GR 171687; (June, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171687 ; June 8, 2007
Jetri Construction Corporation/Anastacia Corpuz Rigor, petitioner, vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jetri Construction Corporation obtained a loan from respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), secured by a real estate mortgage and a comprehensive surety agreement executed by its president, Anastacia Corpuz Rigor. Upon Jetri’s default, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed, and the property was sold to BPI as the highest bidder in 1999. After the redemption period lapsed without redemption, title was consolidated in BPI’s name.
BPI subsequently filed an action for foreclosure deficiency. Jetri, in turn, filed a separate complaint for annulment of the foreclosure and cancellation of BPI’s title. Despite these pending actions, BPI filed a petition for a writ of possession over the foreclosed property. The Regional Trial Court granted the writ. Jetri appealed this order to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal outright due to Jetri’s failure to file its appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the required appellant’s brief.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the procedure set by law. The Rules of Court mandate the timely filing of an appellant’s brief, and failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
The Court found no compelling reason to relax this procedural rule. Petitioner’s failure to file the brief within the extended period granted by the Court of Appeals constituted a waiver of its right to appeal. The pendency of other related cases, such as the action for annulment of foreclosure, does not justify non-compliance with procedural rules. The issuance of a writ of possession is a ministerial duty once the redemption period expires, and any challenge to the validity of the foreclosure sale must be pursued in a separate proceeding. Consequently, the dismissal of the appeal for procedural default was proper and in line with the principle that rules of procedure are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice.