G.R. No. 134155; April 06, 2005
ANGELITO UY, Petitioner, vs. PABLEO S. BALOJA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Pableo Baloja filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Angelito Uy, owner and operator of a public utility jeepney, after a March 18, 1990 accident where the vehicle lost its brakes and overturned, causing Baloja severe injuries including paralysis. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, rendered a decision on July 28, 1994, ordering Uy to pay Baloja P200,000.00 for loss of income and other damages. Uy filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals required Uy to file his appellant’s brief within 45 days from notice received on February 7, 1997. Uy failed to file the brief by the March 24, 1997 deadline. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed his appeal in a September 3, 1997 Resolution for non-filing of the brief pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Uy moved for reconsideration, arguing his failure was due to an inability to locate certain transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) from the trial court. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, noting Uy could have requested copies from the appellate court or asked for an extension but did neither.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. In a petition for review under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors committed by the appellate court, not the trial court. The sole issue is the propriety of the dismissal for procedural lapse.
Petitioner’s claim of excusable neglect due to missing TSNs is unpersuasive. As the Court of Appeals correctly observed, petitioner or his counsel could have easily secured copies from the appellate court or personally read the TSNs there. Petitioner did not even request an extension of time to file the brief. This conduct demonstrates a lack of honest concern and a blatant disregard of court directives, not excusable neglect.
Liberal application of procedural rules requires a party to show utmost diligence in compliance. Petitioner’s indolence and failure to take basic remedial steps disqualify him from such liberality. Allowing his maneuver would put a premium on delaying tactics and prolong litigation unjustly. The appellate court’s dismissal was proper. The petition is denied.