G.R. Nos. L-39288-89. January 31, 1985.
HEIRS OF ABELARDO V. PALOMIQUE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MARCIAL SAMSON, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, 19 permanent employees of Caloocan City, assailed the abolition of their positions via Ordinance No. 1749 (the City Budget for 1972-73). The trial court, in a decision dated November 29, 1973, declared the abolition illegal, having been made in bad faith and in violation of their security of tenure. The court found the petitioners were permanent, some with civil service eligibility, had good performance ratings, and no administrative cases were pending against them. It ordered the respondent city officials to appropriate funds for their back salaries.
The respondent city officials appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals. In their appeal, they alleged the decision was not supported by evidence. The petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal, citing a fatal procedural defect in the appellants’ brief.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the appeal due to the appellants’ failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for their brief under the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and dismissed the appeal. The legal logic is anchored on strict adherence to procedural rules designed for the orderly administration of justice. Rule 46, Section 16(d) of the Rules of Court explicitly requires an appellant’s brief to contain a clear “Statement of Facts” with page references to the record to support the factual allegations. Rule 50, Section 1(g) lists the want of such page references as a ground for dismissal of an appeal.
The Supreme Court found that the appellants’ brief in this case contained no separate “Statement of Facts.” Their factual assertions were instead embedded within their arguments on the assigned errors, and these averments were not supported by any page references to the record. This failure constitutes a valid ground for dismissal, as established in Genobiagon vs. Court of Appeals. The purpose of the rule is to require appellants to point out the specific portions of the record that support their version of the facts, thereby aiding the court in its review and preventing frivolous or dilatory appeals. The Appellate Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was a reversible error. Non-compliance with this mandatory rule justified the dismissal of the appeal for failure to properly submit the case for appellate review.