G.R. No. 211499
June 22, 2015
Second Division
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Gist:
As a rule, the CA cannot consider errors on appeal unless stated in the assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief. An exception is, even if a question is not raised in the assignment of errors, the same may still be adjudicated by the appellate court if the unraised issue or question is closely related or dependent to an assigned error.
Facts:
Petitioner Catherine Hiponia-Mayuga was married to the late Fernando J. Mayuga. They owned the subject parcel of land covered by TCT No. 116396 located in Paranaque City. In the course of Fernando’s business dealings, he met Belle Avelino who proposed to him to secure a loan so they could proceed with their business.
On March 1996, Fernando, with Catherine’s consent, obtained a loan from Metrobank in the amount of P 2.2M and, as security thereof, he executed a REM over the subject property.
On July 1996, the loan from Metrobank was increased to P 3.2M with Fernando executing an amendment to the REM. Catherine claimed that the proceeds of the loan went directly to Belle. She admitted, however, that on two occasions Belle gave Fernando the amount of P 100,000.00.
On November 1996, Fernando passed away. Catherine then inquired from Metrobank if the subject property could be released from the mortgage because it was covered by a mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) that paid off the obligation upon the mortgagor’s death. Metrobank, however, replied that Belle was the principal borrower.
On August 1998, Catherine instituted a complaint for the cancellation of the REM and the release of TCT No. 116396 with damages against Belle, Metrobank and Thelma Mauricio, the branch head of Metrobank who allowed the loan.
Meanwhile, Metrobank foreclosed the mortgaged property as Belle failed to pay the loan. As Metrobank was the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale, a Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor.
The RTC ruled that the mortgage contract was valid. It dismissed the complaint against Metrobank and Thelma because it was not proven that the execution of the mortgage was attended with collusion. It also ordered Belle to pay damages to Catherine. In addition, the RTC denied Catherine’s motion for partial reconsideration. On the other hand, Belle did not seasonably file an appeal.
On appeal, the CA deleted the award of damages against Belle. It explained that Fernando was an accommodation mortgagor of Belle’s loan.
Issues:
1. The CA erred in modifying the decision of the trial court by deleting the latter’s award of damages in favor of petitioner against defendant considering that said defendant did not even interpose an appeal in the first place;
2. The CA erred in upholding the trial court’s ruling that there was no connivance between defendant and respondent in the execution of the REM; and
3. The CA erred in upholding the trial court’s ruling that respondent committed no negligence despite failing to secure a mortgage redemption insurance in the person of Mayuga.
Ruling:
1. Belle did not appeal the RTC decision.
The failure of a party to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court unavoidably renders the judgment final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review and alter the judgment. The judgment becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. An appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the lower court.
As far as Belle is concerned, she did not appeal the decision of the RTC. Hence, the RTC decision is final and executor. The award of damages against her, in favor of Catherine, must be upheld.
2. The issues raised by Catherine are not closely related to the damages against Belle
When an appeal is taken, an appellate court acquires jurisdiction to review the case. Section 8, Rule 51 provides:
Sec. 8. Questions that may be decided. No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered, unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.
As a rule, the CA cannot consider errors on appeal unless stated in the assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief. An exception is, even if a question is not raised in the assignment of errors, the same may still be adjudicated by the appellate court if the unraised issue or question is closely related or dependent to an assigned error.
The two issues raised by Catherine in her appellant’s brief are as follows: (1) that the RTC erred in holding that there was no connivance between Belle and Thelma in the execution of the REM; and (2) that the RTC erred in holding that Metrobank was not negligent. Notably, the issue of Belle’s liability on the payment of the loan was not raised.
An appellant is required by the rules to raise as errors those issues which are sought to be passed upon by the appellate court, otherwise, the CA cannot consider other issues which the appellant failed to raise.
Reliance on Section 8, Rule 51 is misplaced. The exception provided under Section 8, Rule 51, where unraised issues may be adjudicated upon if the same are closely related to an assigned error, cannot be applied in the present case. The first issue of the alleged fraudulent acts of Belle and Thelma is separate and distinct from Belle’s failure to pay the loan. The second issue regarding the negligence of Metrobank is likewise not related to the issue of Belle’s failure to pay the loan. The liability of Metrobank is capable of being addressed separately and rests solely on its failure to secure the MRI in favor of Fernando.
In sum, the issues assigned on appeal do not require the re-examination of the RTC ruling with respect to the award of damages against Belle. These issues cannot be considered as closely related with, or dependent on each other.
3. The exceptions under Section 8, Rule 51 are only for the benefit of the appellant
As previously discussed, the CA can decided issues not assigned as errors but were closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued by appellants. In PNB vs. Rabat, the Court held that in Section 8, Rule 51, it may at once be noticed that the exceptions are for the benefit of the appellant and not for the appellee.
In the present case, the CA erroneously applied the exception to the benefit of the appellee, Belle, and to the prejudice of the appellant Catherine.
