G.R. No. 139034, June 6, 2001
Development Bank of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Environmental Aquatics, Land Services and Management Enterprises, Inc., and Mario Matute, respondents.

FACTS

On September 10, 1976, respondents Environmental Aquatics Incorporated and Land & Services Management Enterprises, Inc. executed a mortgage in favor of petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) over two fishing boats and a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 209937 to secure a loan. Due to the corporations’ inability to pay their debt, which amounted to P16,384,419.90 as of September 11, 1990, DBP extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged property. At the public auction on December 19, 1990, DBP itself was the highest bidder, purchasing the property for P1,507,000.00. The Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale provided that the period of redemption would expire one year from the date of registration of the sale. Respondent Mario Matute, as assignee of the corporations’ right of redemption, wrote DBP on July 27, 1991, expressing his desire to redeem the property and requesting the official amount needed for redemption. DBP replied on August 16, 1991, objecting to a “piecemeal redemption” and stating that redemption required payment of the entire updated total claim owed to the bank. Private respondents filed a complaint for redemption, praying that DBP be ordered to accept Matute’s offer to redeem the property by paying the auction price of P1,507,000.00 pursuant to the Rules of Court. DBP insisted redemption required payment of the total outstanding loan obligation. The trial court ruled in favor of private respondents, holding redemption could be effected by paying the auction price plus interest and taxes. DBP appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for DBP’s failure to file its appellant’s brief within the extended period granted. The Court of Appeals also denied DBP’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing DBP’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the extended period granted.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the dismissal of an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the prescribed period is a matter of judicial discretion. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the appellate court’s dismissal. DBP’s counsel failed to offer a credible explanation for the delay in filing the brief, having requested multiple extensions totaling 150 days and still failing to meet the final deadline. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory, and its perfection requires strict compliance with procedural rules. Furthermore, the Court addressed the substantive issue to resolve the case conclusively. It ruled that the applicable law for determining the redemption price in this case is Act No. 3135, as amended (the law on extrajudicial foreclosure), and Section 30 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, not Section 16 of Executive Order No. 81 (the DBP Charter). The redemption price is the auction sale price (P1,507,000.00) plus interest and taxes paid by the purchaser, not the entire outstanding loan obligation. Therefore, the trial court’s decision was correct on the merits, and DBP’s appeal lacked merit.