Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp. vs. New Pacific Timber and Supply Co., et al.

A petition for review under Rule 43 may be dismissed under Section 7, Rule 43 for failure to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directive to submit material and relevant documents, and the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, such that failure to comply renders the judgment final and executory. The Court of Appeals has the duty to ensure that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory.

ZFMC and NEPATCO were holders of Timber License Agreements over forest concessions in Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga City, with NEPATCO’s TLA No. 8 covering 19,350.0 hectares of public forest. A boundary dispute between their concessions was lodged before the Bureau of Forest Development, and the parties executed a compromise agreement dated 18 April 1973 to demarcate their respective areas. The dispute proceeded through administrative agencies, including the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Office of the President, before reaching the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

ZFMC was the holder of Timber License Agreement No. 205 covering an unspecified area at Sibuco and Siocon in Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga City. NEPATCO was the holder of Timber License Agreement No. 8 over an area consisting of 19,350.0 hectares of public forest situated in the same locality. A boundary dispute between their concessions was lodged before the Bureau of Forest Development, and ZFMC and NEPATCO agreed on the demarcation of their respective concession areas pursuant to a compromise agreement dated 18 April 1973.

Acting on the agreement and the reports submitted by Foresters Carlos R. Retino and Juan B. Galo of the Zamboanga City District Forestry Office, then BFD Regional Officer-in-Charge Regulo D. Bala issued an order dated 8 May 1974. The order adopted the common boundary line actually laid down and blazed about 2 to 3 meters wide, with technical descriptions for TLA No. 8 of NEPATCO and TLA No. 205 of ZFMC. It also ordered that the logs cut, gathered, and removed by NEPATCO from ZFMC’s licensed area in the total volume of 23,892.40 cubic meters be replaced and/or paid with an equal volume and grade to ZFMC, or in any manner both licensees may agree, conditioned upon faithful compliance by both licensees with the compromise agreement. NEPATCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an 11 November 1974 order.

NEPATCO elevated the matter to the Ministry of Natural Resources, docketed as MNR Case No. 4023. While affirming the resolution of the boundary dispute, then MNR Minister Teodoro Q. Peña rendered a decision dated 25 June 1984 absolving NEPATCO of liability for cutting lumber within ZFMC’s concession area. The MNR found that the liability for 23,892.40 cubic meters of timber was not based on actual measurement but merely calculated on the average stand of 148.40 cubic meters per hectare for 161 hectares found logged inside ZFMC’s concession. No physical count or inventory of stumps was made because majority of the stumps were already in an advanced stage of decay. There was no legally admissible evidence that NEPATCO actually logged in the area. The logging allegedly took place in 1961 and 1962 while the investigation was conducted in 1973. The information that NEPATCO conducted the logging came from Ramon Serna, Sr., a tractor operator of ZFMC and former tractor operator of NEPATCO, corroborated by Florentino Isidro, a concession guard of ZFMC and former capataz of the falling and brushing crews of NEPATCO. NEPATCO was not given a chance to cross-examine the informants nor to present evidence to controvert the information; hence, the information had no probative value for being hearsay, and the credibility of the informants was questionable because they were employed by ZFMC and may be considered biased. The earlier report of Forester Carlos R. Retino dated 17 July 1973 contained nothing more than an unsubstantiated statement. The MNR also found merit in NEPATCO’s contention that logging operations conducted by either or both within the overlapped portion should be presumed done in good faith, because prior to the compromise agreement each party had the right to insist that its area was as defined in the technical description of its concession. The fact that NEPATCO’s logging camp and forest nursery were found within the area that fell in ZFMC’s concession by virtue of the compromise agreement was proof positive that NEPATCO was acting in good faith.

Dissatisfied, ZFMC appealed to the Office of the President, docketed as O.P. Case No. 5613. Through then Acting Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Manuel B. Gaite, the Office of the President rendered a one-page decision dated 30 June 2003 affirming in toto the MNR Minister’s 25 June 1984 decision by adopting the quoted findings and conclusions. ZFMC received the order dated 30 September 2003 denying its motion for reconsideration. ZFMC then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 80110. In that petition, instead of formulating its own concise statement of the facts and issues, ZFMC merely quoted the first ten pages of the MNR decision in MNR Case No. 4023, apparently unaware that the third page was missing from its copy and that relevant facts were omitted. It appended only the Office of the President’s decision, its motion for reconsideration, and the 30 September 2003 order denying the motion. Despite the Court of Appeals’ 30 January 2004 resolution directing submission of the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the President, ZFMC maintained that the documents were no longer necessary. It also failed to submit copies of the BFD Director’s orders dated 8 May 1974 and 11 November 1974. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on 29 June 2004 under Section 7, Rule 43, and denied reconsideration on 21 June 2006.

• Memorandum Decision: Petitioner ZFMC urged the grant of its petition on the ground that the 30 June 2003 decision rendered by the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 5613 is a memorandum decision which should be nullified for lack of statement of the facts and the law on which the same was based.
• Superfluity of Submitting Pleadings: ZFMC maintained that the submission of the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the President was no longer necessary since the undisputed facts of the case were already exhaustively discussed in the 25 June 1984 decision rendered in MNR Case No. 4023, which purportedly upheld BFD Director Bala’s finding that NEPATCO encroached into its concession area; the only issue submitted for resolution was the propriety of the subsequent deletion of NEPATCO’s liability for cutting lumber within its concession area.
• Reasonable Time to Comply: In its motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, ZFMC sought permission to submit certified copies of the pleadings filed in MNR Case No. 4023 and O.P. Case No. 5613 within a reasonable time, in the interest of justice.

• Dismissal under Rule 43: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed ZFMC’s petition for review under Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the requirements and the Court of Appeals’ directive to submit material documents.
• Perfection of Appeal: Whether ZFMC’s failure to file its petition within the extended period and to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directives rendered the assailed decision final and executory.
• Memorandum Decision: Whether the 30 June 2003 decision of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 5613 should be nullified for lack of statement of the facts and the law on which it was based.

• Dismissal under Rule 43: Yes. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition under Section 7, Rule 43 for failure to comply with the requirements and the directive to submit material and relevant documents.
• Perfection of Appeal: No. ZFMC’s failure to file within the extended period and to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directives rendered the assailed decision final and executory; appeal is a statutory privilege and perfection is mandatory and jurisdictional.
• Memorandum Decision: No. The proper subjects of the Rule 45 petition are the Court of Appeals resolutions, not the Office of the President’s decision; in any event, no sufficient basis existed for reversal.

• Dismissal under Rule 43: Rule 43 requires a petitioner to formulate a concise statement of the facts and the issues involved and to submit supporting documents. ZFMC instead quoted the first ten pages of the MNR decision in MNR Case No. 4023, missing the third page and omitting relevant facts. It appended only the Office of the President’s decision, its motion for reconsideration, and the 30 September 2003 order denying the motion. The Court of Appeals’ directive to submit the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the President was necessary for proper appreciation of the facts and issues. The Court of Appeals has the duty to ensure that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory, enabling it to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition. Failure to attach material and relevant documents to the petition is a sufficient ground to dismiss. ZFMC failed to comply with the directive despite the twenty-two months that elapsed from the filing of its motion for reconsideration up to its denial. Failure to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directive without justifiable cause is also a ground for dismissal under Section 1(h), Rule 50 of the Rules. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition.
• Perfection of Appeal: Although appeal is an essential part of the judicial process, the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal renders the judgment final and executory. Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not, and no court, not even the Supreme Court, has the power to revise, review, change, or alter the same. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law. The rule admits exceptions in special cases, but ZFMC failed to submit copies of the BFD Director’s orders dated 8 May 1974 and 11 November 1974, a complete copy of the MNR decision, and the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the President. Even if ZFMC’s procedural lapses before the Court of Appeals were excused, there would still be a paucity of bases for reversal of the 30 June 2003 decision in O.P. Case No. 5613.
• Memorandum Decision: The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the remedy available to a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts whenever authorized by law. The proper subjects of the petition are the 29 June 2004 and 21 June 2006 resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80110, which respectively dismissed ZFMC’s petition for review and denied its motion for reconsideration. ZFMC’s discourse on the defects of the Office of the President’s decision missed the proper subject of the petition. The petition was therefore denied for utter lack of merit.

• Appeal as a statutory privilege — The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to conform to the rules regarding appeal renders the judgment final and executory. The Court applied this doctrine because ZFMC filed its petition only on 24 November 2003 despite an extension until 9 November 2003 and failed to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directives.
• Finality of judgment and law of the case — Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not, and no court, not even the Supreme Court, has the power to revise, review, change, or alter the same. The rule is grounded on public policy and sound practice that judgments must become final at some definite date fixed by law. The Court found no basis to apply the exceptions to finality because ZFMC failed to provide the necessary records and documents.
• Duty of the Court of Appeals to ensure supporting documents are not merely perfunctory — The Court of Appeals has the duty to ensure that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory, the practical aspect of which is to enable it to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition. Failure to attach material and relevant documents to the petition is a sufficient ground to dismiss. The Court applied this doctrine because ZFMC omitted the third page of the MNR decision, failed to submit the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the President, and failed to submit the BFD orders.
• Dismissal for failure to comply with Court of Appeals directives — Under Section 1(h), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, for failure of the appellant to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause. The Court applied this doctrine because ZFMC failed to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directive to submit material pleadings and documents despite the lapse of twenty-two months.
• Exceptions to finality of judgment — The rule that a judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified admits of exceptions in special cases. The Court found no basis to apply the exceptions because ZFMC failed to submit copies of the BFD orders, a complete copy of the MNR decision, and the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the President, leaving a paucity of bases for reversal.

• "The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof." — This is Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the provision relied upon by the Court of Appeals and upheld by the Supreme Court as the basis for dismissing ZFMC’s petition.
• "Although appeal is an essential part of our judicial process, it has been held, time and again, that the right thereto is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege." — This passage states the doctrine that the right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional, and supports the strict application of procedural rules on appeal.
• "Thus, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure of a party to conform to the rules regarding appeal will render the judgment final and executory." — This passage articulates the jurisdictional nature of appeal perfection and explains why ZFMC’s late filing and noncompliance rendered the assailed decision final.
• "Once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not and no court – not even the Supreme Court – has the power to revise, review, change or alter the same." — This passage states the finality-of-judgment doctrine and the law of the case, which the Court applied in denying the petition.

• Atillo vs. Bombay, 404 Phil. 179, 191 (2001) — Cited for the rule that the Court of Appeals has the duty to ensure that the submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory, enabling it to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of prima facie merit in the petition.
• Ferrer vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 155025, 24 August 2007, 531 SCRA 97, 103 — Cited for the rule that a petitioner’s failure to attach material and relevant documents to the petition is a sufficient ground to dismiss it.
• Republic vs. Luriz, G.R. No. 158992, 26 January 2007, 513 SCRA 140, 148 — Cited for the principle that appeal is an essential part of the judicial process.
• Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano vs. Benemerito, G.R. No. 174247, 21 February 2007, 516 SCRA 416, 424 — Cited for the rule that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process but is merely a statutory privilege.
• Peña vs. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 159520, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 383, 396 — Cited for the rule that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to conform renders the judgment final and executory.
• Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Araullo, G.R. No. 167723, 29 November 2006, 508 SCRA 583, 592 — Cited for the rule that once a decision attains finality, it becomes the law of the case irrespective of whether the decision is erroneous or not.
• Aguilar vs. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 157911, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 354, 374-375 — Cited for the rule that no court, not even the Supreme Court, has the power to revise, review, change, or alter a final judgment.
• Filipro, Inc. vs. Permanent Savings & Loan Bank, G.R. No. 142236, 27 September 2006, 503 SCRA 430, 438 — Cited for the principle that the basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on public policy and sound practice that judgments must become final at some definite date fixed by law.
• Industrial Timber Corporation vs. Ababon, G.R. No. 164518, 25 January 2006, 480 SCRA 171, 180 — Cited for the rule that the finality of judgment admits of exceptions in special cases.

• Section 1, Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts whenever authorized by law may file a petition for review on certiorari. The Court applied this provision by holding that the proper subjects of ZFMC’s Rule 45 petition were the Court of Appeals resolutions, not the Office of the President’s decision.
• Section 7, Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court applied this provision by upholding the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of ZFMC’s petition for failure to submit material and relevant documents.
• Section 1(h), Rule 50, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that an appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, for failure of the appellant to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause. The Court applied this provision by finding that ZFMC failed to comply with the Court of Appeals’ directive to submit the pleadings filed before the MNR and the Office of the President.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chairperson), Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo concurred in the decision.