Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica (G.r. No. 169420)

ABRENICA V. LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA, TUNGOL AND TIBAYAN, et.al.
G.R. No. 169420

September 22, 2006
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
FIRST DIVISION
DOCTRINE:
Liberal construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice.
Thus, litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on
technicalities.
LEGAL BASES:
 Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, liberal construction
of the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. Thus,
litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on
technicalities.
 In Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, it is stated that: Liberal

construction of the rule has been allowed by the Court in the following cases: (1)
where a rigid application will result in manifest failure or miscarriage of justice,
especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned
final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals
contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3)
where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious
discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not
commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.
FACTS:
Atty. Erlando A. Abrenica was a partner of respondents, Attys. Danilo N. Tungol and
Abelardo M. Tibayan, in the Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan. Respondents
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) two cases against petitioner.
The SEC initially heard the cases but they were later transferred to the RTC pursuant
to Republic Act No. 8799, which transferred jurisdiction over intra-corporate
controversies from the SEC to the courts. The RTC rendered a decision against
petitioner. After receiving copy of the Decision, petitioner filed a notice of appeal under
Rule 41. Two days later, respondents filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution
pursuant to A.M. 01-2-04-SC, which provides that decisions in intra-corporate disputes
are immediately executory and not subject to appeal unless stayed by an appellate
court. Respondents subsequently filed an Opposition (To Defendant's Notice of Appeal)
on the ground that it violated A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC prescribing appeal by certiorari
under Rule 43 as the correct mode of appeal from the trial court's decisions on intra-
corporate disputes.
The trial court issued an Order requiring petitioner to show cause why it should take
cognizance of the notice of appeal in view of A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC. Petitioner did not
comply with the said Order. Instead, he filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for
Leave of Court to Admit Attached Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Revised Rules
of Court.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion. The Court of Appeals also denied
petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner invokes liberal construction of the rules in seeking reversal of the assailed
resolutions. He alleges that his appeal was not filed late but that he only resorted to the
wrong mode of appeal; that realizing his error, he immediately filed the Motion For Leave
to Admit Petition for Review; that his notice of appeal had the effect of tolling the period
of perfecting his appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; that although unaware of
A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, he appealed four days after receiving the consolidated decision
through a notice of appeal, thus showing his "sincerity" in appealing the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in refusing to admit petitioner's petition for review invoking liberal
construction of the rules.
RULING:
No. The SC finds no compelling reasons to relax the stringent application of the rules in
this case. Litigation is not a game of technicalities, but every case must be prosecuted
in accordance with the prescribed procedure so that issues may be properly presented
and justly resolved. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except only
when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure. Concomitant
to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the
party invoking liberality to explain his failure to abide by the rules.
COMMENTS:
Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, liberal construction of the
rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial justice. Thus, litigations should,
as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on technicalities. This does not
mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or disdained at will to suit the
convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own rationale in the orderly
administration of justice, namely, to ensure the effective enforcement of substantive
rights by providing for a system that obviates arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or
whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that
substantive law and procedural law are contradictory to each other, or as often
suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it would
result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants.
In applying this to the case, first, when petitioner received the trial court's consolidated
decision on December 16, 2004, A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC was already in effect for more
than two months. Second, petitioner had known about the new rules on the second
week of January, 2005 when he received a copy of respondents' Opposition (To
Defendant's Notice of Appeal) dated January 6, 2005. In their opposition, respondents
specifically pointed to the applicability of A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC to the instant case. Third,
petitioner originally insisted in his Reply with Manifestation (To the Opposition to
Defendant's Notice of Appeal) that the correct mode of appeal was a "notice of appeal."
Petitioner reiterated in his Opposition to respondents' motion for execution dated
January 14, 2005 that a notice of appeal was the correct remedy. Finally, petitioner filed
his Motion to Admit Attached Petition for Review only on June 10, 2005, or almost eight
months from the effectivity of A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC on October 15, 2004, after he
received the trial court's Order of May 11, 2005.
Hence, the trial court's decision became final and executory on January 3, 2005.
Respondents had already acquired a vested right in the effects of the finality of the
decision, which should not be disturbed any longer.
SUBMITTED BY: CHARMAINE KLAIRE A. ALONZO

Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica (G.r. No. 169420)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica (G.r. No. 169420)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica (G.r. No. 169420)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABRENICA V. LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA, TUNGOL AND TIBAYAN, et.al.

G.R. No. 169420

 In Manila Hotel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, it is stated that: Liberal

SUBMITTED BY: CHARMAINE KLAIRE A. ALONZO

You might also like