Arcega v. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated when Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (the Bank) filed a collection action against Arcegas Marketing Corporation and the petitioners, Domingo T. Arcega and Ramon M. Arcega, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The trial court ruled in favor of the Bank, ordering the defendants to pay a substantial sum of money, daily charges, attorney's fees, and costs. 2. Procedural History: Following the trial court's adverse decision, the petitioners filed a notice of appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals). The trial court ordered the elevation of the case records. However, the Bank later filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging failure to prosecute due to the petitioners' inaction in transmitting the records. The Court of Appeals granted this motion and dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioners' motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari and mandamus to annul the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing their appeal and denying their motion for an extension. They argue that the dismissal was erroneous because they had not been notified to pay docket fees and that the elevation of records was beyond their control. They also contend that the Habaluyas Enterprises case, cited for denying their extension motion, is inapplicable as no proceedings occurred. This petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order previously issued is LIFTED and SET ASIDE. Costs are against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute: The Court held that the petitioners' contention is without merit. It cannot be said that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute. The petitioners did nothing to effect or facilitate the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court for almost two (2) years from the issuance of the order to elevate said records. The Court reiterated the established principle that while it is the duty of the clerk of the lower court to transmit the records of an appealed case, it is also the duty of the appellant to make the clerk of court act. The failure of the clerk to perform his legal duty is no justification for the appellant's failure to perform his, and he cannot justify his failure by saying that the fault was that of the clerk of the lower court. This duty imposed upon the appellant is precisely to spur on the slothful. The Court cited Government of Philippine Island vs. Joaquin Abrion and Fagtanac vs. Court of Appeals in support of this principle, emphasizing that an appellant cannot simply fold his arms and wait for the records to be transmitted, but must actively pursue the transmittal. On the denial of the motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court found the petitioners' argument that the Habaluyas Enterprises vs. Japson case could not be invoked as authority for the denial of their motion for extension to be without merit. It was clear that the private respondent Bank had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and the appellate court granted it. Following the dismissal, the petitioners filed a motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration. Since the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not allowed in Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, Regional Trial Courts, and the Court of Appeals, pursuant to the rule established in Habaluyas, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court clarified that the existence of some proceeding in Habaluyas did not render it inapplicable, as the core issue was the prohibition against extensions for such motions.
Main Doctrine
An appellant cannot justify failure to prosecute an appeal by attributing fault to the clerk of court for the delay in the transmittal of records; it is the appellant's duty to ensure the clerk acts and to procure a court order if necessary. Furthermore, a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is generally not allowed in appellate courts.