ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142655. August 2, 2000]

TITO JOVY INT'L CUISINE, INC. et al., vs. PCI LEASING & FINANCE INC., et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 2 2000.

G.R. No. 142655 (Tito Jovy International Cuisine, Inc. et al. vs. PCI Leasing & Finance Inc. et al.)

Through this petition for review on certiorari, Tito Jovy International Cuisine, Inc. (petitioner) seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution, dated 30 April 1999, of the Court of Appeals declaring that petitioner's appeal had already been dismissed upon the earlier denial of its "Motion for Leave to File Brief." Likewise sought to be reversed and set aside is the Resolution, dated 4 April 2000, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The case arose from a complaint for recovery of sum of money and/or personal property filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 148 of Makati City by respondent PCI Leasing & Finance, Inc. against petitioner.

After due trial, the RTC rendered judgment ordering petitioner to pay respondent the sum of P518,914.00 as the unpaid balance of the loan plus legal rate of interest of 12% per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint."1 Rollo , p. 4. Petitioner filed an appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 46787 with the CA. The CA then required the parties to file their respective briefs. Despite an extension of ninety (90) days (in addition to the requisite 45 days) to file brief, petitioner still was unable to seasonably file the same. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for leave to file appeal brief but the same was denied by the CA.

Aggrieved by the CA's denial of its motion to file appeal brief, petitioner filed a petition for review with this Court. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 122570. This Court, however, denied the petition2 Resolution, dated 29 January 1996, G.R. No. 122570. as well as petitioner's motion for reconsideration.3 Resolution, dated 13 March 1996, G.R. No. 122570. After said decision became final, an entry of judgment was made. The records were then remanded to the CA which remanded the same to the RTC for execution.

Petitioner then opposed the execution of the judgment of the trial court claiming that its appeal is still pending with the CA. The trial court nonetheless issued a writ of execution prompting petitioner to file a petition for certiorari with the CA. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 48867. Acting thereon, the CA made a suggestion that a clarificatory motion be filed to correct the mistake.

Respondent thus filed with the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 46787 a motion for clarification for which the CA issued the assailed resolution, dated 30 April 1999, stating thus -

Acting on appellee's [respondent herein] motion for clarification, we hereby declare and so hold that, when this Court denied Appellants' "Motion for Leave to File Brief," if thereby rejected Appellants' proffered Brief with the consequence that Appellants' appeal was dismissed.

SO ORDERED. 4 Rollo , p. 20.

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the above resolution was likewise denied in the assailed resolution of 4 April 2000.

In this petition for review, petitioner avers that the CA committed reversible error in rendering the assailed resolutions as they are retroactive and would effectively deny petitioner its right to appeal the main case. Petitioner insist that the non-admission of its appeal brief did not automatically result in the denial of its appeal. According to petitioner, since the appeal is still pending with the CA, the writ of execution issued by the trial court is thus improper.

The petition is without merit.

Petitioner's failure to file its appeal brief in CA-G.R. CV No. 46787 after the lapse of a total period of 135 days was clearly fatal. The CA in said case correctly denied its Motion for Leave to File Brief. Further, the Court finds no error committed by the appellate court when it issued the assailed resolution clarifying that the denial of petitioner's "Motion for Leave to File Brief" carried with it the dismissal of petitioner's appeal. Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the Rules of Court specifically provides as follows:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:

x x x

(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules;

In CA-G.R. CV No. 46787, petitioner not only failed to serve and file the required number of copies of its brief, it did not file any brief at all within the period provided by the rules. This omission patently ran afoul of petitioner's duty to file the same as mandated by Rule 44, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. The CA therefore committed no reversible error in rendering the assailed resolutions.

In addition, when this Court denied the petition and motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 122570, it already passed upon the merits of the case. The resolution denying the petition in said case became final and executory on 10 April 1996. Thereafter, the Court expressly directed the CA to remand the case to the trial court for the execution of its judgment.5 Letter of Transmittal, dated 30 July 1996, G.R. No. 122570. Given the foregoing, there is no cogent reason to deviate from the general rule that "when a court's judgment or order becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to enforce this judgment.6 Soco vs. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 449, 456 (1996).

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE