the Resolution[4] dated January 20, 2009.

In the same resolution,

the CA further directed the appellants therein to remit the
SECOND DIVISION deficient amount of P20.00 within 5 days from notice.
SPOUSES DAVID BERGONIA and LUZVIMINDA Thereafter, the CA issued a Resolution on January 30, 2009
CASTILLO, requiring the filing of the Appellants Brief within 45 days from
Petitioners, vs COURT OF APPEALS (4th DIVISION) and receipt.
AMADO BRAVO, JR.,
Respondents. G.R. No. 189151 January 25, 2012 On April 8, 2009, respondent Amado Bravo, Jr. (the
defendant-appellee therein), filed a Motion to Dismiss
Appeal[5] dated April 2, 2009 stating that the petitioners failed to
REYES, J.: file their Appellants Brief within the 45-day period granted to
them by the CA in the Resolution dated January 30, 2009.
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules Citing Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, respondent
of Court filed by the spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda prayed for the dismissal of the petitioners appeal.
Castillo (petitioners) assailing the Resolutions issued by the
Court of Appeals (CA) on May 18, 2009[1] and June 29, In an Opposition/Comment promptly filed on April 8,
2009[2] in CA-G.R. CV No. 91665. [6]
2009, the petitioners alleged that the Motion to Dismiss filed
by the respondent had no basis considering that they or their
The petitioners were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Br. 23-749- counsel did not receive any resolution from the CA requiring
03 entitled Spouses David Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo v. them to file their Appellants Brief within 45 days.[7]
Amado Bravo, Jr. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
23, Roxas, Isabela. On January 21, 2008, the RTC rendered a On May 18, 2009, the CA issued the assailed
decision adverse to the petitioners. The petitioners consequently resolution[8] which reads:
sought a reconsideration of the said decision but the same was
denied by the RTC in an Order dated April 25, 2008 which was For failure of the plaintiffs-appellants to file
received on May 6, 2008. On May 7, 2008, the petitioners filed the required appellants brief within the reglementary
a Notice of Appeal.[3] period which expired on 22 March 2009, as per
Judicial Records Division Report dated 05 May
In January 2009, the Law Firm of Lapea & Associates 2009, the appeal is hereby
filed with the CA its formal entry of appearance as counsel for considered ABANDONED and is
the petitioners, in view of the withdrawal of the former counsel, hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1 (e), Rule
Atty. Panfilo Soriano. The substitution of lawyers was noted in 50, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
 Undaunted, the petitioners instituted the instant petition
SO ORDERED. (citation omitted) for certiorari before this Court asserting the following
arguments: (1) their failure to file their appellants brief was
merely due to the fact that they were never properly served with
On May 25, 2009, the CA issued a Resolution[9] which a copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution of the CA; (2) Ruel
stated, among others, that the January 30, 2009 notice to file de Tomas, the person who apparently received the copy of the
brief addressed to petitioners counsel was received by a certain January 30, 2009 Resolution of the CA, was not their employee;
Ruel de Tomas on February 5, 2009. and (3) the CA, in the interest of justice and equity, should have
decided their appeal on the merits instead of dismissing the
On June 5, 2009, the petitioners filed a Compliance and same purely on technical grounds.
Motion for Reconsideration[10] praying that the dismissal of
their appeal be set aside in the interest of justice and equity. The The sole issue for resolution is the propriety of the
petitioners claimed that their failure to file their brief was due to dismissal of the petitioners appeal for their failure to file the
the fact that they were never furnished a copy of the said appellants brief within the reglementary period.
January 30, 2009 Resolution of the CA directing them to file
their brief. The petition is denied.

Subsequently, in a Manifestation[11] filed on June 16, At the outset, this Court notes that the petitioners resort to
2009, the petitioners asserted that their counsel the Law Firm of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is
Lapea and Associates has no employee in the name of Ruel de not the proper remedy to assail the May 18, 2009 and June 29,
Tomas. However, they explained that Atty. Torenio C. 2009 Resolutions issued by the CA. In determining the
Cabacungan, Jr., an associate of the law firm personally knows appropriate remedy or remedies available, a party aggrieved by
a person named Ruel who sometimes visits their office and who a court order, resolution or decision must first correctly identify
may have accidentally received the said January 30, 2009 the nature of the order, resolution or decision he intends to
Resolution of the CA. In such a case, the same should not be assail.[13]
considered officially served upon them as the latter was not
connected with nor authorized to perform any act for and in It bears stressing that the extraordinary remedy
behalf of counsel. of certiorari can be availed of only if there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
On June 29, 2009, the CA denied the motion for of law.[14] On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of
reconsideration.[12] Court states that an appeal may be taken from a judgment or
final order that completely disposes of the case or a particular
matter therein. As distinguished from a final
order which disposes of the subject
Concomitant to the foregoing, the remedy of a party matter in its entirety or terminates a
against an adverse disposition of the CA would depend on particular proceeding or action, leaving
whether the same is a final order or merely an interlocutory nothing else to be done but to enforce
order. If the Order or Resolution issued by the CA is in the by execution what has been determined
nature of a final order, the remedy of the aggrieved party would by the court, an interlocutory order does
be to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the not dispose of a case completely, but
Rules of Court. Otherwise, the appropriate remedy would be to leaves something more to be
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. adjudicated upon. The term final
judgment or order signifies a judgment
or an order which disposes of the case
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division),[15] this
as to all the parties, reserving no further
Court laid down the following rules to determine whether a
questions or directions for future
courts disposition is already a final order or merely an determination.
interlocutory order and the respective remedies that may be
availed in each case, thus: On the other hand, a court order
is merely interlocutory in character if it
Case law has conveniently demarcated the line leaves substantial proceedings yet to be
between a final judgment or order and an had in connection with the controversy.
interlocutory one on the basis of the disposition It does not end the task of the court in
made. A judgment or order is considered final if the adjudicating the parties contentions and
order disposes of the action or proceeding determining their rights and liabilities
completely, or terminates a particular stage of the as against each other. In this sense, it is
same action; in such case, the remedy available to an basically provisional in its
aggrieved party is appeal. If the order or resolution, application. (citations omitted)
however, merely resolves incidental matters and
leaves something more to be done to resolve the
merits of the case, the order is interlocutory and the Here, the assailed May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009
aggrieved partys remedy is a petition Resolutions issued by the CA had considered the petitioners
for certiorari under Rule 65. Jurisprudence pointedly
appeal below as having been abandoned and, accordingly,
holds that:
dismissed. Thus, the assailed Resolutions are in the nature of a
final order as the same completely disposed of the petitioners memorandum within the time provided by these
appeal with the CA. Thus, the remedy available to the Rules; x x x
petitioners is to file a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 with this court and not a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. In a long line of cases, this Court has held that the CAs
authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellants
Even if we are to assume arguendo that the petitioners brief is a matter of judicial discretion. Thus, a dismissal based
resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is proper, the on this ground is neither mandatory nor ministerial; the
instant petition would still be denied. A petition fundamentals of justice and fairness must be observed, bearing
for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is in mind the background and web of circumstances surrounding
alleged and proved to exist.[16] The abuse of discretion must be the case.[18]
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 or to act at Having in mind the peculiar circumstances of the instant
all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in case, we find that the petitioners excuse for their failure to file
an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or their brief was flimsy and discreditable and, thus, the propriety
hostility.[17] Here, there was no hint of whimsicality or gross and of the dismissal of their appeal. Indeed, as aptly ruled by the
patent abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it CA, the records of the case clearly showed that the petitioners,
dismissed the appeal of the petitioners for the failure of the through their counsel, received the January 30, 2009 Resolution
latter to file their appellants brief. which required them to file their appellants brief. Thus:

Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court succinctly provides The records of this case are clear that the
that: Resolution of 30 January 2009 requiring the
[petitioners] to file the required brief was received by
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An a certain Ruel de Tomas for [petitioners] counsel on
appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on 05 February 2009. Hence, mere denial by
its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the [petitioners] counsel of the receipt of his copy of the
following grounds: Resolution cannot be given weight in the absence of
any proof that the said person is neither an employee
xxxx at his law office nor someone unknown to him.
Likewise, it is highly implausible that any person in
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the the building where [petitioners] counsel holds office
required number of copies of his brief or would simply receive a correspondence delivered by
a postman.[19]
 technicalities to favor substantial justice. Here, there exists no
such consideration.
Verily, the petitioners were only able to offer their bare
assertion that they and their counsel did not actually receive a The petitioners ought to be reminded that the bare
copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution and that the person invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic
who apparently received the same was not in any way wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend
connected with their counsel. There was no other credible procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or
evidence adduced by the petitioners which would persuade us to dismissed simply because their non-observance may have
exculpate them from the effects of their failure to file their brief. resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all
rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most
The Court notes that, in concluding that the petitioners persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a
indeed received a copy of the January 30, 2009 Resolution, the litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his
CA was guided by the Report of the Judicial Records Division thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
of the CA and by the certification issued by the Postmaster of prescribed.[22]
Quezon City. Indubitably, the petitioners bare assertions could
not overcome the presumption of regularity in the preparation of In Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses Bautista,[23] this Court
the records of the Post Office and that of the CA.[20] clarified that procedural rules are required to be followed except
only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be
Nonetheless, the petitioners cite a cacophony of cases relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate
decided by this Court which, in essence, declared that dismissal with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
of an appeal on purely technical ground is frowned upon and procedure prescribed:
that, as much as possible, appeals ought to be decided on the
merits in the interest of justice and equity. We agree with the petitioners contention that
the rules of procedure may be relaxed for the most
The petitioners' plea for the application of the principles persuasive reasons. But as this Court held in Galang
of substantial justice in their favor deserves scant consideration. v. Court of Appeals:
The petitioners should be reminded that technical rules may be
relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the Procedural rules are not to be
belittled or dismissed simply because their
deserving.[21] While the petitioners adverted to several
non-observance may have resulted in
jurisprudential rulings of this Court which set aside procedural prejudice to a partys substantive rights. Like
rules, it is noted that there were underlying considerations in all rules, they are required to be followed
those cases which warranted a disregard of procedural except only for the most persuasive of
 reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve extension of time for a cogent ground before the
a litigant of an injustice not commensurate expiration of the time sought to be extended.
with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not
complying with the procedure prescribed.
In not a few instances, the Court relaxed the
rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford
In an avuncular case, we emphasized that:
the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their
Procedural rules are tools designed to cases on the merits. This is in line with the time-
facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts honored principle that cases should be decided only
and litigants alike are, thus, enjoined to abide after giving all parties the chance to argue their
strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural
some instances, allows a relaxation in the imperfection should, thus, not serve as basis of
application of the rules, this, we stress, was decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would be
never intended to forge a bastion for erring better served. For, indeed, the general objective of
litigants to violate the rules with impunity.
procedure is to facilitate the application of justice to
The liberality in the interpretation and
application of the rules applies only in the rival claims of contending parties, bearing always
proper cases and under justifiable causes and in mind that procedure is not to hinder but to
circumstances. While it is true that litigation promote the administration of justice. In this case,
is not a game of technicalities, it is equally however, such liberality in the application of rules of
true that every case must be prosecuted in procedure may not be invoked if it will result in the
accordance with the prescribed procedure to wanton disregard of the rules or cause needless
insure an orderly and speedy administration delay in the administration of justice. It is equally
of justice. The instant case is no exception to
settled that, save for the most persuasive of reasons,
this rule.
strict compliance is enjoined to facilitate the orderly
In the present case, we find no cogent reason administration of justice.[24] (citations omitted)
to exempt the petitioner from the effects of its failure
to comply with the Rules of Court.
Reiterating the foregoing in Dimarucot v. People of
The right to appeal is a statutory right and the the Philippines,[25] this Court stated that:
party who seeks to avail of the same must comply
with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, The right to appeal is not a natural right and is
the right to appeal is lost. More so, as in this case, not part of due process. It is merely a statutory
where petitioner not only neglected to file its brief privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance
within the stipulated time but also failed to seek an with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the
 same must comply with the requirements of the
Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.

Strict compliance with the Rules of Court is

indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition
of justice. The Rules must be followed, otherwise,
they will become meaningless and
[26]
useless. (citations omitted)

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing

disquisitions, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed
Resolutions dated May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 issued by
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91665 dismissing the
petitioners appeal are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.