Yabut v. Ventura
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants-appellants concerning the dismissal of their appeal and the order for the entry of final judgment. The motion was based on the attorney's honest belief that his second petition for an extension of time to file the brief, up to August 10, 1946, was favorably considered and granted. Procedural History: The Supreme Court had previously granted a first extension of 15 days from July 9 for the defendants-appellants to file their brief. Subsequently, by resolution of July 31, they were granted a second extension of 10 days only, from July 24. A motion dated July 24, received on July 29, asked for a last extension not to go beyond August 10, 1946. The copy of the resolution granting the second extension was received by the attorneys on August 9, and they deposited their brief in the post office on the same day. The Petition: The defendants-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that their attorney believed the second motion for extension of time to file their brief was granted up to August 10, 1946.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants-appellants' attorney was justified in assuming that his second motion for an extension of time to file the brief was granted in full. Whether the brief was filed within the period granted by the Court.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is denied. The appeal was dismissed, and final judgment ordered to be entered.
Ratio Decidendi
On the justification for assuming the extension: The Court held that there was no justification for the defendants-appellants' attorney to take for granted that he would be given, or had been given, the entire period of extension he had asked for. Neither the pertinent provision of the Rules of Court nor the practice of the Supreme Court could have inspired reassurance of a favorable action on his motion to its full extent. The rule and the policy of the Court on the matter show a marked tendency to make such concessions sparingly. Section 16 of Rule 48 of the Rules of Court provides that "extension of time for the filing of brief will not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause." Furthermore, the policy of many years' standing of this Court is to grant no more than 15 days for the first extension and 10 days for the second extension. The Court emphasized that the resolution on the first motion for extension clearly indicated the limited time that might be expected on the second motion. Having been granted only 15 out of the 30 days prayed for in the first motion, there was no ground to assume a longer period would be allowed on the second motion. The most that could have been reasonably hoped for was 15 days. On whether the brief was filed within the granted period: The Court found that even if 15 days had been granted to the defendants-appellants, computed from July 24, their brief was still filed one day late. The resolution of July 31 granted a second extension of 10 days only, from July 24. This meant the brief was due on August 3, 1946. The attorney received notice of this resolution on August 9 and filed the brief thereafter. The Court also suggested the advisability of attorneys filing motions for extension of time sufficiently in advance to avoid surprise and delusion after the mistake becomes irreparable. It reiterated that periods for filing papers are fixed as a matter of public policy to end litigations promptly, and deviations from the rules require a good showing.
Main Doctrine
Attorneys are expected to file motions for extension of time sufficiently in advance to avoid surprise and delusion, as periods for filing papers are fixed as a matter of public policy to end litigation promptly. Extensions are granted sparingly and not automatically.