View full case

SPS. DAVID BERGONIA v. CA

FACTS:

The spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo (petitioners) were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Br. 23-749-03 entitled "Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo v. Amado Bravo, Jr." in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela. The RTC rendered a decision adverse to the petitioners on January 21, 2008. The petitioners sought a reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC in an Order dated April 25, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal.

The Law Firm of Lapeña & Associates entered its appearance as counsel for the petitioners in January 2009. The CA directed the appellants to remit the deficient amount of P20.00 and filed their Appellant's Brief within 45 days from receipt. Respondent Amado Bravo, Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, stating that the petitioners failed to file their Appellant's Brief within the given period. The petitioners opposed this motion, claiming that they did not receive any resolution from the CA requiring them to file their brief. Despite their opposition, the CA issued a resolution on May 18, 2009, dismissing the appeal for failure to file the required appellants' brief within the reglementary period. The CA further denied the motion for reconsideration on June 29, 2009. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that their failure to file the brief was due to not being properly served with a copy of the resolution.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioners were properly served with a copy of the January 30, 2009 CA Resolution requiring them to file their Appellants' Brief.

  2. Whether the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the Court of Appeals for failure to file the appellants' brief was proper.

  3. Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an appropriate remedy to assail the May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 Resolutions of the CA.

RULING:

  1. Proper Service The Court found that the petitioners, through their counsel, received the January 30, 2009 Resolution requiring them to file their appellants' brief. The CA’s findings were based on the records and reports detailing such receipt, thus rejecting the petitioners' claim.

  2. Propriety of Dismissal The dismissal of the appeal by the CA was deemed proper. The Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate their claims of non-receipt of the Resolution and did not allege any compelling reason for non-compliance with procedural requirements. The CA's dismissal of the appeal was within its discretion under Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

  3. Appropriateness of Certiorari The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy. The appropriate procedure should have been a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, as the CA’s resolutions were considered final orders dismissing the petitioners' appeal, thus precluding any further interlocutory review.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Proper Service of Court Orders Courts rely on evidence of service and the presumption of regularity in the preparation of official documents.

  2. Discretionary Dismissal of Appeals The CA has the discretion to dismiss appeals for failure to file the appellant's brief within the prescribed period under Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

  3. Final vs. Interlocutory Orders The nature of a court's order (final or interlocutory) determines the type of remedy available. Final orders must be challenged through Rule 45 (petition for review), while interlocutory orders may be subject to Rule 65 (certiorari).

  4. Certiorari and Grave Abuse of Discretion Certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion which goes beyond mere errors of judgment to acts that are arbitrary, despotic, or made with passion or hostility.

  5. Deviation from Procedural Rules Procedural rules are crucial for orderly justice, and deviation is permissible only under the most compelling circumstances to prevent manifest injustice. The interest of substantial justice is not a catch-all excuse for non-compliance without substantial justification.