G.R. No. 10365 ; September 29, 1915
ILDEFONSO TAMBUNTING, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARSENIA TAMBUNTING DE OLIVEROS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The record of this case was received by the Supreme Court on October 22, 1914. The appellant filed her printed bill of exceptions on December 4, 1914, and later submitted her printed brief on April 12, 1915. The appellee filed his printed brief on June 28, 1915. Subsequently, on July 31, 1915, the appellant filed an additional brief, which she termed a “memorandum de la apelante.” In response, the appellee filed a motion on August 3, 1915, to strike this additional memorandum from the record. The appellee argued that: (1) there is no authority in law or in the rules of the court for the filing of an additional brief by the appellant, and such filing deprives the appellee of his right to close the argument; and (2) even if admissible, the memorandum should be stricken because it includes documents not part of the record on appeal, which the appellee had no opportunity to address during trial.

ISSUE:
Whether the additional brief or memorandum filed by the appellant without the court’s permission should be stricken from the record.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the motion to strike the appellant’s additional memorandum from the files. The Court based its decision on Rules 21 and 22 of the Supreme Court, which respectively provide specific timeframes for the appellant to file a brief after the record is submitted and for the appellee to file a brief in response. The Court held that additional briefs by either party should not be filed without the court’s permission. Allowing such additional briefs without leave of court could lead to an indefinite series of filings, thereby preventing the formation of a clear issue for the Court’s decision and delaying the speedy disposition of cases. The appellant’s additional memorandum was filed without permission and was therefore ordered stricken. Costs were awarded against the appellant.