GR 137672; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137672 . May 31, 2000.
PAZ REYES AGUAM, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BONIFACIO RONSAYRO, respondents.
FACTS
The Regional Trial Court dismissed petitioner Paz Reyes Aguam’s complaint for sum of money and damages and ordered her to pay respondent Bonifacio Ronsayro. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA Clerk of Court issued a notice to file appellant’s brief, addressed to petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Carlos G. Nery, Jr., and sent it by registered mail to his address of record. The notice was received by an office clerk of a realty firm with which Atty. Nery shared office; she was not his employee and did not note the date of receipt.
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for extension of time to file her appellant’s brief. The Court of Appeals denied the motion and dismissed the appeal for failure to file the brief on time. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the delay was due to counsel’s honest mistake in counting the period, and later submitted her appellant’s brief. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal due to the late filing of the appellant’s brief.
RULING
No, but the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s dismissal in the interest of substantial justice. While the Rules grant appellate courts the discretionary power to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the brief on time, such dismissal is not automatic or mandatory. The power must be exercised soundly, in accordance with justice and fair play, avoiding technicalities that hinder justice. Litigations should be decided on their merits.
The Supreme Court found compelling reasons to relax the rules. First, the notice to file the brief was improperly sent only to counsel, not to the party appellant as required, because a party may change counsel upon appeal. Second, the notice was invalidly served, as it was received by a person not employed by the counsel. Third, the delay in filing the motion for extension was merely nine days, the brief was subsequently filed, and no prejudice to the adverse party was shown. Overlooking a minor procedural lapse arising from an honest mistake is preferable to sacrificing substantial justice on the altar of technicality. The Court thus ordered the CA to reinstate the appeal and admit the appellant’s brief.