0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
149 vizualizări1 pagină
This case involves a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision dismissing an appeal for failure to file an appellant's brief on time. The petitioner, Patricia Sibayan, filed a case against respondents who intruded on her property. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to file an appellant's brief within 45 days, but the brief was filed 139 days late. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the appeal due to the late filing. The Supreme Court denies the petition for review, finding that the failure to timely file the brief constituted abandonment of the appeal under the rules. The Court also held that the petitioner was bound by the negligence of her
This case involves a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision dismissing an appeal for failure to file an appellant's brief on time. The petitioner, Patricia Sibayan, filed a case against respondents who intruded on her property. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to file an appellant's brief within 45 days, but the brief was filed 139 days late. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the appeal due to the late filing. The Supreme Court denies the petition for review, finding that the failure to timely file the brief constituted abandonment of the appeal under the rules. The Court also held that the petitioner was bound by the negligence of her
This case involves a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision dismissing an appeal for failure to file an appellant's brief on time. The petitioner, Patricia Sibayan, filed a case against respondents who intruded on her property. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, and petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ordered petitioner to file an appellant's brief within 45 days, but the brief was filed 139 days late. The Court of Appeals then dismissed the appeal due to the late filing. The Supreme Court denies the petition for review, finding that the failure to timely file the brief constituted abandonment of the appeal under the rules. The Court also held that the petitioner was bound by the negligence of her
Patricia Sibayan versus- Emilio Costales, et al. This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the case of an action for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages. The assailed Resolutions dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for failure to file her appellants brief within the reglementary period. Facts: Patricia Sibayan is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of 5,726 square meters located in Brgy. Catablan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and registered under Transfer Certificate of Titile (TCT) No, 180130. Respondents Emilio Costales, Susana Isidro, Rodolfo Isidro, Marcelo Isidro, and Roberto Cerane then intruded the property of the petitioner, particularly Lot Nos. 5 and 7 thereof. Thus, petitioner was forced to file a case to protect her rights thereon. Petitioner supported her claims by attaching in her complaint a copy of relocation survey showing that said lots are within the boundary of TCT No. 180130. Respondents, in defense, asserted that they are the lawful owners as they were in possession of the property for over 80 years already. RTC dismissed the case as the action of the petitioner is already barred by laches. Motion for Reconsideration was also denied which made the petitioner elevate the matter to the CA. CA ordered petitioner to file Appellants Brief within 45 days from receipt of the copy of the notice. The petitioners counsel received notice on November 17, 2008. However, the petitioner was only able to file the brief on June 19, 2009 or 139 days after the lapse of reglementary period. CA dismissed the case on the ground of the petitioners failure to file her Appellants Brief on time. Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Hence, here comes the filing of a petition for review on Certiorari. Petitioner alleged that dismissal of the case was erroneous as she should not be bind by the gross negligence of his counsel in filing the Appellants Brief. He also further claimed that denial of appeal would be tantamount to deprivation of her property without due process of law. Issue: 1. Whether or not the appeal is considered dismissed or abandoned by the failure to file appellants brief. 2. Whether or not petitioners counsel is grossly negligent in filing the brief thereby not binding her to said negligence. Ruling: Wherefore, petition is DENIED. The decision of the CA is hereby AFFIRMED. Rule 44, Sec 7 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure provides that, it shall be the duty of the appellant to file the brief with the court, within 45 days from receipt of the notice of clerk. Furthermore, Rule 50, Sec 1 (e) provides that the failure of the appellant to file the required number of copies of brief on time would be grounds for dismissal of appeal, subject to the discretion of the CA. Further, right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, and it may be availed only upon compliance of the Rules. Otherwise, the right to appeal is abandoned and lost. Sabayanis counsel was not able to file the brief on the reglementary period which consequently results in the abandonment of the appeal and dismissal of the case. Client is bound by the counsels conduct, negligence and mistakes in handling the case. The only exception to this rule is when the counsel had acted with reckless and gross negligence amounting to the deprivation of the opportunity of the client to due process of law. In this case, the failure to file of the appellants brief is classified merely as simple negligence. Thus, it binds the petitioner from the adverse consequence thereof.