SOLID EARTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPLICANT-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Solid Earth Development Corporation versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a lecture on Solid Earth Development Corporation versus Republic of the Philippines, a remedial law decision on the fate of an appellant who files a defective appellant's brief. Solid Earth Development Corporation, the applicant-appellee below, moved to dismiss the appeal of the Republic of the Philippines, the oppositor-appellant, on the ground that the appellant's brief contained no separate statement of facts. The case matters because it states, in the Court's own words, that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in the manner the Rules of Court prescribe, and because it shows how a single omitted heading can cost a litigant the entire appeal.

Procedural History

The case reached the Supreme Court through an ordinary appeal from a judgment of a lower court, with the Republic of the Philippines as the appellant. In its appellant's brief, the Republic summarized the proceedings and the nature of the controversy but did not place its statement of facts under a separate heading, and it made no page references to the record to support its factual allegations. Solid Earth Development Corporation then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the failure to state the facts as required was a ground for dismissal. The Supreme Court directed the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on the motion to dismiss and on the prayer for execution. The Solicitor General asked for several extensions of time, and then filed its comment, insisting that a reading of the brief would show a clear and concise narrative of the facts, and that although the statement of facts was not placed under a separate heading, it was included in the statement of the case. The Court resolved the matter in a minute resolution, dismissing the appeal.

Facts

The Republic of the Philippines appealed from a judgment rendered against it in an ordinary case brought before the Court of Appeals. In preparing its appellant's brief, the Republic set out a subject index, an assignment of errors, a statement of the case, a statement of the issues, an argument, and a prayer for relief. What it did not do was set out a separate statement of facts, and it likewise failed to cite the pages of the record that would support its factual claims.

Solid Earth Development Corporation, the applicant-appellee, seized on this defect and moved to dismiss the appeal, invoking the rule that non-compliance with the required contents of an appellant's brief is a ground for dismissal. The Republic countered that its statement of the case already contained the facts, and that the brief, read as a whole, presented a clear and concise narrative.

The Supreme Court examined the brief and disagreed. It found that the brief was only a summary of the proceedings and of the nature of the controversy, and that the Republic had failed to appreciate the importance of a statement of facts. That omission, coupled with the absence of page references to the record, became the basis for dismissing the appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the right to appeal may be exercised in any manner a litigant chooses, or only strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.
• Whether or not an appellant's brief that lacks a separate statement of facts, and that makes no page references to the record, complies with the required contents of an appellant's brief.
• Whether or not non-compliance with the required contents of an appellant's brief warrants the dismissal of the appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 13. Contents of appellant's brief. The appellant's brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated, the following: (a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited; (b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged, which errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without repetition and numbered consecutively; (c) Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the nature of the judgment and any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy, with page references to the record; (d) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record; (e) A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact or law to be submitted to the court for its judgment; (f) Under the heading "Argument," the appellant's arguments on each assignment of error with page references to the record. The authorities relied upon shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins and the page of the report on which the citation is found; (g) Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks; and (h) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant's brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment or final order appealed from.

This is the provision the Court applied, and it is the measure against which the Republic's brief was found wanting, because the brief had no statement of facts under its own heading and no page references to the record.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Republic's brief did not comply with Section 13 of Rule 44. The Republic claimed that its statement of the case included its statement of facts, but the Court found this not entirely true. The brief was only a summary of the proceedings and the nature of the controversy. The Republic failed to show the importance of a statement of facts, which the Court said should not be underestimated. A statement of facts is a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, and this the Republic did not incorporate in its brief. Neither did it make page references to the record to support its factual allegations.

On the third issue, the Court held that the omission warranted dismissal. It relied on its categorical ruling in Evangeline C. Bucad versus Court of Appeals, Asilda Guanzon and others, that non-compliance with the contents of the appellant's brief under the Rules of Court warrants the dismissal of the appeal. The Republic's failure to make page references to the record, together with its failure to make a separate statement of facts, warranted the dismissal of its appeal.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain three rules. First, the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right and not a part of due process, so an appellant must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. Second, under Section 13 of Rule 44, an appellant's brief must contain, under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement in narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof, with page references to the record. Third, non-compliance with these required contents, including the failure to make a separate statement of facts and the failure to cite page references to the record, warrants the dismissal of the appeal. The statement of facts is not a mere formality, and it cannot be supplied by a statement of the case, which serves a different purpose.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 44 in relation to Section 1, paragraph g, of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, so Solid Earth Development Corporation prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right and not a part of due process, and it must be exercised strictly in the manner the Rules of Court prescribe. Examiners use this case to test the required contents of an appellant's brief under Section 13 of Rule 44, and to test whether a defective brief, one lacking a separate statement of facts and page references to the record, is a ground for dismissing the appeal.