Vitto v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Fredelito P. Vitto, along with Vic O. Pizarro and Danilo P. Pajaron, were charged with homicide. Following a trial, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City convicted all three accused and imposed a sentence of six (6) years, four (4) months, and ten (10) days of prision mayor, as a minimum, to twelve (12) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, as a maximum. 2. Procedural History: All accused appealed their conviction to the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of their appeal, they remained at large, having failed to post bail. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring them to explain why their appeal should not be deemed abandoned due to their failure to submit to the proper authorities. Petitioner's counsel requested an extension to allow the petitioner to surrender and to file the appellant's brief. However, the petitioner failed to appear before the appellate court or file the brief within the granted period. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion for leave to file an appellant's brief, citing his remote location in Mindoro and lack of funds as reasons for his non-compliance. This motion was denied by the Court of Appeals as the dismissal of the appeal had already become final and executory. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Fredelito P. Vitto filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying his motion for leave to file an appellant's brief. He seeks the suspension of the Rules of Court in his favor to allow the admission of his brief, citing his alleged predicament. The Solicitor General, in response, prayed for the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's Motion For Leave Of Court To File Appellant’s Brief, considering the petitioner's failure to surrender to the appellate court. Whether petitioner's appeal should be deemed abandoned due to his failure to file his brief, and the implications of this abandonment on the subsequent motion for leave to file the brief.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and abandonment of appeal (failure to surrender): The Court reiterated that an appeal is considered abandoned if the appellant fails to properly prosecute it or commits acts inconsistent with its prosecution, such as refusing to submit to the jurisdiction of the authorities. In this case, the petitioner failed to comply with his commitment to surrender to the Court of Appeals. The Court concluded that the petitioner's refusal to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the appellate court, from which he sought relief, could not be countenanced. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not act with grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of abandonment of appeal (failure to file brief) and the motion for leave: The petitioner, through his counsel, requested an extension to file his appellant's brief, but failed to comply. This omission was deemed fatal to his appeal, leading the Court of Appeals to correctly dismiss the appeal. The dismissal order became final and executory. Therefore, the subsequent Motion for Leave to File Appellant's Brief was correctly denied by the appellate court as it was filed more than two months after the dismissal order had attained finality. The Court emphasized that the law does not protect parties who sleep on their rights or perform acts inconsistent with the prosecution of their case. Petitioner's claim of not being aware of the need to surrender was considered a flimsy excuse, especially since he was represented by counsel. The Court stressed that it was incumbent upon him to inform his lawyer of his whereabouts and inquire about the status of his case, and similarly, his counsel should have exercised diligence in apprising him of the appellate court proceedings.
Main Doctrine
An appeal is deemed abandoned and may be dismissed if the appellant fails to file their brief or fails to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the appellate court, especially when such failure is not sufficiently justified and the dismissal order has become final and executory.