Senho v. Philippine Savings Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a petition for a writ of possession filed by Philippine Savings Bank (respondent) over a condominium unit. The respondent asserted that spouses Jenny and Chi-Horng Liao obtained a loan from them, secured by a real estate mortgage over the subject property. Despite demands, the spouses failed to pay, leading to the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of the property at public auction, with the respondent emerging as the highest bidder. After the redemption period expired without redemption, the respondent sought possession of the property. Liao Sen Ho (petitioner) intervened, claiming ownership of the property and alleging that the condominium certificate of title in Jenny Liao's name was fraudulent. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petitioner's opposition-in-intervention, ruling that a writ of possession proceeding is summary and ex parte, limited to assessing the applicant's possessory right. The RTC subsequently granted the respondent's petition for a writ of possession, finding the respondent to be the legal owner. The petitioner then filed a motion to consolidate this case with another case he filed for the annulment of the mortgage and promissory note, which the RTC denied. The petitioner appealed the denial of the consolidation motion to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to file an appellant's brief within the prescribed period, instead submitting an Appeal Memorandum with defects and without a proper motion for extension. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of his appeal. The sole issue raised is whether the CA erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. The petitioner argues that the CA should have been more liberal and resolved the case on its merits, contending that the respondent and the Spouses Liao committed deceit and fraud against him, and that he is the rightful owner of the property. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the appeal before the CA was not on the merits of the writ of possession but on the denial of the motion to consolidate, and that the RTC's decision granting the writ of possession had already become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. Whether the Supreme Court should grant liberality to set aside procedural rules and resolve the case on the merits. Whether the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the respondent was without merit.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated April 21, 2015 and August 6, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 102707 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal, reiterating that the failure to file an appellant's brief within the reglementary period is a ground for dismissal under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. While the word "may" indicates discretion, this discretion must be exercised with due regard to justice and fair play. The Court noted that petitioner failed to file a timely motion for extension, submitted an Appeal Memorandum instead of an appellant's brief, and did not adequately explain the failure to file the brief in his motion for reconsideration. Consequently, there were no strong considerations of equity to justify the liberal application of procedural rules. On the grant of liberality to set aside procedural rules: The Court found petitioner's contentions untenable. Firstly, the petition raised factual matters not within the scope of a Rule 45 petition, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Secondly, the dismissal of the appeal was warranted due to the procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that liberality in procedural rules is granted only when circumstances warrant, strong considerations of equity justify an exception, no material injury has been suffered by the appellee, and there is no motion to dismiss filed. None of these conditions were met in this case. On the issuance of the writ of possession: The Court highlighted that petitioner did not file a Motion for Reconsideration on the RTC's issuance of the writ of possession. Instead, he filed a motion to consolidate, which was denied. Therefore, the subject of the appeal before the CA was not the grant of the writ of possession, but the denial of the motion to consolidate. The RTC's Decision granting the writ of possession had already attained finality and could no longer be disturbed, consistent with the principle of immutability of judgment. Permitting the appeal to proceed would unduly prejudice the respondent, as the grant of the writ had become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of an appeal due to the failure to file an appellant's brief is discretionary and not mandatory, requiring the Court of Appeals to exercise sound discretion considering justice and fair play. However, liberality in procedural rules is not warranted without strong equitable considerations, especially when the appeal's subject matter has already become final and executory.