G.R. No. 192500 ; February 2, 2011
SPOUSES AMADO O. IBAÑEZ and ESTHER A. RAFAEL-IBAÑEZ, Petitioners, vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA AND CAVITE and PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK (PVB), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Ibañez filed a petition for Injunction and Damages against respondent Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) before the RTC of Imus, Cavite. The RTC decided against them, and they appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 92007. The CA issued a Notice on February 23, 2009, requiring petitioners to file their appellants’ brief within 45 days. A copy sent to their counsel, Ibañez & Zerrudo Law Office, was returned with the postal notation “NOBODY TO RECEIVE.” The CA then ordered its Judicial Records Division (JRD) to resend the Notice. However, the JRD sent a copy to the petitioners themselves at “101 Herrera cor. Dela Rosa Sts., Legaspi Village, 1200 Makati City,” which was actually the address of PVB’s counsel. Based on a JRD report stating that petitioners received the Notice on March 12, 2009, and failed to file the brief, the CA dismissed the appeal for abandonment in a Resolution dated July 23, 2009. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Admit Appellants’ Brief, explaining they never received the Notice as their counsel was out of town and their law office was under renovation. The CA denied the motion in a Resolution dated December 15, 2009, reasoning that notice to petitioner Amado Ibañez, a member of the representing law firm, was notice to counsel. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, asserting they did not receive the Notice as it was sent to the wrong address (PVB’s counsel’s address), a fact confirmed by a Certification from the Makati Central Post Office and admitted by PVB.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the appellants’ brief within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the assailed CA Resolutions, and REMANDED the case to the CA for proper proceedings. The dismissal was improper because neither the petitioners nor their counsel actually received the Notice to File Appellants’ Brief. The Notice to counsel was returned unserved, and the copy purportedly sent to petitioners was erroneously addressed to the office of PVB’s counsel, as admitted by PVB and evidenced by a post office certification. Consequently, the 45-day period to file the brief never commenced. The failure to file a brief within the period constitutes abandonment only upon due receipt of the notice. The Supreme Court criticized the CA’s JRD for carelessness in sending notices and admonished PVB’s counsel for lack of candor in not informing the CA that its office had received the notice intended for the petitioners.