3. Spouses Bergonia v. CA GR No.

189151 (2012)
By Kaira Carlos
PETITIONER: Sps. Bergonia and Luzviminda Castillo 
RESPONDENT: CA and Amado Bravo
DATE: January 25, 2012
PONENTE: J. Reyes
TOPIC: When Procedural Rules should be relaxed
Facts:
● That on January 2009, the Law Firm of Lapea & Associates filed with the CA its formal entry of
appearance as counsel for the petitioners in lieu of the withdrawal of their former counsel. The 
substitution was noted in a resolutiono CA issued a resolution on January 30, 2009 requiring the 
filing of the Appellants Brief within 45days from receipt
● Respondent Bravo filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal, April 2, 2009 stating the petitioners failed to file
their brief within the 45day period (starting from January 30, 2009) Rule 50, ROC – prayed for the 
dismissal of the petitioners appeal
● Petitioners alleged that respondents claims had no basis considering that they or their counsel did not
receive any resolution requiring them to file their brief
● CA issued a resolution that:
o The notice of brief was received by a certain Ruel de Tomas on February 5, 2009
● Petitioners filed a Compliance and MR that the dismissal of their appeal be set aside in the interest of
justice and equity
o Claimed that their failure to file the brief was due to the fact that they were ver furnished a copy of the
said resolution
o In a manifestation they said Atty. Cabacungan an associate may have known a certain Ruel de Tomas
–
▪ further explained that he sometimes visits their office and who may have accidentally received the said
Resolution –
▪ should be considered officially served upon them as the latter was not connected on behalf of the 
counsel
Issue:
W/N Ruled 65 is the proper remedy in the case, NO
W/N the procedural rules should be relaxed for their failure to file their appellants brief within the
reglementary period, NO
Ruling: 
Remedy - The SC ruled in the Negative. There was no hint as to gross and patent abuse of discretion on
the part of the CA when it dismissed the appeal of the petitioners for the failure of the latter to file their
appellant brief.
● The remedy of a party against an adverse disposition of the CA would depend on whether the same is a
final order or merely an interlocutory order. If the Order or Resolution issued by the CA is in the nature of
a final order, the remedy of the aggrieved party would be to file a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Otherwise, the appropriate remedy would be to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.
● The assailed May 18, 2009 and June 29, 2009 Resolutions issued by the CA had considered the
petitioners appeal below as having been abandoned and, accordingly, dismissed. Thus, the assailed
resolutions are in the nature of a final order as the same completely disposed of the petitioners appeal
with the CA. Thus, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 with this court and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
Procedural rules – the SC ruled in the Negative. SC find that the petitioners excuse for their failure to file
their brief was flimsy and discreditable and this the proprietary of the dismissal of their appeal. CA record
showed that the petitioners, through their counsel, received the January 30, 2009 resolution.
● Mere denial by the counsel of the receipt of his copy of the Resolution cannot be given weight in the
absence of any proof that the said person is neither an employee at his law office nor someone unknown
to him. It is highly implausible that any person in the building where the counsel holds office would simply
receive a correspondence delivered by a postman. – no other credible evidence
● Substantial justice cannot be applied.
o Petitioners should be reminded that technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice
and to benefit the deserving – setting this aside, there exists no such consideration
o The interest of substantial justice is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to
suspend procedural rules. Procedural rules are not be belittled or dismissed. simply because their non-
observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required
to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.