SPOUSES ROSALINA ROSAL-ROBIO AND PABLO ROBIO AND ANTONIO R. ROBIO, PETITIONERS, VS. EUSEBIA ROSAL-SAPINOSO, RESPONDENT.

Rosal-Robio versus Rosal-Sapinoso

The Case

This is the case of Rosal-Robio versus Rosal-Sapinoso, a petition for review brought to the Supreme Court by Spouses Rosalina Rosal-Robio and Pablo Robio, together with Antonio R. Robio, against Eusebia Rosal-Sapinoso. The petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court after the courts below ruled against them. The case matters less for any novel doctrine than for a hard procedural lesson: the Supreme Court will dismiss a petition outright when a party ignores a lawful directive of the Court. It is a study in the discipline of procedure, and in the consequences that follow when counsel and litigants treat a resolution of the Court as optional.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the adverse rulings of the lower courts. While the petition was pending, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2014. That resolution directed the petitioners, among others, to do several things: to submit the notary public's place of commission, commission number, and Mandatory Continuing Legal Education compliance; to inform the Court of any other cases and proceedings involving the same parties and issues pending in the Supreme Court or in any other court; to furnish the court of origin with a copy of the petition and its annexes; and to submit proof of service of that copy. The petitioners received the resolution on July 18, 2014. Despite that receipt, no compliance was made, as shown by the docket book entry report of the Judicial Records Division dated November 7, 2014. The Supreme Court then resolved the petition on the basis of that non-compliance.

Facts

The petitioners, Spouses Rosalina Rosal-Robio and Pablo Robio, joined by Antonio R. Robio, were the losing parties below and brought their cause to the Supreme Court by petition for review. The respondent is Eusebia Rosal-Sapinoso. The decision does not narrate the underlying dispute; what it records is the procedural episode that decided the petition's fate.

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a resolution imposing several compliance requirements on the petitioners, among others. The petitioners received that resolution on July 18, 2014. The resolution was clear and the receipt was documented.

Yet the petitioners did nothing. The docket book entry report of the Judicial Records Division dated November 7, 2014 confirmed that no compliance had been made. The Court had given due notice, and still the petitioners failed to obey. On that ground, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for review may be dismissed for failure to comply with a resolution of the Supreme Court requiring the submission of the notary public's place of commission and commission number, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education compliance, information on other pending cases, and proof of service of the petition on the court of origin.
• Whether or not the dismissal is proper despite due notice and receipt of the resolution by the petitioners.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the appellee, on the following grounds: x x x (h) Failure of the appellant to comply with the Rules of Court or with the orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause.

This is the provision the Court applied, and it supplies the ground for dismissing the petition for the petitioners' failure to comply with the Court's resolution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be dismissed. Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50 authorizes dismissal when the appellant fails to comply with the Rules of Court or with the orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause. The petitioners failed to comply with the June 30, 2014 Resolution, and no justifiable cause appears in the record.

On the second issue, the Court emphasized that the petitioners had due notice. They received the resolution on July 18, 2014, and the docket book entry report of November 7, 2014 confirmed that no compliance followed. The Court's directive was not a suggestion but a command, and the failure to obey it, despite notice, warranted dismissal. The Court thus dismissed the petition for review per Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50.

Doctrine

A petition for review may be dismissed when the petitioner fails to comply with the Rules of Court or with the orders, circulars, or directives of the Court without justifiable cause, as provided in Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50. Compliance with a resolution of the Supreme Court is mandatory, and receipt of the resolution fixes the petitioner with notice. The absence of any compliance, confirmed by the docket records, establishes the failure that the rule punishes. A Bar candidate should state the rule plainly: procedural directives of the Court bind the parties, and disobedience, without justifiable cause, forfeits the remedy.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review for failure to comply with its Resolution dated June 30, 2014, despite due notice. The respondent prevailed, and the petition was dismissed.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a petition for review is dismissed under Section 1, paragraph h of Rule 50 for failure to comply with the Court's directives without justifiable cause. Examiners use this case to test procedural compliance and the consequences of ignoring a resolution of the Supreme Court.