TOPIC Objectives of, and power to promulgate, rules of pleading, practice and procedure:
CONST, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (5)
CASE NO. G.R. No. 189151
CASE NAME Bergonia v CA
MEMBER Pierre Macalino
DOCTRINE
1. If the Order or Resolution issued by the CA is in the nature of a final order, the remedy of the
aggrieved party would be to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. Otherwise, the appropriate remedy would be to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
2. The CA’s authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief is a matter of judicial
discretion. It is neither mandatory or ministerial. The fundamentals of justice and fairness must be
observed, bearing in mind the background and web of circumstances surrounding the case.
3. Liberality in the application of rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result in the wanton
disregard of the rules or cause needless delay in the administration of justice.
RECIT-READY DIGEST
Petitioners Bergonia filed a Notice of Appeal in the RTC, where they had a case. The CA then
required petitioners to submit their Appellant’s Brief within 45 days from receipt. Petitioners seek to set
aside the resolution of the CA, which considered their appeal abandoned and dismissed the same for the
non-filing of the Appellant’s Brief on time. Petitioners contend that the justice calls for the relaxation of
the rules and hence the CA’s resolution should be set aside. They claim that they or their counsel did not
receive the resolution requiring them to submit their brief. The issue is the propriety of the resolution of the
CA which considered their appeal abandoned and dismissed the same for the non-filing of the Appellant
Brief. The Supreme Court held that at the outset, the remedy chosen by petitioners was improper. Since the
CA’s resolution which dismissed their appeal was a final order, the remedy should have been a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45, not one under Rule 65, which is warranted only when there is GADALEJ
The Supreme Court also denies petitioner’s call for the relaxation of the rules in the interest if substantial
justice because no such circumstances are present which would warrant such relaxation. The CA’s
resolution was based on their records and that of the postmaster’s. The bare assertions of petitioner cannot
defeat the presumption of regularity of the CA and the post office. The relaxation of the rules are warranted
only for the most persuasive of reasons, which are not present in this case.
FACTS
• Petitioners were plaintiffs in a civil case in the RTC entitled “Spouses David Bergonia and
Luzviminda Castillo v Amado Bravo, Jr.”. The RTC ruled against the petitioners in that case and
their MR denied. Petitioners then filed a Notice of Appeal.
• Petitioner’s former counsel withdrew and their new one, the Law Firm of Lapena & Associates,
filed its formal entry of appearance in the CA.
• On January 30, 2009, the CA issued a Resolution and required petitioners to file their Appellant’s
Brief within 45 days from receipt.
• On April 8, 2009, respondent Amado Bravo, Jr. filed a motion to dismiss stating that the petitioners
failed to file their Appellants Brief within the 45-day period, citing Rule 50, Sec. 1 (e). Petitioners,
in their comment, replied that they did not receive any resolution from the CA.
o Sec. 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal – An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of
Appeals on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
(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.
• CA issued a resolution which considered the appeal as abandoned and dismissed the same.
1
• Petitioners filed a MR praying that the dismissal be set aside in the interest of justice and equity.
They explained that the person who might have accidentally received the resolution was not an
employee of their counsel, although he is known by one of the associates. CA denied this MR.
• Petitioners then filed the current petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE/S and HELD
1. W/N petitioner’s appeal should be dismissed for their failure to file the appellant’s brief within the
reglementary period? YES
2.
RATIO
1. The extraordinary remedy of certiorari can be availed of only if there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary case of law. The remedy of petitioner should
have been a petition for review under Rule 45, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
2. Rules to determine whether a court’s disposition is already a final order or merely an interlocutory
order:
a. It is final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely. Here, the remedy is
a petition for review under Rule 45.
b. If it merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve
the merits of the case, the order is interlocutory. Here, the remedy is petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.
3. The CA’s resolution is a final order seeing as it dismissed the appeal completely. There was a
remedy available to petitioner through petition for review under Rule 45, hence the use of petition
of certiorari under Rule 65 is improper.
4. CA’s authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief is a matter of judicial
discretion. It is neither mandatory not ministerial. The fundamentals of justice and fairness must be
observed, bearing in mind the background and web of circumstances surrounding the case.
a. In this case, petitioners cited several decisions of the Supreme Court which relaxed the
application of the rules in the interest of substantial justice. The Supreme Court, in
response, said that technical rules for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the
deserving…. The bare invocation of ‘the interest of substantial justice’ is not a magic wand
that will automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules’… ‘they are required
to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to
relief a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in
not complying with the procedure described.’
5. CA’s resolution is supported by the Report of the Judicial Records Division of the CA and by the
certification issued by the Postmaster of QC. Bare assertions cannot overcome the presumption of
regularity in the preparation of these records.
a. Records show that the resolution dated January 30, 2009 was received by a certain Ruel de
Tomas for petitioner’s counsel on February 5, 2009. It is highly unlikely that someone
would receive correspondence when he is not an employee.
DISPOSTIVE PORTION
Wherefore, the petition is DISMISSED. The CA’s resolutions dismissing their appeal are AFFIRMED.
