ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, RAUL VALINO, NEAL CRUZ, ERNESTO TOLENTINO, NOEL CABRERA, THELMA SAN JUAN, GE…

Yuchengco versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Alfonso T. Yuchengco against the Court of Appeals and the Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation together with its editors and writers, arising from a defamation suit he had won before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. After judgment was rendered in his favor, the newspaper and its co-defendants appealed, but filed appellants' briefs that Yuchengco claimed were defective in form. He moved to dismiss the appeal, the Court of Appeals refused, and he came to the Supreme Court insisting that the appellate court had no choice but to throw the appeal out. The case matters because it fixes the character of the rules on appellants' briefs: they are directory, not mandatory, and their breach calls for the sound discretion of the appellate court rather than automatic dismissal.

Procedural History

Yuchengco filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136. On November 8, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment in his favor, awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and legal costs against the defendants. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court required them to file their appellants' briefs, which they did. Yuchengco then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the briefs were not in the prescribed size, lacked page references, and that he was not served the required number of copies. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, holding that procedural rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Yuchengco then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, raising the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the appeal.

Facts

In the last quarter of 1994, the Manila Chronicle published a series of articles about Yuchengco. The articles called him a Marcos crony and a Marcos-Romualdez crony, said he engaged in unsound and immoral business practices by taking control of Oriental Petroleum Mineral Corporation to divert its resources to rescue the debt-ridden Benguet Corporation, portrayed him as an unfair and uncaring employer, claimed he induced Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation to violate the General Banking Act on loans to directors, officers, stockholders and related interests, claimed he induced others to disobey lawful orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and labeled him a corporate raider.

Yuchengco sued for damages. On November 8, 2002, the trial court found for him, ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and severally, ten million pesos in moral damages and ten million pesos in exemplary damages on the first cause of action; fifty million pesos in moral damages and thirty million pesos in exemplary damages on the second cause of action; and one million pesos in attorney's fees and legal costs on the third.

The defendants appealed. After the Court of Appeals required the appellants' briefs, the respondents filed them. Yuchengco moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the briefs violated the rules on size, page references, and service of copies. The Court of Appeals denied the motion and later denied reconsideration, prompting this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal instead of dismissing it for the appellants' failure to serve the required number of copies of their brief.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the appeal for the appellants' briefs lacking the prescribed size and page references to the record.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court requires service of copies of the appellants' brief, and the Court treats breach of it as a ground that permits but does not compel dismissal:

Section 7. Copies of brief. The appellant shall serve two copies of his brief to the appellee.

Section 13, paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 44 govern the contents of the appellants' brief, and the Court construes the page-reference requirement as directory:

Section 13. Contents of appellant's brief. The appellant's brief shall contain the following: (c) A clear and concise statement of the case and of the facts with page references to the record; (d) A clear and concise statement of the issues involved and the grounds of appeal.

Section 1 of Rule 50 lists the grounds for dismissal of an appeal, and the Court reads it as conferring a power rather than imposing a duty:

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: (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; (f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief, or of page references to the record as required in Section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the failure to serve the required number of copies does not automatically result in dismissal. Section 1 of Rule 50 says the appeal "may be dismissed," and the Court emphasized that this provision confers a power and does not impose a duty; it is directory, not mandatory. The Court of Appeals therefore had discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss, a discretion that must be sound and exercised in accordance with justice and fair play, with the presumption that it was so exercised. Yuchengco, as the actor, had to overcome that presumption, and he failed to show any abuse, much less grave abuse.

On the second issue, the Court held that the absence of page references is likewise not mandatory but directory. Where the citations in the appellants' brief sufficiently enable the appellate court to locate expeditiously the portions of the record referred to, there is substantial compliance. Here, the briefs contained a statement of facts with references to exhibits, transcripts and attachments, which enabled the appellate court to locate the record, so the respondents substantially complied with Section 13, paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 44.

The Court defined grave abuse of discretion as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty. It found none. It closed with the guiding norm that technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to aid the courts in the speedy, just and inexpensive determination of cases.

Doctrine

The rules on appellants' briefs are directory, not mandatory. Section 1 of Rule 50 confers on the Court of Appeals a power, not a duty, to dismiss an appeal; the word "may" signals discretion, and the presumption is that the discretion was soundly exercised. Absence of page references is not fatal where the citations in the brief substantially comply by enabling the appellate court to locate the record expeditiously. Grave abuse of discretion requires capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic exercise of judgment amounting to evasion of a positive duty, and the burden of showing it rests on the petitioner. Finally, rules of procedure are tools for substantial justice, and liberal construction is the controlling principle.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration were affirmed; the respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the power to dismiss an appeal for a defective appellants' brief is directory, not mandatory, and the Court of Appeals' discretion is presumed sound. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between mandatory and directory rules, the meaning of grave abuse of discretion, and the principle that technicalities yield to substantial justice.