G.R. No. 140473. January 28, 2003.
MELBA MONCAL ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and VICTORINA TIGLE, respondents.

FACTS

On February 29, 1996, respondent Victorina Tigle filed an action for unlawful detainer against petitioner Melba Moncal Enriquez before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bayawan-Basay, Negros Oriental. Tigle alleged she bought the subject parcel of land from Engracia Macaraya, and that Enriquez, who was staying on the lot by Macaraya’s tolerance, refused to vacate after demands. In her Answer, Enriquez claimed the property was co-owned by the heirs of Felix Moncal, and Macaraya could only sell her undivided 1/7 share, which was unidentified and thus not a proper subject of ejectment under Article 434 of the Civil Code. The MCTC ruled in favor of Tigle, ordering Enriquez to vacate. Enriquez appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC directed the parties to submit their memoranda. Enriquez’s counsel failed to file the required memorandum. Consequently, the RTC dismissed her appeal for failure to file the memorandum as mandated by Rule 40, Section 7(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Enriquez moved for reconsideration, manifesting she was adopting her MCTC position paper as her memorandum, but the RTC denied it, noting the records did not show such a manifestation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, holding that filing a memorandum is a mandatory duty of the appellant, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit a reversible error in sustaining the order of the RTC which dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file a memorandum on appeal?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit a reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. Rule 40, Section 7(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly states it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum, and failure to do so “shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.” The use of “shall” denotes a mandatory and compulsory obligation. The submission of the appellant’s memorandum is mandatory because the assignment of errors is vital to the decision of the appeal on the merits; an appellate court generally cannot resolve unassigned errors. While the Rules should be interpreted to allow litigants ample opportunity to prove their claims and avoid denial of justice due to technicalities, an appeal is a statutory right that requires strict compliance with procedural rules. Petitioner’s failure to file her memorandum was a ground for dismissal, and the loss of her case was due to her own non-compliance. The RTC correctly dismissed the appeal, and the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed such dismissal.