October 1961 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > October 1961 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-18275 October 26, 1961 - COTABATO RICE MILL, INC. v. SALAZAR ADAM:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18275. October 26, 1961.]
COTABATO RICE MILL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SALAZAR ADAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Pastor Kimpo for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Usop Pendaliday, for Defendant-Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
DE LEON, J.:
This case originated from a civil action for the recovery of a sum of money filed in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato by the Cotabato Rice Mill, Inc. against Salazar Adam. In his answer, the defendant denied the material averments of the complaint and set up a counterclaim of P1,000.00. After a first postponements, the case was finally called for trial on October 25, 1960, but neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared so that the case was heard ex parte. Basing its decision on the oral and documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff, the trial court held the defendant liable for P2,565.00, the amount prayed for in the complaint, with interest at the legal rate, plus attorney’s fees and costs. Adam interposed the present appeal.
On June 7, 1961, upon the elevation of the case to Us, appellant’s counsel was advised by the Clerk of Court to file his printed brief within forty five (45) days from receipt of the notice, pursuant to section 12, Rule 48 of the Rules of Court.
On August 4, 1961, appellant, thru counsel, filed an urgent motion for extension of time to file his brief, and this Court granted fifteen (15) days from August 5, 1961.
On August 29, another motion for extension of time to file said brief was received by this Court and We granted a second extension of fifteen (15) days from August 20, 1961, "but with the warning that NO FURTHER EXTENSION will be given."cralaw virtua1aw library
In his last motion, which was filed only on September 9, 1961, after the expiration of the second extension on September 5, 1961, appellant asks for another thirty (30) days period within which to file his brief, "with the assurance that if said brief could not be filed on or before October 5, 1961, his appeal shall be considered abandoned and therefore withdrawn."cralaw virtua1aw library
It appearing that up to the present no appellant’s brief has so far been submitted to this Court in spite of Our warning that no further extension would be given, and considering the abovementioned "assurance" on the part of appellant, We make the conclusion that the appeal has been abandoned.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby dismissed, without cost in this instance.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., on leave, took no part.
On June 7, 1961, upon the elevation of the case to Us, appellant’s counsel was advised by the Clerk of Court to file his printed brief within forty five (45) days from receipt of the notice, pursuant to section 12, Rule 48 of the Rules of Court.
On August 4, 1961, appellant, thru counsel, filed an urgent motion for extension of time to file his brief, and this Court granted fifteen (15) days from August 5, 1961.
On August 29, another motion for extension of time to file said brief was received by this Court and We granted a second extension of fifteen (15) days from August 20, 1961, "but with the warning that NO FURTHER EXTENSION will be given."cralaw virtua1aw library
In his last motion, which was filed only on September 9, 1961, after the expiration of the second extension on September 5, 1961, appellant asks for another thirty (30) days period within which to file his brief, "with the assurance that if said brief could not be filed on or before October 5, 1961, his appeal shall be considered abandoned and therefore withdrawn."cralaw virtua1aw library
It appearing that up to the present no appellant’s brief has so far been submitted to this Court in spite of Our warning that no further extension would be given, and considering the abovementioned "assurance" on the part of appellant, We make the conclusion that the appeal has been abandoned.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby dismissed, without cost in this instance.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., on leave, took no part.
