GR 113890; (February, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995
SPOUSES GIL and ELMA DEL ROSARIO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES LAIN and LILY DUQUE, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed Civil Case No. D-9209 against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to recover payment of usurious interest and for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering petitioners to reimburse them P138,550.00 plus attorney’s fees of P9,500.00. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. Private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, alleging that petitioners’ Appellants’ Brief violated Section 16 (c) and (d) of Rule 46 and Section 1 (a) and (g) of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court for want of material data and page references to the record. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on October 29, 1993, finding that the brief indeed lacked page references to the Record under its Statement of Facts and of the Case and did not comply with the Material Data Rule. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on February 11, 1994.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal for petitioners’ failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for an Appellant’s Brief under the Revised Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition. A careful examination of the Appellants’ Brief showed it did not comply with paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (f) of Section 16, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court. Specifically, the Statement of Facts and Case had no page references to the record, and the Table of Contents and Arguments cited cases without page references. These lapses justified the dismissal under Section 1(g) of Rule 50, which allows dismissal for want of page references to the record as required. The Court rejected petitioners’ plea for liberality, emphasizing that the right to appeal is statutory and requires faithful compliance with the rules, which are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. While the Court noted the respondent court erred in also relying on the Material Data Rule (as a record on appeal was no longer required), this error did not benefit petitioners in light of their clear violations of Rule 46. The petition was denied.