GR 137771; (June, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137771 ; June 6, 2002
PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., respondent.
FACTS
The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision adverse to petitioner Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On March 26, 1998, it received from the Court of Appeals a notice to file its appellant’s brief, giving it 45 days, or until May 12, 1998 (considering holidays), to file. Petitioner claims it mailed an “Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief” on May 7, 1998. It then filed the brief on July 13, 1998, the last day of the extension it had prayed for.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on July 23, 1998, for failure to file the brief within the original 45-day period, noting the brief was filed without a motion for leave to admit it. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, attaching a copy of the alleged motion for extension and registry receipts. It submitted an affidavit from its paralegal and a post office certification to prove mailing. The CA directed the postmaster to verify the mailing. The postmaster’s certification stated no such motion was sent to the CA or opposing counsel on the claimed date.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The power to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the brief on time is discretionary. This discretion must be exercised soundly, but the court found petitioner’s evidence insufficient. The postmaster’s certification directly contradicted petitioner’s claim that the motion for extension was mailed and received. Petitioner failed to provide conclusive proof that the motion was ever filed or that any mishap was attributable to the postal service.
The Supreme Court emphasized that while procedural rules may be relaxed for substantial justice, such liberality is not warranted when a party’s explanation is unworthy of credence and lacks evidentiary support. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the CA, which are generally binding. Without sufficient proof of a timely motion for extension, the appellant’s brief filed on July 13, 1998, was indisputably late. The dismissal of the appeal under Rule 50, Section 1(e) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was therefore proper and affirmed.