Manalo v. Macapanpan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from an election for the position of mayor in Pakil, Laguna, held on November 12, 1963. Salustiano O. Manalo was initially proclaimed the winner by the board of canvassers. However, Temistocles Macapanpan, the opposing candidate, filed an election protest. Following a trial, the Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered a decision on September 5, 1966, declaring Macapanpan the duly elected mayor, having secured a plurality of nineteen votes over Manalo. 2. Procedural History: Following the adverse decision from the Court of First Instance, Salustiano O. Manalo, as the protestee-appellant, lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeals. His appeal was perfected on September 19, 1966. Subsequently, on March 1, 1967, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing the appeal due to the failure of the appellant's counsel to file the printed brief within the reglementary period, nor to seek an extension. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the appellant, but the Court of Appeals denied this motion in a resolution dated April 7, 1967. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Salustiano O. Manalo, seeks a writ of certiorari to nullify the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 1, 1967, and April 7, 1967. He contends that these orders were issued illegally and without due process because his counsel did not receive the required notice from the clerk of the appellate court that all evidence was attached to the record, which triggers the period for filing the brief. He claims his brief was nearly complete and he was awaiting this notice. The respondent, Macapanpan, counters that the notice was sent and refused by some counsel, and that Manalo's inaction, even after knowing about the notice and requesting an extension, demonstrated a lack of diligence in prosecuting his appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal and refusing its reinstatement based on the failure to file an appellant's brief.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The questioned orders of the Court of Appeals dated March 1, 1967, and April 7, 1967, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Court of Appeals (CA) acted within its valid discretion and did not deny the petitioner due process. While the petitioner claimed non-receipt of notice, the record showed that a registry notice was sent on January 17, 1967, and delivered to the agent of one of his lawyers, while the other two lawyers reportedly refused to accept the delivery of the notices. The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot interfere with the CA's discretion in evaluating the credibility of the evidence regarding the service of notice. Furthermore, the Court noted that Manalo failed to file his brief even after he admitted to having actual knowledge of the notice on March 10, 1967, and after he had requested a three-week extension in his motion for reconsideration. Applying the ruling in Liwanag v. Castillo, the Court found that the dismissal was grounded on the petitioner's own inaction and indifference to the prosecution of the appeal. In election cases, a protestee who is currently seated has a higher duty of vigilance to ensure the final outcome is not delayed. Finally, citing Felisilda v. Achacoso, the Court reiterated that appellate courts are not required to search the record motu proprio for arguments to support a party who has failed to submit a brief.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of an appeal due to the failure to file a brief within the reglementary period, even if the notice was allegedly not received, may be sustained if the appellant demonstrates inaction or indifference in prosecuting the appeal, and the appellate court's discretion in denying reinstatement is not shown to be arbitrary or whimsical.