GR L 79244; (December, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-79244 December 10, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF MATEO AYLLON SR., (Deceased) ERLINDA S. AYLLON, petitioner-appellant, vs. PRIMA A. SEVILLA, PILAR A. SALAZAR, MERCED A. PABELLO, MARCOS AYLLON, ANGELES A. SALAMEDA and VICENTE AYLLON, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
A petition for the probate of the holographic will of Mateo Ayllon Sr. was filed by his surviving spouse, Erlinda Ayllon. The respondents, children from the testator’s first marriage, opposed the probate. While the case was pending decision, the petitioner, without legal assistance, entered into a verbal amicable settlement with the respondents. Relying on this agreement, she instructed her lawyer to file a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on March 14, 1984. The respondents allegedly failed to comply with the settlement, prompting the petitioner to seek the revival of the case. The trial court initially revived the case but later issued a final order dismissing it on two grounds: the amicable settlement and the petitioner’s failure to present three witnesses to identify the testator’s handwriting as required under Article 811 of the Civil Code for contested holographic wills.
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court required the filing of a Record on Appeal within sixty days. Petitioner’s counsel, however, failed to file this mandatory record and instead submitted an Appeal Brief. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with the procedural rules governing appeals in special proceedings under Section 39 of B.P. Blg. 129 and the Interim Rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for failure to file a Record on Appeal.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The legal logic is grounded in procedural rules and the principle of binding agency. Appeals in special proceedings require the filing of a Record on Appeal, a mandatory procedural step explicitly provided by law. The petitioner’s counsel received due notice of this requirement but willfully ignored it by filing an Appeal Brief instead, and took no corrective action even after the respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on this precise ground. The failure was not inadvertent but a conscious disregard of the rules.
The Court affirmed the established doctrine that a client is generally bound by the mistakes and negligence of their counsel. The loss of the appeal due to counsel’s unjustified neglect is binding upon the client. Therefore, the appellate court committed no reversible error in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of suits, the Supreme Court, while denying the petition for certiorari, remanded the case to the trial court. The directive is for the trial court to determine and adjudicate the respective hereditary shares of the petitioner and respondents in the estate of Mateo Ayllon through intestate succession, as the petitioner’s hereditary rights as a surviving spouse are acquired by law and remain unaffected by the dismissal of the probate proceeding.