GR 156809; (March, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156809 , March 4, 2009
ESTATE OF FELOMINA G. MACADANGDANG, represented by Court Appointed Administrator ATTY. OSWALDO MACADANGDANG, Petitioner, vs. LUCIA GAVIOLA, AGAPITO ROMERO, CRISTINA QUIÑONES, BOY LAURENTE, AGUSTINA TUNA, SOTERO TAPON, BUENAVENTURA MURING, SR., ROGELIO PASAJE, FE TUBORO, ESTANISLAO PEN, PABLO NAVALES, and JOSE DAGATAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Estate, through its administrator, filed an unlawful detainer case against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City. The MTCC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering respondents to vacate the premises and pay damages. Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed the appeal for respondents’ failure to file an appeal memorandum. The RTC subsequently denied respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial, ruling it no longer had jurisdiction after dismissing the appeal. Respondents filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC’s dismissal order and remanded the case, ruling that the dismissal on a technicality was too rigid and that exceptions exist when a client suffers due to counsel’s gross negligence. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to this petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s dismissal of respondents’ appeal for failure to file an appeal memorandum.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC’s dismissal of the appeal. The Court held that the general rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of counsel applies. Respondents’ counsel’s explanation for the delay—a heavy backlog of work—constituted simple, not gross, negligence. Gross negligence requires a showing of clear abandonment of the client’s cause, which was not present. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in accordance with procedural rules. The failure to file the appeal memorandum was a valid ground for dismissal under Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also noted that respondents were not deprived of due process, as they had the opportunity to be heard in the MTCC, and their claims in their memoranda were unsupported by specific references to the alleged Supreme Court decision they relied upon.