Ibañez v. Register of Deeds
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a petition for Injunction and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order filed by Spouses Amado O. Ibañez and Esther A. Rafael-Ibañez against Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB). Procedural History: The case was initially filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, which ruled against the petitioners. The petitioners then appealed the RTC's decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 92007. The CA, through its Judicial Records Division, issued a Notice to File Brief, which was returned to the court with the notation "NOBODY TO RECEIVE." Subsequently, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief, considering it abandoned. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration, explaining their inability to receive the notice due to their counsel's absence and office renovation, was denied by the CA. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions that dismissed their appeal. They argue that they and their counsel never received the Notice to File Brief. They contend that the CA erred by sending the notice to the wrong address, specifically the address of PVB's counsel, and by relying on a registry return card that indicated receipt by PVB's counsel, imputing fraud and carelessness on the part of PVB and the CA's staff. The core of their petition is that the 45-day period for filing the appellants' brief had not commenced due to the lack of proper service of the notice.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners' appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief within the reglementary period, considering the alleged non-receipt of the Notice to File Brief by the petitioners and their counsel. Whether the dismissal of the appeal was proper despite the alleged non-receipt of the Notice to File Brief by the petitioners and their counsel, specifically addressing the misdirection of the notice and its implications on the commencement of the filing period.
Ruling
The petition is 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.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the dismissal of petitioners' appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief within the reglementary period, considering the alleged non-receipt of the Notice to File Brief by the petitioners and their counsel: The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA's dismissal of the appeal. The Court found that the CA overlooked material and substantial facts. It was undisputed that a Notice to File Brief was sent to petitioners' counsel but was returned "Nobody to Receive." The CA directed its JRD to resend the Notice, but this was not done. Instead, the JRD sent the Notice to petitioners themselves, but to a wrong address, which was the address of PVB's counsel. The CA's ratification of this act, reasoning that notice to petitioner Amado Ibañez, a member of the law firm, was notice to counsel, was found to be erroneous. On whether the dismissal of the appeal was proper despite the alleged non-receipt of the Notice to File Brief by the petitioners and their counsel, specifically addressing the misdirection of the notice and its implications on the commencement of the filing period: The Court emphasized that the CA dismissed the appeal based on the JRD's report that petitioners received the Notice and failed to file the brief, but this was based on a mistaken belief. As admitted by PVB and shown by a Certification from the Makati Central Post Office, the Notice addressed to petitioners was wrongly sent to PVB's counsel's address, not petitioners'. Therefore, both petitioners and their counsel were not properly served a copy of the Notice to file brief, meaning the 45-day period within which to file the appellants' brief had not commenced to run. The Court reiterated that while failure to file an appellants' brief within the period granted by the appellate court results in abandonment and dismissal, this is only true if it was duly proven that the parties actually received the Notice. Since it was proven that neither petitioners nor their counsel actually received the Notice, there was no abandonment of the appeal, and the CA erred in dismissing it.
Main Doctrine
The failure to file an appellants' brief within the reglementary period may result in the abandonment and dismissal of the appeal. However, if it is duly proven that neither the petitioners nor their counsel actually received the Notice to file brief sent by the Court of Appeals, the period for filing the brief has not commenced to run, and the dismissal of the appeal is erroneous.