ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 138100.April 2, 2003]
MERALCO vs. POLYSTERENE MNFG. CO., INC.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 APR 2003.
����������� G.R. No. 138100(Manila Electric Company vs. Polysterene Manufacturing Company, Inc.)
This petition for review on certiorari assails three (3) Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56407. The Resolution [1] cralaw dated January 13, 1999, dismissed the appeal of petitioner Manila Electric Company (Meralco) for failure to file Appellant's Brief within the reglementary period and the extensions granted by the appellate court. The Resolution [2] cralaw dated March 3, 1999, denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit and upheld the dismissal of the appeal. The Resolution [3] cralaw of April 12, 1999, denied petitioner's Motion for Leave of Court to File Motion for Reconsideration and disallowed the Second Motion for Reconsideration.
����������� Respondent Polysterene Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Polysterene) is a customer of petitioner Meralco for electric energy installed at the former's plant located at Maysan Road, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, since September 10, 1974, pursuant to an agreement for the sale of electric energy executed by and between petitioner and respondent. On January 20, 1988, Meralco conducted an inspection of Polysterene's metering installations and found that said installations were in defective or tampered condition. Thus, Meralco billed Polysterene the amount of P3,328,408.38 for alleged differential billing covering the period January 19, 1987 to January 20, 1988. Polysterene protested claiming that Meralco's billing lacked factual and legal basis. Polysterene also denied knowledge of any tampering. However, Meralco insisted on the deficiency. [4] cralaw
����������� Polysterene filed an action with a writ of injunction with prayer for a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction against Meralco with the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 171, docketed as Civil Case No. 2808-V-88. On June 27, 1997, the trial court rendered a decision [5] cralaw in favor of Polysterene, and held that the disputed differential billing was null and void. [6] cralaw
Meralco appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals.On May 4, 1998, the CA required Meralco to file its brief within forty-five (45) days from notice. [7] cralaw On June 19, 1998, Meralco filed a motion for extension of time praying for an extension of forty-five (45) days from June 22, 1998 or until August 6, 1998, to file its brief. [8] cralaw In its resolution [9] cralaw dated July 3, 1998, the CA granted the said motion and gave Meralco until August 4, 1998, to file the required brief.
Thereafter, Meralco successively filed a Second Motion for Extension, [10] cralaw praying for an extension of twenty (20) days or until August 26, 1998; Third Motion for Extension, [11] cralaw praying for an extension of ten (10) days or until September 5, 1998; and Motion for Final Extension, [12] cralaw praying for an extension of seven (7) days or until September 12, 1998, to file Appellant's Brief. These motions were all granted by the CA. [13] cralaw Despite the extensions granted, however, Meralco still failed to file the required appellant's brief. Thus, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal in its Resolution dated January 13, 1999, the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, for failure of the defendant-appellant [petitioner herein] to file brief within the reglernentary period as well as the extensions granted by this Court, the instant appeal is deemed ABANDONED and is hereby ordered DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [14] cralaw
On February 2, 1999, Meralco filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [15] cralaw and on February 9, 1999, Meralco filed its Appellant's Brief. However, in its Resolution [16] cralaw of March 3, 1999, the CA denied Meralco's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit and upheld the dismissal of the appeal. On March 22, 1999, Meralco filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration [17] cralaw together with the Second Motion for Reconsideration. [18] cralaw By Resolution [19] cralaw dated April 12, 1999, the CA denied Meralco's Motion for Leave of Court to File Second Motion for Reconsideration and disallowed the Second Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, this petition where the petitioner Meralco alleges that-
.[I]n ordering the dismissal of petitioner's appeal, despite petitioner's explanation in its motion for reconsideration that the failure to file appellant's brief was due to inadvertence or plain oversight, without any intention to disregard the rules, the Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error and departed from well-settled jurisprudence when it sacrificed substantial justice for the sake of a technicality. [20] cralaw
Considering the submissions of the parties on record, we find no reversible error. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. Section 1, subparagraph (e), [21] cralaw Rule 50 of the Rules of Court expressly authorizes the dismissal of an appeal filed with the CA for failure of the appellant to file the Appellant's Brief within the period required by the Rules of Court.
Meralco's plea for liberality in applying the Rules in regard to submission of Appellant's Brief deserves scant consideration. We note that Meralco is represented by three (3) counsels, who were given sufficient time-a total of 82 days on top of the 45-day reglementary period-within which to file the required brief. Hence, their failure to file the Appellant's Brief is inexcusable negligence which cannot be countenanced. The right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully comply with the rules absent any compelling reason that justifies the exercise of this Court's discretion to set aside procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice.
In Casim v. Flordeliza [22] cralaw , we held that deviations from pertinent rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of litigants or counsels.
WHEREFORE , the Resolution dated January 13, 1999 of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 56407, the Resolution dated March 3, 1999 denying reconsideration of said dismissal, and the Resolution dated April 12, 1999 denying leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and disallowing said motion are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw RoIlo , pp. 25-26, penned by Associate Justice Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr., with Associate Justices Bernardo Ll. Salas and Candido V. Rivera concurring.
[2] cralaw Id. at 28-29, penned by Associate Justice Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr., with Associate Justices Bernardo Ll. Salas and Candido V. Rivera concurring.
[3] cralaw Id . at 30.
[4] cralaw Rollo , pp. 67-68.
[5] cralaw Id. at 50-70.
[6] cralaw Id. at 69-70.
[7] cralaw Records, p. 19.
[8] cralaw Id. at 20-22.
[9] cralaw Id. at 23.
[10] cralaw Id. at 27-29.
[11] cralaw Id. at 34-36.
[12] cralaw Id. at 39-42.
[13] cralaw Id. at 23, 31, 38, 44, respectively.
[14] cralaw Rollo, p. 26.
[15] cralaw Records, pp. 52-56.
[16] cralaw Rollo , pp. 28-29.
[17] cralaw Records, pp. 108-112.
[18] cralaw Id. at 101-107.
[19] cralaw Rollo , p. 30.
[20] cralaw Id. at 18.
[21] cralaw Rule 50
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. - An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
(a)��� Failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was taken within the period fixed by these Rules;
(b)��� Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record on appeal within the period prescribed by these Rules;
(c)��� Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees as provided in section 4 of Rule 41;
(d)��� Unauthorized alterations, omissions or additions in the approved record on appeal as provided in section 4 of Rule 44;
(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;
x x x
[22] cralaw G.R. No. 139511, 23 January 2002, p. 13.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
