Liao Senho vs. Philippine Savings Bank

The Court held that an appellate court’s discretionary power to dismiss an appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief is properly exercised when the appellant neither files a timely motion for extension nor demonstrates strong equitable considerations warranting procedural liberality. Furthermore, a final and executory judgment granting a writ of possession becomes immutable and cannot be collaterally attacked or delayed through an appeal on a separate, unrelated procedural order. Because the petitioner failed to seek timely reconsideration of the trial court’s writ decision and submitted a procedurally defective pleading to the Court of Appeals, the dismissal of his appeal was legally sound and the writ’s execution could proceed without interruption.

Philippine Savings Bank extended a P2,446,000.00 loan to spouses Jenny S. Liao and Chi-Horng Liao, secured by a real estate mortgage over Unit No. 602, Cianno Plaza Condominium, covered by Condominium Certificate of Title No. 97781 registered in Jenny’s name. The borrowers defaulted on their obligation, prompting the bank to institute extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. The bank emerged as the highest bidder at the public auction, obtained a certificate of sale, and registered it with the Register of Deeds of Makati City on January 15, 2008. The statutory redemption period expired on January 15, 2009 without the mortgagors exercising their right. Liao Senho subsequently intervened in the bank’s ex parte petition for a writ of possession, asserting ownership over the condominium unit and alleging that the title issued to Jenny was spurious.

• The trial court treated the bank’s petition for a writ of possession as a summary proceeding. It initially denied petitioner’s opposition, emphasizing that the court’s jurisdiction in an ex parte possession petition is limited to verifying the applicant’s possessory right following a foreclosure sale. After confirming the expiration of the redemption period, the trial court granted the writ, recognizing the bank as the absolute and legal owner of the subject property.
• Rather than seeking reconsideration of the writ’s issuance, petitioner filed a motion to consolidate the possession case with Civil Case No. 11-619, an annulment action he had filed against the Spouses Liao. The trial court denied the consolidation, noting that the November 22, 2010 decision granting the writ was already in the execution stage and that petitioner presented no evidence to support the consolidation.
• Petitioner appealed the consolidation denial to the Court of Appeals. Upon receipt of the CA’s notice to file an appellant’s brief, petitioner failed to submit the required pleading within the reglementary period. He instead filed an Appeal Memorandum, which the respondent bank moved to strike for non-compliance with the Rules of Court.
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that the failure to file a timely appellant’s brief warranted dismissal under Rule 50. The appellate court also noted that the Appeal Memorandum failed to satisfy the formal requirements of Rule 44 and was filed without a prior motion for extension. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the present Rule 45 petition.

• Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on purely technical grounds, urging the Court to exercise procedural liberality to resolve the dispute on its merits.
• Petitioner argued that the writ of possession lacked merit because he was the true owner of the condominium unit, and he alleged that the respondent bank and the Spouses Liao committed fraud and deceit in procuring the mortgage and the certificate of title.
• Petitioner contended that his failure to file a formal appellant’s brief was attributable to his former counsel’s preparation of an Appeal Memorandum, and that substantial justice required the appellate court to overlook the procedural defect.

• Respondent countered that the appeal was properly dismissed for petitioner’s failure to file an appellant’s brief within the prescribed period, in direct violation of Sections 7 and 12 of Rule 44, and Section 1(e) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
• Respondent argued that petitioner submitted a procedurally defective Appeal Memorandum, failed to seek a timely extension, and provided no valid justification for the delay in his motion for reconsideration.
• Respondent emphasized that the trial court’s grant of the writ had already attained finality, and that the petitioner’s collateral appeal could not suspend or invalidate an executory judgment.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly exercised its discretionary power in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the petitioner’s claim of ownership and allegations of fraud can override the finality of the trial court’s writ of possession in a summary extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding.

• Procedural: The Court held that the CA properly dismissed the appeal. While Section 1(e) of Rule 50 employs the permissive “may,” conferring discretion rather than a mandatory duty to dismiss, the appellate court’s discretion must be guided by equity and fair play. The petitioner failed to file a motion for extension before the deadline, submitted a non-compliant Appeal Memorandum, and offered no substantial explanation for the delay. Absent strong equitable considerations or a showing that the appellee suffered material prejudice, the CA’s dismissal fell within its sound discretion and aligned with established jurisprudential guidelines on procedural liberality.
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the petitioner’s substantive claims were procedurally and legally unavailing. A Rule 45 petition is strictly confined to questions of law, and the Court does not sit as a trier of facts; none of the recognized exceptions to this limitation applied. More critically, the trial court’s decision granting the writ of possession had already attained finality because the petitioner never filed a motion for reconsideration against it. The principle of immutability of judgments bars any alteration or suspension of a final and executory decision, and the immediate enforcement of vested rights is essential to the administration of justice. The petitioner’s appeal from the denial of a consolidation order could not collaterally attack or delay the execution of a final writ.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — Once a judgment or order becomes final and executory, it becomes unalterable and immutable, and its enforcement cannot be prevented or delayed. The Court applied this doctrine to bar the petitioner from challenging the trial court’s grant of the writ of possession through an appeal on a collateral order, emphasizing that the failure to seek timely reconsideration rendered the writ final and beyond disturbance.
• Discretionary Dismissal for Failure to File Appellant’s Brief — While the failure to file an appellant’s brief is a ground for dismissal under Rule 50, the appellate court’s power to dismiss is discretionary, not mandatory. The Court applied equitable guidelines requiring a showing of compelling circumstances, absence of prejudice to the appellee, and reasonable delay before procedural liberality may be extended. The petitioner’s unexplained procedural defaults failed to satisfy these criteria.
• Rule 45 Limited to Questions of Law — A petition for review on certiorari raises only questions of law, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The Court reiterated that factual disputes regarding ownership and allegations of fraud fall outside the scope of Rule 45, absent specific exceptions that were not present in this case.

• "The word 'may' is used in Section 1 of Rule 50 which implies that the dismissal of the appeal due to the grounds stated therein is not mandatory but only discretionary. ... To be sure, the allowance of the appeal despite the failure to file an appellant’s brief must be decided by the CA taking into account all the factors surrounding the case. Its discretion must be exercised with due regard to justice and fair play under the circumstances." — The Court relied on this formulation to clarify that procedural rules remain subordinate to substantial justice, but that liberality requires a demonstrable showing of equitable considerations, which the petitioner failed to establish.
• "Indeed, once a judgment becomes final, it becomes unalterable and immutable. Its enforcement cannot be prevented as the immediate enforcement of the rights of the parties, embodied in a final judgment, is a vital component of the ideal administration of justice." — This passage anchored the Court’s refusal to entertain the petitioner’s collateral attack on a final writ of possession, reinforcing the policy against delaying the execution of final judgments and preserving the stability of judicial decisions.

• National Grid Corporation of the Philippines v. Bautista — Cited as the controlling framework for evaluating the appellate court’s discretion to dismiss an appeal for non-filing of a brief, establishing the six guidelines on when procedural liberality may be extended.
• Sindophil, Inc. v. Republic — Referenced to support the principle that the appellate court’s discretion to dismiss an appeal must be exercised with due regard to justice and fair play, considering all surrounding circumstances.
• Lagua v. Court of Appeals — Invoked to affirm the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and the strict observance required for any remedy intended to frustrate or delay the execution of a final decision.
• Pascual v. Burgos — Cited to reiterate the settled rule that a Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law and that the Supreme Court does not function as a trier of facts.

• Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court — Provides that failure to file an appellant’s brief within the prescribed time is a ground for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. The Court interpreted the permissive “may” as conferring discretionary, not mandatory, power.
• Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court — Mandates the form, content, and timing for filing an appellant’s brief. The petitioner’s Appeal Memorandum failed to comply with these requirements.
• Section 12, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court — Requires that motions for extension to file briefs must be filed before the expiration of the reglementary period and must show good and sufficient cause. The petitioner’s failure to comply justified the CA’s dismissal.
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari, which the Court strictly construed as limited to pure questions of law, barring the petitioner’s factual allegations.