GR 156894; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156894, December 2, 2005
GUILLERMO A. CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 38, LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN, SALVADOR C. VALLE and CARMENCITA S. VALLE, Respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Salvador and Carmencita Valle filed an action against Guillermo A. Cruz for Annulment of Affidavit of Self-adjudication, Cancellation of Tax Declaration, and Quieting of Title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the spouses, declaring them the absolute owners of the disputed land and annulling Cruz’s affidavit. The RTC held that the deed of donation upon which the spouses based their claim was a donation inter vivos, as it disposed of the property with finality despite a phrase stating it would take effect after the donor’s death.
Cruz appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. He received notice to file his Appellant’s Brief within 45 days. The appellate court granted his motion for a 90-day extension, making the deadline August 1, 2002. However, Cruz filed the brief only on August 21, 2002, attributing the delay to his collaborating counsel’s illness (acute periodontosis) and his discovery in mid-July that his counsel of record had not begun preparing the brief. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to file the brief on time and denied his motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the Appellant’s Brief within the prescribed period.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with procedural rules and the principle that negligence of counsel binds the client. The Rules of Court mandate the appellant to file a brief within a prescribed period, and failure to do so is a ground for dismissal of the appeal. While the Court may relax procedural rules in the interest of justice under compelling circumstances, such liberality is not warranted here.
Petitioner had a total of 135 days to prepare his brief, which was a considerable period. The excuses proffered—counsel’s illness and lack of preparation—are unacceptable for relaxing the rules, especially since the client shares responsibility for monitoring his counsel’s actions. The negligence of counsel is imputable to the client, particularly where the client has been similarly negligent. Furthermore, the guidelines for suspending the rules, as cited from Baylon v. Fact-Finding Intelligence Bureau, do not apply because there was participatory negligence on the part of the client. The Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the appeal for procedural lapse, as rules of procedure are designed to ensure the orderly and prompt administration of justice.