GR 141810; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141810 & 141812, February 2, 2007
VICENTE DELOS SANTOS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. FRED ELIZALDE, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint to quiet title over four lots in Boracay, claiming inheritance from Mariano delos Santos. Respondents, including the Elizaldes (who purchased from some heirs) and other heirs of Leonardo delos Santos, asserted conflicting ownership claims. The Regional Trial Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint. It declared respondents Jesus delos Santos and Rosita delos Santos-Flores as lawful owners of a two-thirds portion and respondent Fred Elizalde as owner of the remaining one-third. Both petitioners and Elizalde appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The CA issued a Notice to File Brief. Petitioners’ counsel filed a motion for extension, which was denied for being filed one day late. Consequently, the CA issued an order requiring petitioners to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed. Petitioners’ counsel filed a manifestation with an attached “Undertaking” signed by most, but not all, petitioners, promising to file the brief. The CA deemed this insufficient and later dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required brief, considering it abandoned.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The ruling is grounded on procedural rules and the principle of party diligence. The filing of the appellant’s brief is mandatory and indispensable for the prosecution of an appeal. The Court found that petitioners exhibited inexcusable negligence. Their motion for extension was filed out of time, and their subsequent “Undertaking” was defective as it was not signed by all petitioners and did not constitute a valid brief.
The Court emphasized that while the right to appeal is statutory, its exercise must comply with procedural rules. Clients have a duty to monitor their cases and cannot rely solely on their counsel’s diligence. Petitioners failed to provide a justifiable reason for their non-compliance. The CA acted within its discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute, as such rules are designed to prevent undue delays and ensure the orderly administration of justice. The negligence of counsel binds the client, and the Court found no compelling reason to relax the application of the procedural rules under the circumstances of this case.