PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE ROLANDO SANTOS AND IMELDA C. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

The crux of this controversy focuses on the dismissal of
Petitioner-Appellant’s appeal by respondent Appellate Court for failure of the former’s Brief to contain an Assignment of Errors and a Statement of Facts with page
references to the record, as required by the Rules of Court.

The background facts disclose that on 5 November 1982 private respondents filed a
Complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 106,^[1]
against petitioner, Philippine Veterans Bank, for the return of their Transfer Certificates of Title and for
the cancellation of the mortgages annotated thereon in favor of the Bank.  It appears that those titles were lost while
in the Bank’s possession.  Private
respondents also prayed for actual and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
costs of suit.

Petitioner Bank
disclaimed negligence stating that the titles were lost when the Bank had to
transfer its records and other facilities to another suitable place to meet its
expanding operations; that upon discovery of the loss and to show its
good faith, it immediately informed private respondents thereof and filed the necessary petitions for
reconstitution of titles; that after the titles were properly reconstituted
during the pendency of the case, they were delivered
to private respondents; and that as to the claim for damages, the Bank had
compensated private respondents by, among other concessions, waiving payment of
all interest and other charges on their
loan of P500,000.00 and by not collecting the service charges.

On 24 April 1985, the
Trial Court rendered its Decision finding Petitioner Bank negligent in the
custody of the documents and awarding actual damages representing interest paid
on the loan of P730,000.00 at the rate of P15,000.00 a month from 1 January 1981, and attorney’s fees of
P10,000.00.  The Bank appealed.

Before respondent Court
of Appeals, private respondents filed a Motion to Strike Out Petitioner Bank’s
Brief for non-compliance with the Rules.

In a Resolution dated 28
November 1986
respondent Appellate Court^[2] ordered Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief
stricken off the record, and dismissed its appeal pursuant to Section 1(g),
Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.^[3]

The grounds for the
striking out of the Brief were:  (1) it
did not comply with Section 16(b) of Rule 46, which requires that an
Appellant’s Brief must contain an assignment of the errors which shall be
separately, distinctly and concisely stated; and (2) under the heading
“Statement of Facts”, there is no clear and concise statement in a
narrative form of the facts of the case sufficient in detail with page
references to the record as required by Sec. 16(d) of the same Rule.

Section 16 of Rule 46
does provide:

“SEC. 16.  Contents of appellant’s
brief.  – The appellant’s brief shall
contain in the order herein indicated the following:

“(b)  An
assignment of the errors
intended to be urged.  Such errors shall
be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without repetition, and shall be
numbered consecutively.

“x x x                         x x
x

“(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;

“x x x                         x x
x”

The Appellate Court
further relied on Palomique vs. Court of Appeals (Nos. L-39288-89, January 31, 1985, 134 SCRA 331), which ruled:

“We hold that the Appellate Court erred in not dismissing the
appeal.  Appellant’s failure to make page
references to the record to support their factual allegations together with
their failure to make a separate statement of facts justifies the dismissal of
their appeal (Genobiagon vs. Court of Appeals,
L-44323, March 2, 1977, 76 SCRA 37, 39, cited in 2 Moran’s Comments on the
Rules of Court, 1979 Ed., p. 509).  It
may even be argued that the appeal is frivolous and dilatory.”

We resolved to give due
course to this Petition for Review on Certiorari and, in doing so, are
constrained to reverse.

We note that although not
actually spelled out as an “Assignment”, the errors in the appealed
Decision of the Trial Court are sufficiently stated and assigned in
Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief filed before the Appellate Court.  Thus, Petitioner-Appellant alleged:

“The Regional Trial Court’s decision is erroneous on the
following grounds:

“1.  In
Raagas vs. Brayo, L-20081,
February 27, 1962, 22 SCRA 839, the Supreme Court held ‘actual damages must be
proved and that a court can not rely on’ speculation, conjectures or guesswork
as to the fact and amount of damages, but must depend on actual proof that
damages had been suffered and/or evidence of the actual amount
(underscoring supplied) x x x.

“2.  In
deciding this case in favor of the plaintiffs the Court relied in (sic) Art. 1170 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.  However, the Court
did not consider and overlook (sic) Art. 1174 of the Civil Code x x x:

“3.  Furthermore the
awarding to plaintiffs of actual damages of P15,000.00 from January 1, 1981 is
not only arbitrary, unjust, capricious, but also highly immoral, irregular and
unconscionable considering that there was no actual evidence adduced in the
case to justify such huge actual damages sustained.  The court was merely speculating in its decision to award such unsubstantiated damages.

“4.  The
award of attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000.00 in favor of plaintiff-appellees is also inapplicable because the present case
does not squarely fall under Art. 2208 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.  x
x x” (pp. 3-5,
Appellant’s Brief).

In other words,
sufficiently assailed in the Brief is the correctness of the Trial Court’s
findings on the issue/s in controversy. 
The purpose of the required assignment of errors has been accomplished.  The following ruling of this Court is
squarely in point:

“Appellants need not make specific assignment of errors
provided they discuss at length and assail in their brief the correctness of
the trial court’s findings regarding the matter.  Said discussion warrants the appellate court
to rule upon the point because it substantially complies with Section 7, Rule
51 of the revised Rules of Court, intended merely to compel the appellant to
specify the questions which he wants to raise and be disposed of in his appeal.  A clear discussion
regarding an error allegedly committed by the trial court accomplishes the
purpose of a particular assignment of error” (Miguel vs. Court of Appeals,
L-20274, October
30, 1969, 29 SCRA 760.  See also Cabrera and Diokno
vs. Belen and Buiser, 95 Phil. 54; Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-34959, March 18, 1988, 159 SCRA 24).

It is true that Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief contained only a
Statement of the Case erroneously labelled as
“Statement of Facts.” Thus, it recited the allegations in the
Complaint, the averments in the Answer, and the Decision of the Trial
Court.  While not in proper narrative
form, substantially given are the admitted facts and those in
controversy as well as the proof relative thereto.

More importantly, under the facts of the case, we may overlook
the deficiencies, including the absence of page references to the record in
Petitioner-Appellant’s Brief in order to do justice in this case (Velayo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-49933,
August 6, 1980, 99 SCRA 101). 
“Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be construed liberally in order
that the litigants may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims,
and that a possible denial of
substantial justice, due to legal technicalities, may be avoided.” (Cruz and Sta. Maria, et al., vs. The Payatas
Estate Improvement Co., Inc. 103 Phil. 1017 [1958]).

Besides, unlike in the Palomique
case, supra, relied upon by the Appellate Court, the appeal herein does
not appear frivolous and dilatory.

WHEREFORE, the Resolution of respondent Appellate Court
dated 28 November 1986 is hereby SET ASIDE, and this case
REMANDED to said Court for consideration of the appeal
on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

Paras and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., no part.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.

^[1]
Presided over by Judge Miriam Defensor
Santiago.

^[2]
Penned by Justice Josue N. Bellosillo
and concurred in by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza and Hector C. Fule.

^[3]
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

(g) Want of specific assignment of
errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to the record as required
in Section 16(d) of Rule 46;

x x x.”