SMALL BUSINESS GUARANTEE AND FINANCE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. FIX SYSTEMS, INC., AND MERLIE G. YAPTENGCO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation versus Fix Systems, Inc. and Merlie G. Yaptengco

The Case

This is a civil action in which the Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation, the plaintiff-appellant, sued Fix Systems, Inc. and Merlie G. Yaptengco, the defendants-appellees. The plaintiff lost before the trial court and sought to appeal, but the appeal itself became the central question: the appellant failed to file its appellant's brief on time, and the Supreme Court was asked, in effect, to decide whether that procedural lapse forfeits the appeal. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean, uncompromising statement of a rule that appears in nearly every remedial law examination — the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and it is lost when the manner and periods prescribed by the Rules are not strictly followed.

Procedural History

The case began in the trial court, where judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation. Aggrieved, the plaintiff interposed an appeal and the records were elevated. In the appellate court, however, the appellant did not file its appellant's brief within the reglementary period. The matter was referred to the Judicial Records Division, whose report dated 19 March 2015, and the CMIS verification made on 20 March 2015, both confirmed that no brief had been filed on time. Acting on that record, the appellate court issued a resolution dismissing the appeal pursuant to Section 1, paragraph (e), of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The plaintiff then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, and the Court, speaking through Justice Dimaampao, resolved it in the short resolution reproduced in the decision text.

Facts

The Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation sued Fix Systems, Inc. and Merlie G. Yaptengco. The trial court ruled against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff decided to appeal.

Once the appeal was pending, the appellant was required to file its appellant's brief within the period fixed by the Rules. It did not. The Judicial Records Division reported the omission on 19 March 2015, and a CMIS verification the following day, 20 March 2015, confirmed that no brief had been filed within the reglementary period.

On that basis the appellate court dismissed the appeal outright, invoking the Rule that authorizes dismissal of an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief within the time allowed. The plaintiff sought relief from the Supreme Court, but the Court found no reason to disturb the dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not an appeal may be dismissed when the appellant fails to file its appellant's brief within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the right to appeal is a natural right or part of due process that must be liberally protected despite a procedural lapse.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, paragraph (e), of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds: x x x (e) Failure of the appellant to file his brief within the time prescribed by these Rules.

This is the very ground the appellate court applied, and it is the provision under which the appeal was dismissed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was properly dismissed. The appellant failed to file its brief within the reglementary period, and that failure is expressly listed as a ground for dismissal of an appeal. The Court relied on the report of the Judicial Records Division and the CMIS verification, both of which established the omission, and it dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 1, paragraph (e), of Rule 50.

On the second issue, the Court held that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin, and it may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise. The Court stated the governing principle in these words:

The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise. Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied with.

The Court added that failure to observe those requirements will eventuate in the loss of the right to appeal. Because the appellant did not comply with the period for filing its brief, it lost the remedy it had invoked.

Doctrine

First, the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right and not a component of due process. A party may exercise it only in the manner and within the periods fixed by the law and the Rules that authorize it.

Second, the requirements for perfecting and prosecuting an appeal must be strictly complied with, and noncompliance results in the loss of the right to appeal.

Third, under Section 1, paragraph (e), of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, an appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, for the appellant's failure to file its brief within the time prescribed by the Rules. A bar answer should tie the doctrine directly to this provision: the dismissal is not a discretionary indulgence but the consequence written into the Rule.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, sustaining the dismissal for failure to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period; the defendants-appellees prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process, but a procedural remedy of statutory origin that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law, and its requirements must be strictly complied with. Examiners use this case in remedial law to test the grounds for dismissal of an appeal under Rule 50, particularly the appellant's failure to file the appellant's brief on time, and to test whether a candidate will mistakenly treat the right to appeal as a due process right that courts must liberally rescue.