ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 146192. July 3, 2006]

ROSALINDA G. JISON v. COURT OF APPEALS AND EMILIO G. JISON, JR.

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 3, 2006 .

G.R. No. 146192 (Rosalinda G. Jison v. Court of Appeals and Emilio G. Jison, Jr.)

Petitioner assails the 28 August 2000 [1] cralaw and 29 November 2000 [2] cralaw Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63041.

Emilio G. Jison, Jr. ("respondent") filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage docketed as Civil Case No. 1761-69 against Rosalinda G. Jison ("petitioner"). In a Decision [3] cralaw dated 11 December 1998, the Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Negros Occidental, Branch 69 ("trial court"), ruled as follows:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the petition or complaint impressed with merits in favor of the petitioner [Emilio G. Jison, Jr.] and hereby grants the declaration of nullity of marriage between the above-named spouses without pronouncement as to damages and attorney's fees as well as the costs.

SO ORDERED. [4] cralaw

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 63041 before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner also filed an appeal which was consolidated with the appeal filed by the OSG. The Court of Appeals issued a notice dated 7 February 2000 requiring the OSG and petitioner to file their respective appellant's briefs within 45 days from receipt of the notice. [5] cralaw

Petitioner's counsel filed a motion dated 27 March 2000 for extension of time to file the appellant's brief within 30 days from 1 April 2000 or until 1 May 2000. Petitioner's counsel cites "equally urgent professional commitments, particularly the preparation of equally important pleadings with earlier due dates to be filed with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, not to mention frequent court appearances" [6] cralaw as the reason for the motion.

Petitioner's counsel filed another motion dated 26 April 2000 requesting for another extension of 30 days from 1 May 2000 or until 31 May 2000 to file the appellant's brief. The motion states that petitioner's counsel "continues to be saddled with the preparation of equally important pleadings, almost daily court appearances and other professional commitments." [7] cralaw

Petitioner's counsel filed another motion dated 29 May 2000 for an extension of 15 days or until 14 June 2000 within which to file the appellant's brief. The motion states that "[t]he draft of the brief is about to be done but [petitioner's] counsel would need more time to polish and refine the same before it shall be finalized and filed with the Honorable Court." [8] cralaw

Petitioner's counsel filed another motion dated 13 June 2000 asking for another extension of 15 days from 14 June 2000 or until 29 June 2000 to file the appellant's brief. This time, petitioner's counsel states that "[t]he draft of the Brief is almost done but still needs to be polished and refined before it shall be finalized and filed with the Honorable Court." [9] cralaw

Petitioner's counsel filed another motion dated 29 June 2000 for extension of another 15 days or until 14 July 2000 to file the appellant's brief. The motion states that petitioner's counsel "continues to be saddled with the preparation of equally important pleadings, almost daily court appearances including out of town assignments and other professional commitments." [10] cralaw The motion also states that "[t]he draft of the Brief is nearly done but still needs polishing before it shall be finalized and filed with the Honorable Court." [11] cralaw

Petitioner's counsel filed a motion dated 12 July 2000 for final extension of 7 days from 14 July 2000 or until 21 July 2000 to file the appellant's brief. Petitioner's counsel cites "recent out-of-town assignments" [12] cralaw for the failure "to polish and finalize the draft of the appellant's brief." [13] cralaw

Petitioner's counsel filed the appellant's brief on 17 July 2000.

In its 28 August 2000 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's two motions for extension dated 29 June 2000 and 12 July 2000. [14] cralaw The Court of Appeals states that petitioner was already granted an extension of 90 days excluding the 45 days given to her to file the appellant's brief from receipt of the notice dated 7 February 2000. The Court of Appeals held that when it failed to act on the motion for extension dated 29 June 2000, petitioner should not have presumed that the motion will be granted. The Court of Appeals ruled that the grounds relied upon by petitioner in asking for the extensions are not sufficient grounds to grant the motions. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals expunged the appellant's brief from the records for being filed out of time and dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief.

Both the OSG and petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the 28 August 2000 Resolution. Petitioner alleged that the appeal should not have been dismissed on mere technicality because there are indications that the trial court decided the case for considerations other than on the merits.

In its 29 November 2000 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals held that it gave petitioner more than sufficient period to file her appellant's brief. The Court of Appeals further ruled that only petitioner's appeal was dismissed. The OSG's appeal as oppositor to the nullification of the marriage remains. Thus, the OSG can amply protect petitioner's rights since the issues raised by the OSG are similar to the issues raised by petitioner. The Court of Appeals granted the OSG's motion and reinstated its appeal in its docket.

Hence, the petition before this Court.

The sole issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing petitioner's appeal on technicality.

The petition has no merit.

While technicality and procedural imperfections should not serve as basis of decisions, liberality in the application of rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result in wanton disregard of the rules. [15] cralaw The power conferred upon the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal is discretionary and not merely ministerial. [16] cralaw This Court already ruled that pressure of work on equally important cases and lack of material time are addressed to the sound discretion of the Court of Appeals. [17] cralaw

Petitioner invokes the case of Barrido v. Court of Appeals , [18] cralaw where this Court set aside the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the appellants' brief. In Barrido , the Court of Appeals denied appellants' motion for extension of time to file appellants' brief and dismissed the appeal "after considering that the appellants have already been given a total of 135 days within which to file the brief." [19] cralaw The Court, however, considered that circumstances peculiar to the case: the appellants have been sentenced to long prison terms and there was evidence that the failure to file the brief was due to the illness of the counsel who was diagnosed with "hypertensive heart disease with evidence of acute coronary insufficiency." [20] cralaw The Court held that these circumstances justify the relaxation of the Rules.

In Padasas vs. Court of Appeals , [21] cralaw at the time when printed briefs were still required to be submitted, the Court considered the affidavit of the printing press that the delay in the typesetting was due to intermittent power failure and oil shortage in Kalibo, Aklan. In Gregorio v. Court of Appeals , [22] cralaw the motions for extension were filed by the parties who had to look for another lawyer since their counsel abandoned them. They had to raise the funds necessary to retain a lawyer and pay the costs of printing the brief.

In these cases, there are justifiable grounds for the relaxation of the Rules. In the present case, the reasons invoked by petitioner in asking for motions for extension to file the appellant's brief are hardly compelling. Equally urgent professional commitments, preparation of equally important pleadings and out-of-town commitments are not sufficient grounds to grant the motions for extension, taking into consideration that petitioner already had 135 days within which to file the appellant's brief. In the motion for extension dated 29 May 2000, petitioner's counsel states that the draft of the brief is "about to be done." In the motion dated 13 June 2000, petitioner's counsel states that the draft "is almost done." In the motion dated 29 June 2000, petitioner's counsel states that the appellant's brief is "nearly done." They show little regard for the rules of procedure and the propensity of petitioner's counsel to take for granted that his motions for extension would always be favorably acted upon by the Court of Appeals.

In any event, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the cases invoked by petitioner were decided before the effectivky of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. [23] cralaw

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 28 August 2000 and 29 November 2000 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.CV No. 63041.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate Justices Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 49-51.

[2] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with Associate Justices Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and Eliezer R. De los Santos, concurring. Rollo, pp. 52-55.

[3] cralaw Penned by Judge Graciano H. Arinday, Jr. Rollo, pp. 112-133.

[4] cralaw Id. at 132-133.

[5] cralaw Rollo, p. 138.

[6] cralaw Id. at 139.

[7] cralaw Id. at 156.

[8] cralaw Id. at 161.

[9] cralaw Id. at 166.

[10] cralaw CA rollo, p. 96.

[11] cralaw Id.

[12] cralaw Rollo, p. 171.

[13] cralaw Id.

[14] cralaw The Court of Appeals erroneously stated that petitioner asked for an extension of until 22 July 2000 instead of 21 July 2000. Rollo, p. 49.

[15] cralaw El Reyno Homes, Inc. v. Ong, 445 Phil. 610 (2003).

[16] cralaw Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 432 Phil. 733 (2002).

[17] cralaw Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals. Resolution, G.R. No. 110003, 9 February 2001, 351 SCRA 436.

[18] cralaw 158 Phil. 188 (1974).

[19] cralaw Id. at 190.

[20] cralaw Id. at 191.

[21] cralaw 155 Phil 566 (1974).

[22] cralaw 164 Phil. 129 (1976).

[23] cralaw The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect on 1 July 1997.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com