Dianne Pari-an Medianero LLB 2C

Civil Procedure Case Digest

Patricia Sibayan versus- Emilio Costales, et al.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case of an action for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with
Damages.
The assailed Resolutions dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for failure to file her
appellants brief within the reglementary period.
Facts:
Patricia Sibayan is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of 5,726 square
meters located in Brgy. Catablan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and registered under Transfer
Certificate of Titile (TCT) No, 180130. Respondents Emilio Costales, Susana Isidro, Rodolfo Isidro,
Marcelo Isidro, and Roberto Cerane then intruded the property of the petitioner, particularly Lot Nos.
5 and 7 thereof. Thus, petitioner was forced to file a case to protect her rights thereon. Petitioner
supported her claims by attaching in her complaint a copy of relocation survey showing that said lots
are within the boundary of TCT No. 180130. Respondents, in defense, asserted that they are the
lawful owners as they were in possession of the property for over 80 years already.
RTC dismissed the case as the action of the petitioner is already barred by laches. Motion
for Reconsideration was also denied which made the petitioner elevate the matter to the CA.
CA ordered petitioner to file Appellants Brief within 45 days from receipt of the copy of the
notice. The petitioners counsel received notice on November 17, 2008. However, the petitioner was
only able to file the brief on June 19, 2009 or 139 days after the lapse of reglementary period.
CA dismissed the case on the ground of the petitioners failure to file her Appellants Brief on
time. Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Hence, here comes the filing of a petition for
review on Certiorari. Petitioner alleged that dismissal of the case was erroneous as she should not
be bind by the gross negligence of his counsel in filing the Appellants Brief. He also further claimed
that denial of appeal would be tantamount to deprivation of her property without due process of law.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the appeal is considered dismissed or abandoned by the failure to file
appellants brief.
2. Whether or not petitioners counsel is grossly negligent in filing the brief thereby not binding
her to said negligence.
Ruling:
Wherefore, petition is DENIED. The decision of the CA is hereby AFFIRMED.
Rule 44, Sec 7 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure provides that, it shall be the duty of the
appellant to file the brief with the court, within 45 days from receipt of the notice of clerk.
Furthermore, Rule 50, Sec 1 (e) provides that the failure of the appellant to file the required number
of copies of brief on time would be grounds for dismissal of appeal, subject to the discretion of the
CA. Further, right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, and it may be availed only
upon compliance of the Rules. Otherwise, the right to appeal is abandoned and lost. Sabayanis
counsel was not able to file the brief on the reglementary period which consequently results in the
abandonment of the appeal and dismissal of the case.
Client is bound by the counsels conduct, negligence and mistakes in handling the case. The
only exception to this rule is when the counsel had acted with reckless and gross negligence
amounting to the deprivation of the opportunity of the client to due process of law.
In this case, the failure to file of the appellants brief is classified merely as simple
negligence. Thus, it binds the petitioner from the adverse consequence thereof.