Banaad v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action for a sum of money filed by Conrado C. Fule against Francisco S. Banaad. The dispute was initially heard by the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch III, under Civil Case No. SP-1404. 2. Procedural History: Following the decision of the Court of First Instance, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. No. 68190-R. The petitioner, Francisco S. Banaad, was required to file his brief within forty-five (45) days from September 15, 1981. An extension of ninety (90) days was granted, making the deadline January 30, 1982. A motion for a further fifteen-day extension was filed by the printer, The Vera Printing Press, on January 28, 1982. This motion was denied by the Court of Appeals on February 8, 1982. Subsequently, the petitioner's brief was filed on February 15, 1982, accompanied by a petition to admit it. On February 19, 1982, the private respondent moved to dismiss the appeal due to the late filing of the brief. The Court of Appeals denied the petition to admit the brief and dismissed the appeal on March 23, 1982. A motion for reconsideration was filed and subsequently denied on April 19, 1982. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Francisco S. Banaad, filed a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order with the Supreme Court. He seeks to nullify the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated February 8, 1982, March 23, 1982, and April 19, 1982. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his appeal and refusing to admit his brief, contending that the brief was filed within the extended period sought by the printer, which was necessitated by circumstances such as brownouts and the printer's workload. He cites previous instances where the Supreme Court's First Division granted extensions upon motions filed by The Vera Printing Press, suggesting a precedent for liberal treatment in such matters and arguing that no intent to delay or prejudice was shown.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying the petition to admit the printed brief and dismissing the appeal. Whether the motion for extension filed by The Vera Printing Press was proper.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated February 8, 1982, March 23, 1982, and April 19, 1982, are set aside. Petitioner's appeal is ordered reinstated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the brief's admission and dismissal of the appeal: The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious, noting the brief was filed within the requested extended period. The Court cited prior resolutions where the First Division had granted ex-parte motions of The Vera Printing Press for extensions in similar cases (G.R. No. 55394 and G.R. No. 55343), finding no reason to deny admission absent intent to delay or prejudice. The Court emphasized that sound discretion favors granting extensions for justifiable reasons to avoid a miscarriage of justice, citing Cucio vs. Court of Appeals and Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals. A liberal application of the rules was deemed imperative over rigid enforcement when substantial justice is at stake, referencing Obut vs. Court of Appeals. On the propriety of the motion for extension: The Court acknowledged that the motion for extension was filed by The Vera Printing Press, which is not a party nor counsel. The Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that such a motion is improper and that the counsel should have filed his own motion, supported by an affidavit or certification from the printer. The CA also noted the appellant's reliance on past resolutions where similar motions by the printer were granted, deeming this an "illegal procedure" and an argument based on "ignorance of the rules and inexplicable negligence of counsel."
Main Doctrine
A motion for extension to file a brief filed by a printing press, not being a party nor counsel, is improper. However, where the brief was filed within the requested extended period and there is no showing of intent to delay or prejudice to the respondent, the denial of the admission of the brief and dismissal of the appeal may be set aside in the interest of substantial justice, especially when prior similar motions by the same printing press were granted by the Supreme Court.