G.R. No. 252715 . October 12, 2022
JOEL G. NOLASCO, PETITIONER, VS. PURENCE REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Purence Realty Corporation filed an action for recovery of possession and quieting of title against petitioner Joel Nolasco and another defendant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Purence alleged it was the absolute owner of the subject lots in Laguna and that Nolasco had illegally occupied them. Nolasco was declared in default by the RTC for failing to file his answer within the reglementary period. The RTC subsequently ruled in favor of Purence, ordering Nolasco to vacate the properties. Nolasco appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA dismissed Nolasco’s appeal for failure to timely file his appellant’s brief. The CA noted that Nolasco’s counsel, from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), received a notice to file brief on May 8, 2019, giving him until June 22, 2019, to comply. Instead of filing the brief, Nolasco filed a motion for extension on July 8, 2019, which was 16 days late. A second motion for extension was also filed late. The CA found his proffered excuses—including a heavy workload and an alleged misplacement of the first notice—insufficient to warrant leniency.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Nolasco’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nolasco, reversing the CA and reinstating the appeal. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are designed for orderly administration of justice, they may be relaxed to serve substantial justice, especially when a party stands to lose property rights. The Court found that the dismissal of the appeal was too severe a penalty for the procedural lapse committed by Nolasco’s PAO counsel.
The legal logic centers on the principle that the right to appeal is not merely procedural but a vital part of due process. The Court distinguished between the jurisdiction-conferring act of filing a notice of appeal and the subsequent procedural step of filing the brief. Failure to file the brief on time does not automatically divest the appellate court of jurisdiction; it merely authorizes, but does not compel, dismissal. Given that Nolasco’s counsel was from the PAO, a government office handling numerous cases, and considering the substantive property interests at stake, a liberal application of the rules was justified. The Court cited precedents where appeals were reinstated to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly where a party’s ownership or possession of real property is adjudicated without a full hearing on the merits. The case was remanded to the CA for resolution on the merits.