GR 138495; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138495 December 9, 2004
ANTONIO BORBON, represented by CANDIDO BORBON, Guardian Ad Litem, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ERNESTO CATINDIG, SPOUSES RENATO SITAY and PRINCESITA O. SITAY, and AMPARO INVESTMENT CORP., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio Borbon, an incompetent person suffering from chronic schizophrenia, owned a lot in Makati. After being declared competent by the Court of First Instance in 1957, he sold one-half of the lot to Mariano Sitay in 1958. Mariano later subdivided and sold portions to respondents Renato Sitay and Ernesto Catindig, with Renato mortgaging his portion to respondent Amparo Investment Corporation. In 1997, petitioner, through his brother and guardian ad litem Candido Borbon, filed a complaint for reconveyance, alleging the sales and mortgage were void due to his lack of consent from mental illness. The trial court dismissed the case on grounds of prescription.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. After receiving notice to file his appellant’s brief, he was granted extensions totaling 60 days, with a final deadline of September 7, 1998. Petitioner failed to file the brief by this date. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for abandonment on December 9, 1998. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration. Instead, on February 16, 1999, he filed a motion to admit his appellant’s brief, which was 159 days late.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief seasonably.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal was in accordance with procedural rules. Under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to file the appellant’s brief within the prescribed period is a ground for dismissal of the appeal. The court had already granted considerable extensions, setting a final deadline of September 7, 1998. The filing of the brief nearly five months after this deadline, without a prior motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, rendered the order final and executory.
The Supreme Court emphasized that while courts may grant extensions, motions for extension must be filed within the appeal period, and lawyers have a duty to file required pleadings promptly. Petitioner’s counsel offered an excuse of emotional distress due to a personal tragedy, but the Court found this inexcusable. Counsel failed to transfer the case within his firm or offer a timely explanation for the delay, violating Canons 18 and 19 and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate competence, diligence, and zealous representation. The gross negligence of counsel prejudiced the client, and the dismissal was a proper consequence of procedural lapses, not an abuse of discretion. The petition was denied, and counsel was ordered to show cause for administrative liability.