ANDRES VALLECERA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. JULIO MORALES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

Vallecera versus Morales

The Case

This is the case of Vallecera versus Morales, in which Andres Vallecera, the plaintiff-appellant, sought relief against Julio Morales, the defendant-appellee. The matter reached the Supreme Court not on the merits of the original dispute, but on a single procedural question: whether an appeal may be dismissed outright when the appellant fails to file his appellant's brief within the time required by the Rules of Court. The case matters to every reviewee because it states, cleanly and without adornment, the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised in the manner and within the periods the Rules prescribe, and that the Court of Appeals may dismiss an appeal, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, for the appellant's failure to file the required brief.

Procedural History

The plaintiff-appellant's appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals. The records show that the notice to file the appellant's brief was received on his behalf on December 20, 2013. The plaintiff-appellant then failed to comply with the directives contained in several resolutions of the Court, dated August 4, 2011, January 31, 2012, October 4, 2012, and February 12, 2013. On June 16, 2014, the Court issued a resolution directing the plaintiff-appellant to show cause, within ten days from notice, why the appeal should not be dismissed outright for failure to file the required appellant's brief, and likewise directing him to inform the Court of the current and complete address of his counsel, since the copy of the notice sent to counsel was returned unclaimed with the postal notation that the addressee had moved out. The registry return receipt shows that a certain Amiel Vallecera received that resolution on July 15, 2014. Verification showed that no compliance with the June 16, 2014 resolution had been filed. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in a resolution, upon the Court's own verification of the records and the plaintiff-appellant's repeated non-compliance.

Facts

Andres Vallecera was the plaintiff in an action below and became the plaintiff-appellant when he brought his case up on appeal. Julio Morales was the defendant and became the defendant-appellee. While the appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals required the plaintiff-appellant to file his appellant's brief. The notice to file that brief was received on his behalf on December 20, 2013.

No brief was filed. The Court issued a series of resolutions, on August 4, 2011, January 31, 2012, October 4, 2012, and February 12, 2013, none of which the plaintiff-appellant complied with. On June 16, 2014, the Court directed him to show cause within ten days why the appeal should not be dismissed outright, and to give the current and complete address of his counsel, whose copy of the notice had been returned unclaimed because he had moved out.

The registry return receipt shows that a certain Amiel Vallecera received the June 16, 2014 resolution on July 15, 2014. Verification of the Court's records confirmed that no compliance with that resolution was ever filed. The plaintiff-appellant had therefore failed to file his appellant's brief within the required period despite being duly notified, and had failed to comply with any of the Court's directives.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals may dismiss an appeal on its own motion for the appellant's failure to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by the Rules.
• Whether or not the right to appeal is lost when the party seeking to avail of it fails to comply with the requirements of the Rules.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, paragraph e, of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court 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 serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules; x x x

This is the provision the Court applied: it makes the appellant's failure to file the required brief a ground for dismissal, and it expressly authorizes the Court of Appeals to act on its own motion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals' authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief is a matter of judicial discretion. The ground is written into the Rules, and the Court may invoke it on its own motion or on that of the appellee. Here, the plaintiff-appellant failed to comply with any of the Court's directives and failed to file his appellant's brief within the required period despite being duly notified. That failure brought the case squarely within the ground quoted above.

On the second issue, the Court held that the right to appeal is a statutory right, and the party who seeks to avail of it must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. The Court put the rule in these words:

Furthermore, the right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.

Because the plaintiff-appellant did not comply, the Court was constrained to dismiss the appeal.

Doctrine

Three rules should be carried into the examination room. First, under Section 1, paragraph e, of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, 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 serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by the Rules. Second, the Court of Appeals' authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief is a matter of judicial discretion, not a ministerial act. Third, the right to appeal is a statutory right, not a natural right, and the party who seeks to avail of it must comply with the requirements of the Rules; failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. These rules are tied directly to the quoted provision, which supplies both the ground and the Court's power to act on its own motion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, Andres Vallecera, for his failure to file the required appellant's brief and to comply with the Court's directives.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the right to appeal is a statutory right, and failing to comply with the requirements of the Rules, the right to appeal is lost. Examiners use this case in remedial law and civil procedure to test Section 1, paragraph e, of Rule 50, the discretionary power of the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal on its own motion, and the principle that appeal is not a natural right but a privilege granted by statute and exercised only in the manner the Rules prescribe.