G.R. No. 79403 and G.R. No. 78223 November 13, 1989
EMETERIO M. MOZAR, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ERNESTO MADAMBA, CITY SHERIFF OF MANILA and HEIRS OF FRANCISCO GUBALLA, SR., respondents.

HEIRS OF FRANCISCO GUBALLA, SR. and GUBALLA MARKETING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. RUFINO B. RISMA and TECLA GOTICO-RISMA, respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated cases originated from an ejectment suit. The Heirs of Francisco Guballa, Sr. and Guballa Marketing Corporation (Guballa) filed a complaint for ejectment against spouses Rufino Risma and Tecla Gotico-Risma and Emeterio Mozar (Spouses Risma and Mozar) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The MeTC ruled in favor of Guballa. The Spouses Risma and Mozar appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MeTC decision. Guballa then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
The pivotal procedural event occurred at the Court of Appeals. Guballa filed its Appellant’s Brief. However, the appellate court, acting on a motion, dismissed Guballa’s appeal for failure to prosecute. Guballa challenged this dismissal via a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. In a prior resolution, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal order and proceeded to decide the substantive merits of the ejectment case itself, ruling in favor of Guballa based solely on the arguments in Guballa’s Appellant’s Brief.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court’s act of deciding the substantive merits of the ejectment case, based only on the appellant’s brief and without the appellees’ brief or a complete record, violated the Spouses Risma and Mozar’s right to due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court’s prior action constituted a denial of due process. The Court, in this Resolution granting reconsideration, held that while it possesses the authority to decide cases on the merits without remanding them to lower courts, this power must yield to the fundamental requirements of due process. The essence of due process in adjudication is the opportunity to be heard.
The legal logic is clear: the Spouses Risma and Mozar, as appellees in the Court of Appeals, were deprived of their chance to present their defense on the merits at the appellate level. Their arguments before the Supreme Court were confined to the procedural issue of the propriety of the appeal’s dismissal. They never submitted an Appellee’s Brief refuting the substantive errors assigned by Guballa to the RTC decision. Consequently, deciding the case based solely on Guballa’s Appellant’s Brief meant the Supreme Court resolved the substantive dispute without considering the appellees’ counter-arguments. The Court emphasized that the records were incomplete, as the trial court decision and the full appellate records were not before it. Therefore, to cure this procedural defect and uphold due process, the Supreme Court set aside its merits decision and remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals with the specific directive to allow the Spouses Risma and Mozar to file their Appellee’s Brief, after which the appellate court should decide the appeal on its merits.