ZAMBOANGA FOREST MANAGERS CORP., PETITIONER, VS. NEW PACIFIC TIMBER AND SUPPLY CO., ET AL., RESPONDENT.

Zamboanga Forest Managers versus New Pacific Timber and Supply

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Zamboanga Forest Managers Corporation, the holder of one timber license agreement, against New Pacific Timber and Supply Company, the holder of an adjoining timber license agreement, and the Office of the President. The dispute began as a boundary conflict between two forest concessions in Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga City, ripened into a claim for the value of timber allegedly cut from the petitioner's area, and ended, at the Supreme Court, as a lesson in procedure. The case matters to a reviewee because the Court never reached the merits of the boundary question; it dismissed the petition for the petitioner's repeated failure to comply with the requirements governing appeals to the Court of Appeals, and it restated, in clean rule form, the statutory character of the right to appeal and the finality of judgments.

Procedural History

A boundary dispute between the two licensees was resolved by the Bureau of Forest Development, whose Regional Officer-in-Charge issued an order dated 8 May 1974 adopting the common boundary line laid down on the ground and directing that the timber cut by New Pacific from the petitioner's licensed area, a total volume of 23,892.40 cubic meters, be replaced or paid with an equal volume and grade. The motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated 11 November 1974.

New Pacific appealed to the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Minister affirmed the resolution of the boundary dispute but, in a decision dated 25 June 1984, absolved New Pacific of liability for the timber, finding no legally admissible evidence that it was New Pacific that logged the area and holding that logging within the overlapped portion was presumed done in good faith. The petitioner elevated the matter to the Office of the President, which, in a one-page decision dated 30 June 2003, affirmed the Minister in full. Reconsideration was denied in an order dated 30 September 2003.

The petitioner then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The Court of Appeals required it to furnish copies of the petition to the adverse parties and to submit the pleadings filed before the Ministry and the Office of the President. The petitioner's compliance was found unsatisfactory, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition under Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in a resolution dated 29 June 2004. Reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated 21 June 2006. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, originally naming both New Pacific and the Office of the President as respondents; the Office of the President was later dropped as public respondent.

Facts

Zamboanga Forest Managers Corporation held Timber License Agreement No. 205 over an area in Sibuco and Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga City. New Pacific Timber and Supply Company held Timber License Agreement No. 8 over 19,350 hectares of public forest in the same locality. Their concessions overlapped, and a boundary dispute was lodged before the Bureau of Forest Development.

On 18 April 1973 the two licensees entered into a compromise agreement demarcating their respective areas. Acting on that agreement and on the reports of two foresters, the Bureau's Regional Officer-in-Charge issued the order of 8 May 1974 adopting the boundary as blazed on the ground and directing New Pacific to replace or pay for 23,892.40 cubic meters of timber cut from the petitioner's area. On appeal, the Minister of Natural Resources affirmed the boundary but absolved New Pacific of liability, because the volume had been merely calculated on an average stand per hectare rather than measured, because the stumps were mostly in advanced decay, and because the information identifying New Pacific as the logger came from two former employees of New Pacific then employed by the petitioner, whom New Pacific had no chance to cross-examine. The Minister also found that both parties had logged the overlapped portion in good faith, since before the compromise each had the right to insist on its own technical description.

The Office of the President affirmed. When the petitioner brought the matter to the Court of Appeals, its petition quoted the first ten pages of the Ministry decision instead of formulating its own concise statement of the facts and the issues, its copy of that decision was missing its third page, and it refused to submit the pleadings filed below despite the Court of Appeals' express directive. It also filed its petition for review late, on 24 November 2003, although the Court of Appeals had extended the period only until 9 November 2003.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review for the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements on the contents of and the documents accompanying the petition.
• Whether or not the petitioner's late filing of its petition for review before the Court of Appeals barred relief.
• Whether or not the decision of the Office of the President should be reversed on the merits.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

This is the provision under which the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, and which the Supreme Court holds was correctly applied.

Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.

This defines the proper subject of the present petition, namely the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, not the decision of the Office of the President.

Section 1, Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in its relevant ground for dismissal:

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 (h) Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars or directives of the court without justifiable cause.

This supplies the independent ground that a party's failure to comply with a directive of the Court of Appeals, without justifiable cause, is itself a ground for dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted. The petitioner did not formulate its own concise statement of the facts and the issues but merely quoted the first ten pages of the Ministry decision, omitting its missing third page and the facts that page contained. It appended only the Office of the President's decision, its motion for reconsideration, and the order denying that motion. Even after being alerted by the resolution requiring the pleadings filed below, it stubbornly maintained that they were unnecessary. The Court held that while the petitioner decides at the outset which documents to append, the Court of Appeals has the duty to ensure that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory, so that it may determine at the earliest possible time whether the petition has prima facie merit. Since a petitioner's failure to attach material and relevant documents is a sufficient ground to dismiss, the dismissal under Section 7, Rule 43 was correct. The Court added that the petitioner's failure to submit the very orders it sought to be affirmed, and its failure to comply with the directive without justifiable cause, are also grounds for dismissal under Section 1, Rule 50.

On the second issue, the Court held that the late filing did not help the petitioner. Although the Court of Appeals had extended the period only until 9 November 2003, the petition was filed on 24 November 2003. The Court restated that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process but merely a statutory privilege, and that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Failure to conform renders the judgment final and executory, and once a decision attains finality it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether it is erroneous, and no court, not even the Supreme Court, may revise it.

On the third issue, the Court held that even if it were to excuse the procedural lapses, there would still be a paucity of bases for reversing the Office of the President, because the petitioner once again failed to submit the Bureau orders, a complete copy of the Ministry decision, and the pleadings filed below.

Doctrine

First, the failure of a petitioner to comply with the requirements regarding the contents of and the documents which should accompany a petition for review is a sufficient ground for its dismissal under Section 7, Rule 43. Second, the Court of Appeals has the duty to ensure that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory, and a party's failure to comply with its directives without justifiable cause is an independent ground for dismissal under Section 1, Rule 50. Third, the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process but a mere statutory privilege; perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and non-compliance renders the judgment final and executory. Fourth, a final judgment becomes the law of the case whether or not it is erroneous, and no court, not even the Supreme Court, may alter it. Fifth, the proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the judgment, final order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals, not the decision of the administrative agency below.

Disposition

The petition was denied for utter lack of merit, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for review and denying reconsideration were sustained.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process but a mere statutory privilege, and its perfection in the manner and within the period fixed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Examiners use this case for the consequences of a defective or late petition for review, for the duty of the Court of Appeals to screen supporting documents, and for the rule that a final judgment becomes the law of the case.