Gonzales v. Gonzales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an ejectment complaint filed by petitioner Filomeno G. Gonzales against respondent Quirino G. Gonzales. During the pendency of the case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), respondent Quirino G. Gonzales passed away, and his wife, Eufemia Gonzales, was substituted as the defendant. Respondent Eufemia Gonzales subsequently filed a separate case for annulment of title against the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The MTC denied the motion to suspend the ejectment proceedings, ruling that annulment suits do not abate ejectment actions. The MTC eventually rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, ordering the defendant to vacate the premises, pay monthly rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. Procedural History: Respondent Eufemia Gonzales appealed the MTC decision to the RTC. The RTC directed the respondent to submit a memorandum of appeal within fifteen days, warning that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the appeal. Instead of filing the memorandum, respondent filed a motion to consolidate the ejectment case with the annulment of title case, which was denied. Petitioner then filed a motion for execution pending appeal due to respondent's failure to file a supersedeas bond and periodic rental deposits. The RTC issued a writ of execution and subsequently dismissed the respondent's appeal for failure to file the required memorandum. Respondent filed an Omnibus Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied. The RTC also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC's orders denying her motions for reconsideration and dismissing her appeal. The CA partially granted the petition, reversing the RTC's order of dismissal and directing the RTC to decide the case on the merits, while affirming the order for execution. The Petition: Petitioner Filomeno G. Gonzales filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition argues that the CA erred in granting due course to the respondent's petition, alleging it was filed out of time and lacked mandatory compliance. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the CA erred in setting aside the RTC's dismissal of the appeal, which was based on the respondent's failure to comply with the order to file a memorandum of appeal. The core of the petition is that the respondent's failure to file the mandatory memorandum of appeal, as required by Section 7(b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, was a ground for dismissal, and the CA should not have allowed the respondent to adopt her previously filed position paper as a memorandum of appeal after the dismissal order had already been issued.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting due course to the petition filed before it, considering alleged non-compliance with mandatory requirements and being filed out of time; specifically, whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the appeal for failure to comply with the order to file a memorandum of appeal; specifically, whether liberal construction of rules and adopting prior pleadings applies in this case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the Order of Dismissal of the Regional Trial Court dated November 11, 1997.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals reversing the dismissal of the appeal: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's order of dismissal. Section 7(b) of Rule 40 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court explicitly states that the failure of the appellant to file a memorandum of appeal shall be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. The use of the word "shall" indicates a mandatory and compulsory duty on the part of the appellant. In the case of Enriquez v. Court of Appeals, this Court elucidated that the submission of a memorandum of appeal is a duty, and failure to comply with this mandate compels the RTC to dismiss the appeal. The Court emphasized that an appellate court has no power to resolve an unassigned error, and the assignment of errors in a memorandum is vital to the decision of the appeal on the merits. Therefore, the RTC, in dismissing the respondent's appeal for failure to file the mandatory memorandum of appeal within the reglementary period, was merely complying with the clear and mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court. On the issue of liberal construction of rules and adopting prior pleadings: While the Court acknowledged that nothing in the Rules of Court prohibits the adoption of a party's position paper earlier filed, such an option must be manifested to the court a quo during the period within which to file the required memorandum of appeal. In this case, the respondent's manifestation to adopt her position paper was made in a pleading praying for the reconsideration of the order of dismissal, which was already issued. This was long after the period to file the memorandum had expired. The Court reiterated that while rules should be interpreted liberally to avoid defeating substantial justice, an appeal is a statutory right that requires strict compliance with the Rules of Court. The respondent failed to substantially comply with the requirement of filing an obligatory memorandum of appeal within the allotted period. The Court found no compelling reason or exceptional cause to relax the requirements of Section 7(b) of Rule 40, especially since the respondent's counsel admitted to inadvertent failure due to a voluminous workload. The Court also noted that the undue delay in putting to rest the final judgment in favor of the petitioner caused him injustice, and it cannot condone or tolerate any abuse of the judicial process or schemes calculated to deprive a winning party of the fruits of a verdict.
Main Doctrine
Failure to file a memorandum of appeal within the reglementary period, as mandated by Section 7(b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. A party's manifestation to adopt a prior pleading as a memorandum of appeal must be made within the period to file the memorandum, not after the dismissal order has been issued.