Bergonia v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil suit filed by Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo against Amado Bravo, Jr. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision adverse to the Spouses Bergonia, who then sought a reconsideration, which was denied. The spouses appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals (CA). Procedural History: Following the RTC's denial of their motion for reconsideration and their subsequent Notice of Appeal, the Spouses Bergonia's case proceeded to the Court of Appeals. After a change in counsel, the CA issued a resolution on January 30, 2009, directing the appellants to file their Appellant's Brief within 45 days. The respondent, Amado Bravo, Jr., moved to dismiss the appeal, citing the petitioners' failure to file the brief. The CA initially dismissed the appeal on May 18, 2009, for failure to file the brief, and later denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on June 29, 2009. The Petition: The Spouses Bergonia filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's resolutions. They argued that their failure to file the brief was due to not being properly served the CA's January 30, 2009 resolution, that the person who received it was not their employee, and that the CA should have decided the appeal on its merits in the interest of justice. The Supreme Court, however, found that certiorari was not the proper remedy, as the CA's dismissal of the appeal was a final order, and that even if it were, there was no grave abuse of discretion by the CA in dismissing the appeal due to the petitioners' failure to comply with procedural rules.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioners' appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Resolutions dated May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 issued by the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioners' appeal are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals that dismissed the petitioners' appeal. The Court clarified that when a resolution or order completely disposes of the case or a particular stage thereof, it is considered a final order, and the proper remedy is an appeal, specifically a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Conversely, if the order is interlocutory, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate. In this case, the dismissal of the appeal by the CA was a final disposition of that particular stage of the proceedings, thus rendering Rule 45 the correct avenue for review. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: Even assuming, arguendo, that certiorari was the proper remedy, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari requires proof of grave abuse of discretion, which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court explicitly allows the dismissal of an appeal for failure of the appellant to file the required copies of his brief within the time provided. While this power is discretionary, the CA's dismissal was based on the petitioners' failure to file their brief within the reglementary period, a ground provided by the Rules. The Court found the petitioners' excuse for non-compliance—that they did not receive the resolution and that Ruel de Tomas, who received it, was not their employee—to be flimsy and unsubstantiated. The CA's reliance on the Judicial Records Division Report and the Postmaster's certification, which indicated receipt by Ruel de Tomas, was given weight, as it overcame the petitioners' bare assertions. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the CA and the Post Office was not overcome by the petitioners' evidence. The Court emphasized that the interest of substantial justice does not warrant the relaxation of procedural rules when the excuse for non-compliance is weak and there is no compelling reason to deviate from the established procedure. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law, and failure to comply with the rules results in the loss of that right.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of the Court of Appeals that completely disposes of an appeal; the proper remedy is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Furthermore, the dismissal of an appeal for failure to file an appellant's brief within the reglementary period, while discretionary, is affirmed when the excuse for non-compliance is flimsy and unsubstantiated, and there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the appellate court.