case with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Jurisdiction over Estelita's appeal): The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not act without jurisdiction. The judgments rendered by the trial court were not several judgments, as the private respondents were sued under a common cause of action as solidary debtors. Therefore, there could only be one judgment finally disposing of the case on the merits, which was the decision dated June 2, 1997. The partial judgment dated May 14, 1996, was interlocutory and had to be appealed together with the final judgment. The reglementary period to appeal commenced on June 6, 1997, when the counsel of record for the private respondents received a copy of the decision, not on June 10, 1997, when Estelita personally received a copy. Notice to the counsel of record is notice to the client. Avelino's timely appeal on June 19, 1997, inured to Estelita's benefit, rendering her subsequent notice of appeal superfluous. On the second issue (Consideration of appeal without appellee's brief): The Court found that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in considering the appeal submitted for decision. The grounds for dismissal of an appeal under Rule 50 of the Rules of Court are discretionary. The CA rightly exercised its discretion in finding substantial compliance with the rules regarding the appellants' brief. However, the CA erred in requiring petitioner to file an appellee's brief in response to an amended appellants' brief filed without leave of court and beyond the granted extensions. Despite this error, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA's denial of the motion to dismiss was pro forma, repeating grounds already discussed. Thus, it did not suspend the period for filing the appellee's brief, and petitioner was deemed to have waived this right. The CA's subsequent action to deem the appeal submitted for decision was therefore not a grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A partial judgment, which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be done upon the merits, is merely interlocutory and must be appealed together with the final judgment on the merits. Service of court processes must be made upon the counsel of record, and notice to the client or another lawyer not of record is not notice in law, absent a court order for service upon the party himself.