G.R. No. 159915 , March 12, 2009
Bachrach Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Philippine Ports Authority, Respondent.

FACTS

The respondent Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) entered into a 99-year lease with petitioner Bachrach Corporation over Blocks 180 and 185. PPA imposed rental rate increases. Separately, a lease for Lot 8, Block 101 expired in 1992, and PPA prevailed in an ejectment case against Bachrach for this lot. The parties drafted a Compromise Agreement in 1994 concerning Blocks 180 and 185, but only Bachrach and the counsels signed it; PPA’s Board refused to sign. Bachrach filed a complaint for specific performance (Civil Case No. 95-73399) to enforce the Compromise Agreement regarding Blocks 180 and 185. The trial court denied Bachrach’s motion to amend the complaint to include Lot 8, Block 101. Bachrach then filed a separate complaint for specific performance regarding Lot 8, Block 101 (Civil Case No. 00-99431) and sought its consolidation with the first case. The trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 00-99431 on grounds of res judicata, forum shopping, and failure to state a cause of action. Bachrach appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA required Bachrach to file its appellant’s brief within 45 days from February 20, 2002. Bachrach filed a motion for a 45-day extension two days before the deadline but failed to file the brief within the extended period. The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required brief. Bachrach filed a motion for reconsideration with a motion to admit the attached brief, which the CA denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s resolutions. The dismissal of an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief is a matter of judicial discretion, not mandatory. However, the Court found the failure inexcusable under the circumstances. Bachrach blamed its former handling lawyer, who was transferring to another law office, for forgetting the deadline and failing to properly endorse the case. The Court held that while the lawyer was at fault, the law firm was also grossly remiss in its duty to care for the client’s interests, as the departure of a handling lawyer requires proper turnover of cases. Furthermore, the petitioner took too long to rectify the mistake; the CA dismissed the appeal about seven months after the extended deadline, during which the petitioner did nothing. Thus, the CA did not err in dismissing the appeal.