THIRD DIVISION
JESUS A. CASIM,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
139511
January 23, 2002
-versus-
BRUNO CASIM
FLORDELIZA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
Before the Court is
a petition for review of the resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated
30 April 1999, dismissing herein petitioner's appeal, as well as its
resolution
of 28 July 1999, denying a reconsideration of the order of dismissal.
The
petition originated from an action filed on 01 September 1991 by Jesus
Casim against Bruno Casim Flordeliza (Civil Case No. 91-2566) for the
return
or reconveyance of certain property located in the cities of Makati and
Parañaque.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case was raffled
to Branch 146 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.cralaw:red
In his complaint, petitioner
(then plaintiff) claimed that when he moved to Metro Manila from the
Bicolandia
region with his family to start the "J. Casim Concrete Products and
Gravel
and Sand" business, he brought along with him respondent Bruno
Flordeliza,
his nephew, who was orphaned at an early age, jobless, and had several
children to support. Petitioner later supported respondent and his
family,
even allowed him to use his surname Casim, and employed him in the
business.
Eventually, respondent rose from a minor employee to a co-manager
position,
with ample power and authority to make bank deposits, as well as to
withdraw
funds therefrom, in the operation of petitioner's business. Giving full
trust and confidence in respondent, petitioner allowed respondent to
purchase
valuable real property in Makati and other places with petitioner's
funds
and to place the property thus acquired in the name of respondent.
Respondent,
after his marriage, opened a business similar to that of petitioner
with
funds lent by the latter. Respondent, however, in breach of the trust
and
confidence reposed in him by petitioner, disposed or sold some of the
property
without the latter's knowledge and consent. Then, sometime in September
1981, respondent even initiated Civil Case No. 2137 against petitioner
before the Makati RTC claiming co-ownership of a property in Las
Piñas,
Metro Manila, bought by petitioner for expansion of the business. By
this
time, petitioner had already lost all trust and confidence in
respondent
and started demanding from him the return of the various pieces of
property
which were bought with petitioner's funds, as well as the recovery of
sums
taken by respondent, which demands the latter ignored.cralaw:red
Respondent (then defendant)
filed an answer, on 04 February 1992, invoking several special and
affirmative
defenses and alleging, among other things, that (1) petitioner waived
or
abandoned all claims he had against respondent when petitioner signed
two
documents, entitled "Release and Quitclaim," dated 26 February 1981,
and
"Mutual Release and Quitclaim," dated 19 March 1981; (2) while
petitioner
claimed that his relationship with respondent was based on an express
trust,
said trust, however, was not reduced into writing and was, therefore,
unenforceable
under the Statute of Frauds; and (3) assuming that petitioner's action
against him is based on an implied trust, his cause of action had long
prescribed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respective pre-trial
briefs of petitioner and respondent were filed on 24 March 1992.cralaw:red
On 02 June 1992, respondent
filed a motion to set the special and affirmative defenses for hearing
and to meanwhile suspend the pre-trial. The motion was granted by the
trial
court in an order, dated 13 January 1993, setting the hearing on the
special
and affirmative defenses for 20 April 1993. The hearing was reset to 20
May 1993 due to the absence of petitioner's counsel.cralaw:red
Civil Case No. 2137
(referred to in Civil Case No. 91-2566) was initiated by Bruno Casim
Flordeliza
(herein respondent) on 17 September 1981 against the spouses Jesus
Casim
(herein petitioner) and Margarita Casim for annulment of a deed of
absolute
sale executed on 04 June 1979 and the annulment and cancellation of TCT
No. 30459 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Metro Manila, District IV,
in the name of the spouses. Respondent claimed one-half of the property
involved plus P13,000,000.00 in damages, attorney's fees and costs.
This
case was raffled to Branch 62 of the RTC of Makati presided by Judge
Roberto
Diokno. The trial in Civil Case No. 2137 was eventually terminated, and
Judge Diokno rendered, on 20 June 1996, a decision dismissing the
complaint
of respondent "for annulment of deed of sale and damages," against
petitioner.
The court found that respondent, taking advantage of his college
degree,
had tricked the unlettered petitioner into signing the documents
"Release
and Quitclaim," dated 26 February 1981, and "Mutual Release and
Quitclaim,"
dated 19 March 1981, which were prepared without giving petitioner an
opportunity
to understand their contents. From the adverse decision, respondent
appealed
(Civil Case No. 2137) to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 54204.cralaw:red
Respondent, at the same
time, filed in Civil Case No. 91-2566 a motion to disqualify Judge
Roberto
Diokno from further hearing Civil Case No. 91-2566 on the ground that
the
judge might no longer be able to resolve Civil Case No. 91-2566 with
impartiality
and fairness. Judge Diokno forthwith inhibited himself from the case.
Civil
Case No. 91-2566 was then re-raffled to Branch 141 of the Makati RTC
presided
by Judge Manuel D. Victorio. On 20 May 1996, a hearing on respondent's
special and affirmative defenses in Civil Case No. 91-2566 was finally
scheduled by Judge Victorio. On said date, respondent did not adduce
evidence
or proffer oral argument in support of his said defenses but opted to
merely
file a "Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Special and Affirmative
Defenses."
Petitioner thereafter filed his reply memorandum.cralaw:red
In an order, dated 17
February 1997, Judge Victorio directed that the resolution of
respondent's
special and affirmative defenses be held in abeyance until the parties
would have presented, respectively, their evidence on the merits.
Later,
however, upon respondent's motion for reconsideration of the 17th
February
1997 order, Judge Victorio, promulgated an order, dated 13 August 1997,
dismissing the complaint of petitioner against respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner moved to
have the order of dismissal reconsidered by Judge Victorio. The motion
was denied on 29 December 1997. Whereupon, petitioner filed a "Notice
of
Appeal," dated 28 January 1998, elevating to the Court of Appeals
(docketed
CA-G.R. CV No. 59522) the propriety of the dismissal of the complaint.
In an order, dated 15 September 1998, the Court of Appeals required
petitioner
to file the appellant's brief within 45 days from receipt of the order.
Petitioner sought an extension of time which the Court of Appeals
granted,
in its order of 01 December 1998, allowing petitioner to file his brief
until 04 February 1999.cralaw:red
On 03 February 1999,
petitioner filed a motion in CA-G.R. CV No. 59522 to consolidate the
appeal
with CA-G.R. CV No. 54204 (the appeal of respondent from the decision
of
Judge Diokno against him in Civil Case No. 2137) pending with the Sixth
Division of the Court claiming that the two cases were theretofore
consolidated
by the Makati RTC; that petitioner won the first case with the
dismissal
of respondent's complaint (Civil Case No. 2137) in the lower court,
following
which respondent immediately moved to inhibit the presiding Judge
Diokno
from further handling the second case (Civil Case No. 91-2566) which
was
then re-raffled to Branch 141 presided over by Judge Victorio; that one
of the issues raised in the first case (Civil Case No. 2137) was the
validity
of the "Release and Quitclaim" and "Mutual Release and Quitclaim," also
relied upon by respondent in the second case (Civil Case No. 91-2566),
which documents Judge Diokno (in Civil Case No. 2137) found to be null
and void, holding that the signatures of petitioner thereon were
obtained
by trickery and fraud; that Judge Victorio dismissed the second case
(Civil
Case No. 91-2566) without even conducting a hearing on the affirmative
defenses of respondent; that the issues in the two appeals involving
the
same parties were intimately inter-related; and that if the two appeals
were consolidated, there could be a single and final decision on the
inter-related
issues raised in the two appeals.cralaw:red
On 24 February 1999,
petitioner filed his appellant's brief in CA-G.R. CV No. 59522.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent opposed the
motion for consolidation filed by petitioner, claiming that it had no
factual
and legal basis and moved to dismiss the appeal of petitioner because
of
his failure to file on time his appellant's brief; that only one copy
of
the brief was served on respondent; and that the brief had no page
references
to the record. Petitioner excepted and argued that his counsel did not
file an appellant's brief in his behalf within the extended period
given
by the court because he (counsel) was waiting for the action of the
appellate
court on his motion for consolidation; that petitioner did not know
that
his counsel had not filed his appellant's brief and found out about it
only when his son inquired from the Court of Appeals on the status of
the
case; that in order to avoid the late filing of his brief, he took the
initiative of filing his appellant's brief himself; that the grounds
for
the dismissal of his appeal invoked by respondent were merely
directory,
the overwhelming consideration being the merits of the case; that he
furnished
appellee with one copy of his brief and his failure to furnish the
latter
with two copies of his brief was not fatal; that the lack of subject
index
in his brief did not result in any prejudice to appellee because the
brief
had only 23 pages which were consecutively numbered; that his appeal
was
not intended for delay; that mere technicalities of procedure should
not
override the right of a litigant to be given the amplest opportunity
for
the proper and just determination of his cause; and that the
consolidation
of his present appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 59522) with the earlier appeal
taken
by respondent (CA-G.R. CV No. 54204) was called for considering that
the
two appeals involved the same parties and inter-related issues.
Petitioner
thus prayed that his brief, already filed with the appellate court, be
admitted. Petitioner subsequently filed with the Court of Appeals a
"Subject
Index" to his appellant's brief.cralaw:red
In a resolution, dated
30 April 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal in
CA-G.R.
No. 59522. A motion for reconsideration proved to be unavailing; hence,
the instant petition for review. Petitioner would now urge that -
"1. The Court of Appeals
denied justice to petitioner and gravely abused its discretion when it
dismissed his appeal in CA-GR SP No. 59522 on minor, harmless, and
innocuous
technical grounds, notwithstanding that petitioner, a non-lawyer and of
low education, had to file his own appellant's brief to avoid delay in
its filing, and his appeal appears to be very meritorious.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"2. The Court of Appeals
erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in putting harmless and
trivial
technicalities above substantial justice in dismissing petitioner's
appeal
in CA-GR SP No. 59522, thereby denying petitioner's right and
opportunity
to have his cause determined free from the constraints of
technicalities.cralaw:red
"3. The Court of Appeals,
instead of dismissing petitioner's appeal in CA-GR SP No. 59522, should
have granted the motion of petitioner's counsel to consolidate
petitioner's
appeal in CA-GR SP No. 59522 with the earlier CA-GR CV No. 54204
involving
the same parties and the same intimately interrelated issues, which
consolidation
would have led to a common study and decision of the two cases and
thereby
promote the interest of justice and a fair and correct determination of
the intimately interrelated issues therein."[1]
Respondent, refuting
particularly the veracity of petitioner's allegation on the alleged
absence
of a hearing on his affirmative defenses before the trial court,
pointed
out thusly:
"Prior to the issuance
of the August 13, 1997 Order dismissing the Complaint, the Records of
this
case shows that a hearing on the special and affirmative defenses was
conducted
on May 7, 1997. Both counsels for petitioner and respondent were
present
during the said hearing. Hence, there is no truth to the claim of
petitioner
that `Judge Victorio [Branch 141] dismissed the second case C.C. No.
91-21566
without even conducting a hearing on respondent's affirmative defenses'
(Petition, at 8).cralaw:red
"In filing his Appellant's
Brief with the Court of Appeals on February 24, 1999, petitioner:
"a. filed his Appellant's
Brief twenty (20) days late;
"b. served respondent
herein only one (1) copy, instead of the two (2) copies required by the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and the September 15, 1998 Order of the
Court
of Appeals;
"c. the Appellant's
Brief has no page references to the record as required in Rule 44,
Section
13(a), (c), (d) and (f);
"d. the Appellant's
Brief has no subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of
the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically
arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages
where
they are cited as required in Rule 44 Section 13(a);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"e) the Appellant's
Brief likewise does not contain a clear and concise statement of the
issues
of fact and law, which statement is required under Rule 44, Section
13(e);
"f) the Appellant's
Brief is not organized in the order provided in Rule 44 of the 1997
Rules
of Civil Procedure."[2]
The issues raised, in
fine, would focus on whether the Court of Appeals was justified in
dismissing
the appeal to it of petitioner or should have ordered the consolidation
of the case with CA-G.R. CV No. 54204 still pending with the appellate
court.cralaw:red
Petitioner does not
deny his procedural infractions for his appeal to be considered by the
Court of Appeals but seeks an indulgence from this Court for the
relaxation
of the rules. Quite unfortunately, this plea is not all up to this
Court
for to conclude otherwise would be to fault the appellate court for
duly
acting in faithful compliance with the rules of procedure it has been
mandated
to observe. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rules 44,
46
and 50 which are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of
cases
before the appellate court, truly cannot be ignored. The rules provide
for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and
manner
at the prescribed time in an orderly confrontation before a judge whose
authority is acknowledged.[3]
The Court cannot just turn a blind eye on and tolerate the
transgressions
of these rules.cralaw:red
A notice to file the
appeal brief was received by petitioner on 22 September 1998, and he,
originally,
had until 06 November 1998 within which to file the appeal brief. He
requested
for an extension of 45 days stating in his motion of 05 November that,
while his brief had been drafted, he, however, needed additional time
to
finalize it. The Court of Appeals granted the request and gave
petitioner
until 04 February 1999 to file his brief with a warning that no further
extension would be given. It was several days after, or on 24 February
1999, when the brief was finally submitted on the excuse that the delay
in the service and filing of appellant's brief was due to his counsel's
"oversight and belief in good faith that the motion for consolidation
would
be granted" by the Court of Appeals and "that there (might) be no need
to file a brief for petitioner as the proceedings in CA-G.R. CV No.
54204
could just be adopted." It was completely wrong for petitioner to
anticipate
a favorable ruling on his motion. Parenthetically, the motion for
consolidation
itself was filed only on 03 February 1999, just a day before the last
day
of the extended period for filing the appellant's brief.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant's brief
itself could be faulted for being in contravention with Section 7 and
Section
13, Rule 44, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[4]
that could justify the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Rule 50,
Section
1(e),[5]
of the Rules.cralaw:red
It would be incorrect
to perceive the procedural requirements of the rules on appeal as being
merely "harmless and trivial technicalities" that can just be
discarded.
As this Court so explained in Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals[6]
-chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Petitioners' plea for
liberality in applying these rules in preparing Appellants' Brief does
not deserve any sympathy. Long ingrained in our jurisprudence is the
rule
that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to
avail of the right must faithfully comply with the rules. In People vs.
Marong, we held that deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. The
rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate.
These
rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed
cases.
In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules
need
to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance
cannot
be left to the whims and caprices of appellants."[7]
Having arrived at this
conclusion, the Court finds it to be inappropriate to still touch on
the
other issues raised by petitioner.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Melo, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 142.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 106-107.
[3]
Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 806.
[4]
Sec. 7. Appellant's brief. It shall be the duty of the appellant
to file with the court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the
notice of the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are
attached
to the record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten,
mimeographed
or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon
the appellee.
Sec.
13. Contents of appellant's brief. The appellant's brief shall contain,
in the order herein indicated, the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the
arguments
and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged,
textbooks
and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited;
x
x x x x x x x x
(c)
Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a clear and concise
statement
of the nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings, the appealed
rulings and orders of the court, the nature of the judgment and any
other
matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy,
with page references to the record;
(d)
Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement
in
a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in
controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating thereto
in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page
references
to the record;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x x x x x x x x
(f)
Under the heading "Argument," the appellant's arguments on each
assignment
of error with page references to the record. The authorities relied
upon
shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins and
the
page of the report on which the citation is found.
[5]
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of
copies
of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules.
[6]
241 SCRA 553.
[7]
At p. 557. |