Francisco A.G. De Liano, Alberto O. Villa-Abrille Jr., and San Miguel Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Benjamin A. Tango, 370 SCRA 349 (2001)

FACTS:

RTC of Quezon City, Branch 227:  issued a Decision ordering San Miguel Corporation to release to the plaintiff the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 299551 in the same of Benjamin A. Tango; to release to plaintiff the originals of the REM contracts and to cause the cancellation of the annotation of the same on plaintiffs TCT No. 299551; and to pay the plaintiff the following sums: P100,000.00 as and by way of moral damages; P50,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees; costs of suit.

In brief, the case involved the cancellation of two (2) real estate mortgages in favor of petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) executed by private respondent Benjamin A. Tango over his house and lot in Quezon City.

The mortgages were third party or accommodation mortgages on behalf of the spouses Bernardino and Carmelita Ibarra who were dealers of SMC products in Aparri, Cagayan. Other defendants in the case were Francisco A.G. De Liano and Alberto O. Villa-Abrille, Jr., who are senior executives of petitioner SMC.

Petitioners SMC, De Liano and Abrille appealed the aforesaid decision to the Court of Appeals.

In due time, their counsel, Atty. Edgar B. Afable, filed an Appellants' Brief  which failed to comply with Section 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.

Private Respondent Tango was quick to notice these deficiencies, and accordingly filed a "Motion to Dismiss Appeal".

Required to comment, the Petitioners averred that their brief had substantially complied with the contents as set forth in the rules. They proffered the excuse that the omissions were only the result of oversight or inadvertence and as such could be considered "harmless" errors. They prayed for liberality in the application of technical rules, adding that they have a meritorious defense.

CA:  issued the first assailed resolution dismissing the appeal.

Petitioners sought to have the foregoing resolution reconsidered. Simultaneously, through the same counsel, they filed a "Motion to Admit Amended Defendants-Appellants' Brief.”

CA: denied the consolidated motions in its Resolution.

Hence, this petition for review certiorari.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing San Miguel Corporation’s Appeal on the basis of pure technicalities and even after SMC has corrected the technical defect of its appeal

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing SMC’s appeal without considering its merits

HELD: [1] No. [2] No. The petition has no merit.

RATIO:

[1] The premise that underlies all appeals is that they are merely rights which arise from statute; therefore, they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. It is to this end that rules governing pleadings and practice before appellate courts were imposed. These rules were designed to assist the appellate court in the accomplishment of its tasks, and overall, to enhance the orderly administration of justice.

Relative thereto, Section 13, Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the format to be followed by the appellant in drafting his brief. This particular rule was instituted with reason, and most certainly, it was not intended to become “a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance." It has its logic, which is to present to the appellate court in the most helpful light, the factual and legal antecedents of a case on appeal.

The first requirement of an appellant's brief is a subject index. The index is intended to facilitate the review of appeals by providing ready reference, functioning much like a table of contents.

Next, when the appellant has given an account of the case and of the facts, he is required to state the issues to be considered by the appellate court. The statement of issues is not to be confused with the assignment of errors: they are not one and the same, for otherwise, the rules would not require a separate statement for each.

Thereafter, the appellant is required to present his arguments on each assigned error. The petitioner’s arguments go hand in hand with his assignment of errors, for the former provide the justification supporting his contentions, and in so doing resolve the issues.

Lastly, the appellant is required to state, under the appropriate heading, the reliefs prayed for. In so doing, the appellate court is left in no doubt as to the result desired by the appellant, and act as the circumstances may warrant.

The Court reminds members of the bar that their first duty is to comply with the rules, not to seek exceptions.

[2] The Rules of Court prescribe two (2) modes of appeal from decisions of the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals. When the trial court decides a case in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the mode of review is by an ordinary appeal in accordance with Section 2(a) of Rule 41. In contrast, where the assailed decision was rendered by the trial court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the mode of appeal is via a petition for review pursuant to Rule 42.

The Court is more concerned here about the first mode since the case at bar involves a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court exercising its original jurisdiction.