Borbon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Antonio Borbon, an adjudicated incompetent suffering from chronic schizophrenia, was the owner of a lot in Makati City. After being declared competent and his guardianship terminated in 1957, he sold half of his lot to Mariano Sitay. Mariano Sitay later subdivided his portion, selling one part to respondent Renato Sitay, who mortgaged it to respondent Amparo Investment Corporation, and the other part to respondent Ernesto Catindig. In 1997, Borbon, through his brother Candido as guardian ad litem, filed a complaint for reconveyance, alleging the sale and mortgage contracts were void due to his lack of consent stemming from his mental condition. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 145, Makati City, appointed Candido Borbon as guardian ad litem for Antonio Borbon. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the action for reconveyance had prescribed. Borbon appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 57392). The CA required Borbon to file an appellant's brief within 45 days. Despite multiple extensions sought, Borbon failed to file the brief within the extended period. Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal for abandonment on December 9, 1998. Borbon later filed a motion to admit the brief, which was also denied by the CA on March 9, 1999, as the dismissal order had become final and executory. 3. The Petition: The present petition for review on certiorari seeks to challenge the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated December 9, 1998, and March 9, 1999. The core issue is whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal due to the petitioner's failure to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period, even after extensions were granted. The petitioner argues that the dismissal was improper, while the Supreme Court notes the inexcusable delay and negligence of petitioner's counsel in prosecuting the appeal, citing professional responsibility rules and jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief seasonably. Whether the explanation for the delay in filing the appellant's brief was sufficient.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated December 9, 1998 and March 9, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 57392 are affirmed. Atty. Manuel Marquez, counsel for petitioner, is required to show cause why he should not be held administratively liable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal: The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Section 7, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure mandates the appellant to file their brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt of notice. While courts have the power to grant extensions, the motion for extension must be filed within the period to perfect the appeal. In this case, the CA granted an extension until September 7, 1998. However, the appellant's brief was filed on February 16, 1999, which was 159 days beyond the extended deadline. This delay was considered inexcusable. The Court reiterated its disapproval of the practice of repeatedly seeking extensions and then failing to file the pleading, or even offer a proper explanation. The explanation provided by the managing partner, citing the death of the assigned lawyer's wife, was deemed insufficient, especially considering the lack of supervision and failure to transfer the case within the law firm. The Court emphasized that such delays are by any standard inexcusable and violate the lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence, as well as the duty to aid in the speedy administration of justice. The dismissal for abandonment was therefore proper under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief within the extended period, as the delay was inexcusable and the counsel's explanation was insufficient.