Gonzales V. Gonzales

Gonzales v. Gonzales G.R. No. 151376; February 22, 2006 Facts: Petitioner Filmeno Gonzales filed an ejectment suit against respondent Quirino Gonzales before MTC QC Br. 35. During the pendency of the case, respondent passed away and was substituted by his wife, Eufemia Gonzales. On April 10, 1997, Respondent moved for the suspension of the proceedings on the ground that she instituted a case for an annulment of title against petitioner before RTC QC Br. 84. MTC denied such motion and submitted the case for decision. On August 1, 1997, MTC ruled in favor of petitioner and ordered the respondent to vacate the property and pay for the rentals. Respondent appealed before the RTC and was ordered by the latter to submit a memorandum discussing the errors of the MTC. However, instead of filing a memorandum of appeal, she moved for the consolidation of such case with the annulment of title she filed before the RTC QC Br. 84. RTC denied the motion for consolidation for lack of merit and ordered the issuance of writ of execution for the judgment of the MTC. On November 11, 1997, RTC directed the dismissal of respondent’s appeal for failing to file the necessary memorandum of appeal. Respondent then filed an Omnibus Urgent Motion for Reconsideration praying that the counsel be allowed to submit required appeal memorandum or adopt the respondent’s position in the memorandum filed before the MTC. RTC denied the motion for lack of merit and for being dilatory. Still, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Honorable Court praying for the reconsideration of her Omnibus Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. RTC likewise denied the same for lack of merit and for being in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration, which is a prohibited pleading. Respondent then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the CA. CA partially granted the petition and reversed the order dated November 11, 1997. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the CA. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether CA erred in reversing and setting aside the RTC order dismissing the respondent’s appeal for failure to file the necessary memorandum of appeal. Ruling: YES, CA erred in granting such petition filed by the respondent. As provided in Section 7(b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of appeal. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to submit or file a memorandum of appeal within 15 days from receipt of order enjoining the filing of said pleading. Even though there is no prohibition to the adoption of a party’s position paper earlier filed, such option must be manifested during the period within which to file the required

memorandum of appeal. In the case at bar, respondent failed to file such memorandum of appeal within the allotted period. Respondent’s manifestation of adopting her position paper in the MTC only came about after the dismissal of the appeal had already been ordered. Hence, RTC did not err in dismissing the respondent’s appeal.