LOLLYVIC T. MATE, DON VICENTE LOU T. MATE III AND MARTIN KIM T. MATE BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER MA. LOLITA T. MATE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. SARAH O. MATE, DEFENDANT-APPE…

Mate versus Mate

The Case

This is the case of Mate versus Mate, a petition for review brought by Lollyvic T. Mate, Don Vicente Lou T. Mate III, and Martin Kim T. Mate, all represented by their mother Ma. Lolita T. Mate, against Sarah O. Mate. The children sought review of a decision rendered against them in the lower courts. The case matters to a Bar candidate not for its family-law facts but for a single procedural lesson: what happens when a party, having received the Court's notice to file her brief, simply fails to comply. The Supreme Court's resolution is a short, sharp application of the rules on dismissal of appeals for failure to comply with the directives of the court.

Procedural History

The case reached the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review. On 29 August 2013, the Court issued a Notice to File Brief addressed to the defendant-appellant, requiring her to file her appellant's brief within forty-five days from receipt of the notice. The notice sent to her counsel, Atty. Emmanuel C. Tabao, was received by a certain Angeline Pabua on 27 September 2013, as shown by the registry return receipt. The defendant-appellant herself received her own notice on 01 October 2013, also evidenced by a registry return receipt. Despite receipt by both the defendant-appellant and her counsel, and the lapse of a considerable period of time, she failed to comply with the directive. This was confirmed by the Judicial Record Verification Report dated 28 February 2014. The Court then resolved the petition on the ground of that non-compliance.

Facts

The material facts are procedural and chronological. On 29 August 2013, the Supreme Court sent the defendant-appellant a Notice to File Brief, giving her forty-five days from receipt within which to file her appellant's brief.

The notice addressed to her counsel, Atty. Emmanuel C. Tabao, was received on 27 September 2013 by a certain Angeline Pabua, as reflected in the registry return receipt. The defendant-appellant personally received her notice on 01 October 2013, likewise evidenced by a registry return receipt.

Notwithstanding these receipts and the considerable time that passed, the defendant-appellant did not file her brief. The Judicial Record Verification Report dated 28 February 2014 confirmed that no brief had been filed. The Court thus acted on her non-compliance.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review should be dismissed for the defendant-appellant's failure to file her appellant's brief as directed by the Court's Notice to File Brief.
• Whether or not the failure to comply with the directives of the court, without justifiable cause, is a ground for dismissal of the appeal under the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides:

Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

This provision makes clear that non-compliance with the requirements of the Rules is itself a sufficient ground for dismissal, and the Court invoked it in relation to the next provision.

Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. – Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause;

This provision supplies the specific ground applied here: an appellant's failure to comply with the directives of the court, without justifiable cause, warrants dismissal of the appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition for review must be dismissed. The Notice to File Brief had been duly received by both the defendant-appellant and her counsel, and a considerable period of time had lapsed, yet she failed to comply as directed. The Judicial Record Verification Report dated 28 February 2014 confirmed the non-compliance.

On the second issue, the Court held that this non-compliance was a ground for dismissal. It applied Section 3 of Rule 42 in relation to Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court. The failure to comply with the directives of the court, without justifiable cause, is expressly a ground for dismissal of the appeal. The Court found no justifiable cause and dismissed the petition.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the failure of a party to comply with the requirements of the Rules regarding the petition is a sufficient ground for its dismissal under Section 3 of Rule 42. Second, the failure of an appellant to comply with the orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause is a ground for dismissal of the appeal under Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50. Third, receipt of a notice by counsel is receipt binding on the client for purposes of compliance with the Court's directives. The lesson is that procedural directives of the Court are not optional; non-compliance, absent justifiable cause, closes the door on the appeal.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the petition for review for the defendant-appellant's non-compliance with the Notice to File Brief.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: failure to comply with the directives of the court without justifiable cause is a ground for dismissal of the appeal. Examiners use this case to test the grounds for dismissal of appeals under Rule 50 and the effect of non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 42.