Heirs of the Late Florentina Nuguid Vda. de Haberer v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves an appeal filed by Teofilo Fabio et al. (defendants-appellants) against a decision in a case where they were plaintiffs-appellees. The specific nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it led to an appeal that was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeals. 2. Procedural History: The appeal in CA-G.R. No. 36416-R was initially handled by Atty. Victorino C. Teleron. Upon his appointment as a District Judge, he filed a petition to withdraw as counsel and requested an extension for the filing of the appellant's brief. This petition was initially granted by the Court of Appeals on September 5, 1968, with instructions to notify the appellant directly. However, a subsequent resolution on October 18, 1968, denied the withdrawal and the extension, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Multiple motions for reconsideration were filed and denied, culminating in a resolution on June 3, 1969, ordering the entry of judgment and remand of records. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order upon the filing of an urgent motion by the petitioners. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed an urgent motion with the Supreme Court, seeking a restraining order to halt the enforcement of the Court of Appeals' resolution ordering the entry of judgment. They argued that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing their appeal and refusing reconsideration. The petition contended that the dismissal was contrary to established jurisprudence and the circumstances of the case, particularly the counsel's unavoidable appointment to the judiciary and the timely filing of the motion for extension. The Supreme Court granted the petition, making the restraining order permanent and directing the Court of Appeals to reinstate the appeal and admit the filed brief.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent appellate Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners' appeal. Whether the respondent appellate Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to reconsider its resolution of dismissal.
Ruling
The Petition is granted. The restraining order dated June 19, 1969, is made permanent. The respondent Court of Appeals is directed to reinstate the appeal of the petitioners in CA-G.R. No. 36416-R and to admit the Appellants' Brief filed on September 4, 1968, considering it filed on time.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal: The Court reiterated the principle that the dismissal of an appeal based on the appellant's failure to file a brief is a power granted to the Court of Appeals, not a mandatory duty. This power requires circumspection and must be exercised soundly, considering all attendant circumstances and adhering to justice and fair play. The failure to file a brief within the prescribed period does not automatically result in dismissal; the Court has discretion. In this case, the circumstances warranted granting an extension. The counsel for the appellants, before the expiration of the period to file the brief, filed a petition to withdraw due to his appointment to the Judiciary and requested an extension for the appellants to secure new counsel and allow them time to study the case. This request was reasonable and made in good faith, meeting the requisites of a motion for extension under the Rules of Court, namely, good and sufficient cause and filing before the expiration of the period. The respondent Court's resolution of October 18, 1968, dismissing the appeal was questionable and contradictory, as it denied the withdrawal of counsel while simultaneously allowing new counsel to act as additional counsel, yet denied the extension and dismissed the appeal. This departure from the usual course of proceedings, without apparent or plausible reason, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the respondent Court departed from its usual policy of granting extensions when good cause is shown. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in refusing to reconsider the resolution of dismissal: The Court found that the respondent Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. The dismissal was based on the failure to file the brief within the extended period, which itself was denied. However, the initial petition for withdrawal of counsel and extension was filed before the deadline, and the reason for withdrawal was the counsel's appointment to the judiciary, a valid ground. The subsequent denial of reconsideration and the order for entry of judgment, despite these circumstances, demonstrated a lack of sound discretion. The Court noted that the respondent Court's resolution of October 18, 1968, was contradictory in its treatment of counsel's appearance and the motion for extension. The refusal to reconsider the dismissal, given the valid reasons for the initial delay and the subsequent procedural steps taken by the appellants, was also an exercise of discretion that was not sound and was contrary to the principles of justice and fair play. The Court's intervention was necessitated by the respondent Court's departure from established rules and policies without a justifiable basis.
Main Doctrine
The dismissal of an appeal based on the appellant's failure to file a brief is discretionary and requires circumspection, considering all attendant circumstances. The Court of Appeals has the discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appeal, which must be a sound one exercised in accordance with justice and fair play.