G.R. No. 139008 ; March 13, 2002
ROBERT DEL MAR, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NORMA EBERSOLE DEL MAR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Robert del Mar was sued by his mother, private respondent Norma Ebersole del Mar, for reconveyance of several parcels of land. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared petitioner in default for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference and rendered judgment ordering him to reconvey the properties and pay damages. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, he failed to file his appellant’s brief within the required period. The CA dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and petition for relief were denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for petitioner’s failure to timely file his appellant’s brief.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal was a proper exercise of its power under the Rules of Court. The filing of an appellant’s brief within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law. The CA’s dismissal order was a consequence of petitioner’s own negligence and failure to comply with procedural rules.
The Court further emphasized that certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Petitioner allowed the reglementary period for appealing the CA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration to lapse. Moreover, the substantive merits of his case were weak, as he had been validly declared in default by the RTC and did not seek to lift the order of default. The documents he sought to present on appeal were not offered in the trial court and thus had no probative value. The Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus was dismissed.