GR 210233; (February, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210233 February 15, 2016
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RODOLFO SY AND BELEN SY, LOLITA SY, and SPOUSES TEODORICO AND LEAH ADARNA, Respondents.
FACTS
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed an action for cancellation of sales patents and titles issued to the respondents. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. The Republic, through a deputized DENR legal division, filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required appellant’s brief. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration.
The CA granted the motion and reinstated the appeal, ordering the Republic to file its brief within 45 days. However, the CA sent the copy of this reinstating resolution only to the deputized DENR counsel, not to the OSG itself. Consequently, the OSG, unaware of the new period, did not file the brief. The CA then issued a final resolution dismissing the appeal for this failure and subsequently declared the dismissal final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Republic’s appeal despite the OSG, as counsel of record, not being notified of the resolution reinstating the appeal and setting a new period to file the brief.
RULING
Yes. The petition is granted. The OSG is the statutory counsel of the Government under the Administrative Code and remains the counsel of record in all appellate proceedings. The CA itself recognized this role in its reinstating resolution. The failure to furnish the OSG with copies of the critical resolutions violated the Republic’s fundamental right to due process. Notice to a deputized agency counsel does not constitute notice to the OSG.
Due process requires that a party be notified and given an opportunity to be heard. The OSG’s lack of notice of the new filing period deprived the Republic of its chance to comply and prosecute its appeal. The dismissal based on this procedural lapse, without fault attributable to the OSG, was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the State’s right to appeal is not forfeited by mistakes of its officials where it was denied due process. The appellate proceedings are ordered reinstated.