Enriquez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Victorina Tigle initiated an unlawful detainer action against petitioner Melba Moncal Enriquez. Tigle alleged that she purchased a parcel of land from Engracia Macaraya, on which Enriquez had been residing by Macaraya's mere tolerance. Enriquez was offered the option to purchase the land but declined. Following the sale, Tigle demanded that Enriquez vacate the property, which Enriquez refused. Enriquez countered that the property was co-owned by the heirs of Felix Moncal, and Macaraya's sale could only pertain to her undivided share, which was unidentified and thus not subject to ejectment. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of Tigle, ordering Enriquez to vacate the premises and pay litigation expenses and attorney's fees. Enriquez appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC directed the parties to submit memoranda. However, Enriquez's counsel failed to submit a memorandum, leading the RTC to dismiss the appeal. Enriquez's motion for reconsideration, arguing that her position paper from the MCTC should suffice as a memorandum, was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's dismissal, holding that the filing of a memorandum on appeal is mandatory under Rule 40, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court subsequently denied Enriquez's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Melba Moncal Enriquez seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, arguing that the appellate court committed a grave abuse of discretion. She contends that the RTC should have decided her appeal on the merits, based on the record of the MCTC proceedings, as per Rule 40, Section 7(c) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than dismissing it for failure to file a memorandum. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal due to the non-filing of a memorandum of appeal, which is considered a mandatory requirement.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal due to failure to file a memorandum on appeal. Whether the RTC should have decided the appeal on the merits based on the MCTC records, instead of dismissing it for failure to file a memorandum on appeal, and whether Section 7(c) of Rule 40 applies when the appellant fails to file a memorandum.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Dismissal of Appeal for Failure to File Memorandum and Allegation of Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court reiterated that under Rule 40, Section 7(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the submission of a memorandum on appeal by the appellant is a mandatory obligation. The use of the word "shall" in the rule signifies a compulsory requirement, and failure to comply constitutes a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. The Court emphasized that an appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised in strict compliance with the Rules of Court. The petitioner's failure to submit her memorandum on appeal, despite the explicit directive from the RTC, was a clear violation of this mandatory rule. Therefore, the RTC was compelled to dismiss her appeal, and the CA did not commit any reversible error in upholding this dismissal. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals because the appellate court correctly applied Rule 40, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On the Issue of Deciding the Appeal on the Merits and Applicability of Section 7(c) of Rule 40: The Court noted that the assignment of errors in the appellant's memorandum is vital for the appellate court to decide the case on the merits, as appellate courts generally cannot resolve unassigned errors. The petitioner's failure to comply with this procedural requirement was her own fault, not that of the trial court. The petitioner's argument that the RTC should have proceeded to decide the case on the merits based on the MCTC records, citing Rule 40, Section 7(c), was misplaced. Section 7(c) pertains to the RTC's discretion to decide the appeal on the basis of the records if the appellee fails to file a memorandum, not when the appellant fails to file theirs. The petitioner's failure to file her memorandum was a procedural lapse that divested the RTC of the opportunity to rule on the merits of her appeal.
Main Doctrine
Failure of an appellant to file a memorandum on appeal within the reglementary period, as required by Rule 40, Section 7(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is a mandatory ground for the dismissal of the appeal.