G.R. No. 127596 September 24, 1998.
ARNOLD GINETE, FLOR GINETE, assisted by Jose Bontigao, and NORA GINETE, assisted by Ricardo Sabayle, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSEFINA RIBAYA-GINETE, VICTOR AND ALEX, both surnamed GINETE, EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA and MIRAFE BELLEN-VALENCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Arnold, Flor, and Nora Ginete filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale and for Partition against private respondents concerning seven parcels of land in Bulan, Sorsogon. Petitioners claimed to be the legitimate children of the late Onofre (Odelon) Ginete by his first wife, Beatriz Tamboong, and asserted that the subject lots were originally conjugal properties of the deceased spouses Mauricio Ginete and Aniceta Ginga, partitioned to Onofre. Private respondents, including Onofre’s second wife Josefina Ribaya-Ginete, contended the lots belonged solely to Aniceta Ginga, who sold portions to them. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring them owners and ordering petitioners to pay damages and vacate the lots. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal within the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal via a June 16, 1995 Resolution for failure to file the Appellants’ Brief despite an extension. Petitioners’ counsel received this resolution on July 3, 1995, but the Motion for Reconsideration, dated July 18, 1995, was allegedly filed together with the Appellants’ Brief only on August 1, 1995, and received by the Court of Appeals on December 29, 1995. The Court of Appeals, finding no timely Motion for Reconsideration, ordered entry of judgment on December 8, 1995, and later denied petitioners’ Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration on December 18, 1996. Petitioners filed the instant Petition for Review, arguing their failure to file the brief was due to the gross negligence of former counsel, and seeking suspension of the rules to reinstate their appeal on merits.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the Appellants’ Brief and in ordering entry of judgment, and whether the rules of procedure should be suspended to allow their appeal to be reinstated and decided on the merits.

RULING

The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and REMANDED the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to admit petitioners’ Appellants’ Brief, give due course to their appeal, and decide it on the merits. The Court distinguished between the failure to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period (which is jurisdictional and renders the judgment final) and the failure to file an appellants’ brief within the granted period (which results in abandonment of the appeal but does not affect the appellate court’s jurisdiction once obtained). Here, the notice of appeal was filed on time; thus, the Court of Appeals had acquired jurisdiction. The failure to file the brief was due to the gross negligence of petitioners’ former counsel, which should not bind the clients. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are important, a liberal interpretation is warranted to promote substantial justice, especially in cases involving ownership and succession where petitioners would be unjustly deprived of their inheritance if technicalities were strictly applied. The negligence of counsel should not prejudice the clients’ substantial rights.