Roxas v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a complaint for reconveyance of title filed by Segundo Roxas against Andres Roxas and others. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 132 of Makati, dismissed Segundo Roxas' complaint in Civil Case No. 3837-M. 2. Procedural History: Following the dismissal of the complaint, petitioners filed a notice of appeal on October 21, 1985. The Regional Trial Court directed the proceedings to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners were notified by the Court of Appeals on January 29, 1986, to pay docket fees and subsequently ordered on March 7, 1986, to file their appellants' brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice, which they received on March 18, 1986. Petitioners filed multiple motions for extension of time to file their brief, with the last one filed on July 21, 1986, praying for fifteen (15) days. Despite this, their appellants' brief was filed on August 25, 1986. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated October 2, 1986, denied the motion for extension and considered the brief filed out of time, dismissing the appeal. A motion for reconsideration filed on October 23, 1986, was denied on November 5, 1986. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated October 2, 1986, and November 5, 1986, arguing that their appellants' brief was filed before their last motion for extension was resolved and that the denial of this motion was inconsistent with previous rulings. They contend that their motion for extension should not have been denied as there was no intent to delay. The petition is filed under the general appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, challenging the procedural rulings of the appellate court regarding the timeliness of the brief filing.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the appellants' brief filed out of time. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion for extension of time to file the appellants' brief.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the brief being filed out of time: The Court held that the filing of a motion for extension of time does not automatically grant an extension. The appellants' brief was filed on August 25, 1986, which was eighteen (18) days beyond the period prayed for in their last motion for extension (15 days from July 23, 1986). The Court emphasized that the brief must be filed within the extended period granted, if any, or within the original reglementary period if the motion remains unresolved. In this case, the motion for extension was filed, but the brief was filed beyond the period requested in that motion, and no further motion was filed after the brief was submitted. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly considered the brief filed out of time. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for extension: The Court reiterated that the allowance or denial of motions for extension of time to file briefs is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. This discretion must be exercised wisely and prudently, with a view toward substantial justice. In this case, the Court found that the resolutions were a product of the respondent court's sound exercise of discretion. The period from the decision to the filing of the brief was 402 days, and from the notice to file the brief to its filing was 160 days. The brief itself was only twenty-six (26) pages long, which is easily completed within twenty (20) days. The Court noted that the Court of Appeals had already relaxed its policy by granting sixty (60) days extension based on the counsel's self-serving plea of illness, not even supported by a doctor's certificate. The petitioners then abused this leniency by filing their brief beyond the requested extension and by praying that the extension be counted from notice, which is not a presumption that courts will grant. The Court warned against such practices, stating that lawyers should not presume that their motions for extension will be granted or that any granted extension will be counted from notice.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion for extension of time to file a brief does not automatically grant an extension; the brief must be filed within the extended period granted, if any, or within the original reglementary period if the motion is unresolved. The allowance or denial of motions for extension of time to file briefs is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which must be exercised wisely and prudently.