ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 134952. July 5, 1999]

SPS. FERNANDO & IRMA TORRES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 5, 1999.

G.R. No. 134952 (Spouses Fernando V. Torres and Irma Torres vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

For consideration of this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Resolution, dated February 18, 1998, of the Court of Appeals, which denied herein petitioners' motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief and consequently dismissed petitioners' appeal; and, the resolution, dated August 6, 1998, of the same court, which denied herein petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the above resolution.

This case stems from a complaint for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of contract with damages filed by herein petitioners against herein private respondent Amparo Medina on January 18, 1994 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216.

On March 7, 1997, the trial court thru Judge Marciano Bacalla, rendered a decision in favor of private respondent Medina. Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, petitioners filed a notice of appeal on April 15, 1997.

In consideration of petitioners' two (2) motions for extension of time to file brief praying for a total extension of sixty (60) days to file brief from November 3, 1997 or until January 2, 1998, the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution,1 [Rollo, p. 95.] dated December 10, 1997 granted petitioners an additional period of sixty (60) days or until January 2, 1998 within which o file their appellants' brief.

On February 18, 1998, the Court of Appeals, thru Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes,2 [Now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.] issued the assailed Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for last Extension for being filed out of time and dismissing petitioners' appeal. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, hence, this petition for review.

Petitioners raise the following issues:

A�������� THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR FINAL EXTESNSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANTS' BRIEF, AND WHEN IT REFUSED TO ADMIT APPELLANTS' BRIEF;

B�������� THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT PETITIONERS' APPEAL IS MERITORIOUS AS INDICATED BY THEIR ARGUMENTS ST FORTH IN THE APPELLANTS' BRIEF. 3 [Rollo., pp. 10-11.]

The petition is devoid of merit.

The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 44, Section 12, clearly provides:

SECTION 12. Extension of time for filing briefs. - Extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension s filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.

Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly noted that when petitioners filed another motion for extension on January 5, 1998, the reglementary period had already lapsed and consequently, there was no longer any period to extend. (Id., at 20-21; CA Decision, dated February 18, 1998 (citing Velasco vs. CA, 51 SCRA 439; Razalan vs. Concepcion, 31 SCRA 611; Baquiran vs. CA, 2 SCRA 873)].

Petitioners alleged "that in the interest of substantial justice, they must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of their cause, free from the constraints of technicalities."4 [Id., at 14.]

However, petitioners can hardly claim to have been denied appeal. In fact, the Court of Appeals gave them as extension of sixty days within which to file their brief in addition to the forty-five days allowed by the Court in its Notice (to file Brief) dated September 11, 1997 - more than ample time to file their Appellants' Brief, which they nevertheless failed to do.

Moreover, petitioners have not shown that meritorious reasons exist to warrant a liberal application of the rules. We quote with approval the Court of Appeals' ruling on this point:

"x x x the reason advanced by counsel that he entertained his mother and his sister and her children during the Christmas season is not a valid excuse for the delay in filing said motion and does not merit the court's approval (Pahilanga vs. Luna, 164 SCRA 725). It is incumbent upon every lawyer to follow scrupulously the rules ever aware that any error or imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to his client's cause, and to adopt a system of promptly attending to cases handled by him which includes the taking of precautionary measures that will safeguard his client's interest to the best of his ability with utmost diligence (In re: Santiago F. Marcos, 156 SCRA 844; Orbit Transport Corp. vs. WCC, 58 SCRA 78)." 5 [Id., at 21.]

In view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE