GR L 38020; (May, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38020. May 24, 1974. DANIEL CUCIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Daniel Cucio was convicted of acts of lasciviousness by the Nueva Ecija court of first instance. He timely appealed to the Court of Appeals. His counsel, Lauro O. Sansano, received notice to file the appellant’s brief on June 15, 1973. Citing his advanced age, recurrent arthritis, the considerable distance from his Guimba office to Manila, and pressure from other professional commitments, counsel filed timely motions for extension. The appellate court granted two thirty-day extensions, with the second resolution of August 29, 1973, stating it was a “last chance.”
However, on August 27, 1973, before receiving that resolution, counsel had already filed an urgent motion for a third and final thirty-day extension until October 12, 1973, making a total of ninety days sought. Upon learning of the “last chance” warning, counsel filed a motion for reconsideration on September 21, 1973, reiterating the valid grounds for the final extension. The Court of Appeals, in its resolution of September 17, 1973, denied the third extension and dismissed the appeal. Petitioner’s printed brief was actually filed on October 1, 1973, well within the requested final extension period. A subsequent verified motion for reconsideration, supported by affidavits and a favorable endorsement from the Solicitor General who interposed no objection, was also denied by the appellate court on December 6, 1973.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for a third extension to file his appellant’s brief and in dismissing his appeal?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion. The motions for extension were all timely filed and based on good and sufficient cause, including counsel’s health, geographical difficulties, and professional workload. The period requested was reasonable, and the brief was filed within the sought extension. Crucially, there was no showing of any intent to delay or prejudice the State, a fact underscored by the Solicitor General’s favorable endorsement of the motion for reconsideration.
The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised wisely to serve substantial justice, not capriciously or with undue rigidity. Denying a reasonable extension under these circumstances, where no substantial rights are affected and delay is not manifest, violates procedural due process and the higher interest of fairness. The appellate court’s inflexible adherence to a perceived “last chance” order, despite compelling reasons and the People’s acquiescence, constituted a grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the challenged resolutions were annulled and set aside. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to admit the appellant’s brief and decide the appeal on its merits.