Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R.No.166236.July29,2010.*
NOLIALFONSOandERLINDAFUNDIALAN,petitioners,
vs. SPOUSES HENRY and LIWANAG ANDRES,
respondents.
Civil Law; Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases; Poverty cannot
be used as an excuse to justify petitioners complacency in allowing
months to pass by before exerting the required effort to find a
replacement lawyer; Poverty is not a justification for delaying a
case; Both parties have a right to a speedy resolution of their case;
Not only petitioners, but also the respondents, have a right to have
the case finally settled without delay.Poverty cannot be used as
an excuse to justify petitioners complacency in allowing months to
pass by before exerting the required effort to find a replacement
lawyer. Poverty is not a justification for delaying a case. Both
parties have a right to a speedy resolution of their case. Not only
petitioners,butalsotherespondents,havearighttohavethecase
finallysettledwithoutdelay.
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.
150
150
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alfonso vs. Andres
VOL.626,JULY29,2010
151
from04September1995;[and]
3.tojointlyandseverallypaythesumofP10,000.00asandfor
attorneysfeesandtopaythecostofsuit.
SOORDERED.3
Petitioners,4thus,appealedtotheCA.
_______________
1 CA Rollo, p. 82; penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes and
concurred in by Associate Justices Perlita J. TriaTirona and Jose C.
Reyes,Jr.
2Records,pp.93101;pennedbyJudgeFranciscoC.Rodriguez,Jr.
3Id.,atp.101.
4ReynaldoFundialandidnotfileaNoticeofAppeal;id.,atp.102.
152
152
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alfonso vs. Andres
6Id.,atpp.7879.
153
VOL.626,JULY29,2010
153
154
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alfonso vs. Andres
AND/ORDISREGARDEDTHEMERITSOFPETITIONERSCASE
WHICH INVOLVES A DEPRIVATION OF THEIR PROPERTY
RIGHTS.10
Petitioners Arguments
Petitioners contend that their failure to file their
appellantsbriefwithintherequiredperiodwasduetotheir
indigency and poverty. They submit that there is no
justificationforthedismissaloftheirappealspeciallysince
thePAOhadjustentereditsappearanceasnewcounselfor
petitioners as directed by the CA, and had as yet no
opportunitytopreparethebrief.Theycontendthatappeal
shouldbeallowedsincethebriefhadanywayalreadybeen
prepared and filed by the PAO before it sought
reconsiderationofthedismissaloftheappealandisalready
partoftherecords.Theycontendthatthelatefilingofthe
briefshouldbeexcusedunderthecircumstancessothatthe
case may be decided on the merits and not merely on
technicalities.
Respondents Arguments
On the other hand, respondents contend that failure to
file appellants brief on time is one instance where the CA
may dismiss an appeal. In the present case, they contend
that the CA exercised sound discretion when it dismissed
theappealuponpetitionersfailuretofiletheirappellants
briefwithintheextendedperiodof75daysaftertheoriginal
45dayperiodexpired.
Our Ruling
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
_______________
10Rollo,p.157.
155
VOL.626,JULY29,2010
155
Petitionerspleadforthesuspensionoftherulesandcite
anumberofcaseswheretheCourtexcusedthelatefilingof
anoticeofappealaswellasthelatefilingoftheappellants
brief.TheyfurtherciteDevelopment Bank of the Philippines
v. Court of Appeals11wherethelatefilingoftheappellant's
brief was excused because the Court found the case
impressedwithpublicinterest.
The cases cited by petitioners are not in point. In the
present civil case which involves the failure to file the
appellantsbriefontime,thereisnoshowingofanypublic
interest involved. Neither is there a showing that an
injusticewillresultduetotheapplicationoftechnicalrules.
Poverty cannot be used as an excuse to justify
petitioners complacency in allowing months to pass by
before exerting the required effort to find a replacement
156
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alfonso vs. Andres
themdespitetheirpoverty.Theywereabletogettwoother
lawyersaftertheyconsentedtothewithdrawaloftheirfirst
lawyer.Buttheyhiredtheirsubsequentlawyerstoolate.
It must be pointed out that petitioners had a choice of
whethertocontinuetheservicesoftheiroriginallawyeror
consent to let him go. They could also have requested the
said lawyer to file the required appellants brief before
consenting to his withdrawal from the case. But they did
neitherofthese.Then,nothavingdoneso,theydelayedin
engagingtheirreplacementlawyer.Theirpoorchoicesand
lack of sufficient diligence, not poverty, are the main
culprits for the situation they now find themselves in. It
would not be fair to pass on the bad consequences of their
choicestorespondents.Petitionerslowregardfortherules
ornonchalancetowardproceduralrequirements,whichthey
camouflagewiththecloakofpoverty,hasinfactcontributed
much to the delay, and hence frustration of justice, in the
presentcase.
No compelling reason to disregard
technicalities
Petitioners beg us to disregard technicalities because
theyclaimthatonthemeritstheircaseisstrong.Astudyof
therecordsfailstosoconvinceus.
Petitioners theorize that publication of the deed of
extrajudicialsettlementoftheestateofMarcelinoAlfonsois
required before their father, Jose Alfonso (Jose) could
validlytransferthesubjectproperty.Wearenotconvinced.
InAlejandrino v. Court of Appeals,12 the Court upheld the
effectivity of a deed of extrajudicial settlement that was
neithernotarizednorpublished.
Significantly,thetitleofthepropertyownedbyaperson
who dies intestate passes at once to his heirs. Such
transmissionissubjecttotheclaimsofadministrationand
theprop
_______________
12356Phil.851,862;295SCRA536,547(1998).
157
VOL.626,JULY29,2010
157
158
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Alfonso vs. Andres
thathewascapableofboardingatricycletogoontripsby
himself. Sufficient testimonial evidence in fact shows that
Joseaskedrespondentstobuythesubjectpropertysothatit
couldbetakenoutfromthebanktowhichitwasmortgaged.
This fact evinces that Joses mental faculties functioned
intelligently.
Inviewoftheforegoing,wefindnocompellingreasonto
overturntheassailedCAresolution.Wefindnoinjusticein
thedismissaloftheappealbytheCA.Justicedictatesthat
thiscasebeputtorestalreadysothattherespondentsmay
notbedeprivedoftheirrights.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheAugust10,
2004ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CV.No.
78362isAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe
Castro and Perez, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, resolution affirmed.
Note.The act of a trial court in approving a
Commissioners Report despite the statement therein that
onlysixoutofthenineheirsattendedtheconference,thus,
effectively depriving the other heirs of their chance to be
heard, was tantamount to a violation of the constitutional
guarantee that no person shall be deprived of property
without due process of lawsuch Order which approved a
void Commissioners Report, is a void judgment for lack of
due process. (Benatiro vs. Heirs of Evaristo Cuyos, 560
SCRA478[2008])
o0o