GR 160717; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160717 ; July 23, 2008
FELICISIMA LUMBRE y SARITA, et al., Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FLORANTE I. FRANCISCO, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Florante I. Francisco filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Damages against petitioners, claiming ownership over a parcel of land in Dasmariñas, Cavite, covered by TCT No. T-361460. He alleged petitioners were unlawfully occupying the property. Petitioners contested, asserting their possession of a different lot, Lot 7571, acquired through their predecessor-in-interest and covered by their own separate TCTs. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Francisco, declaring petitioners’ titles null and void, ordering them to vacate, and awarding damages.
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA granted their counsel a 30-day extension, until January 6, 2003, to file the required Appellants’ Brief. Counsel failed to file the brief by this deadline. Francisco moved to dismiss the appeal. Only on February 5, 2003, did petitioners’ counsel file a Motion to Admit Appellants’ Brief, citing heavy workload and the need for more legal research. The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to file the brief on time, denying the motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the Appellants’ Brief within the extended period granted.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Compliance with the rules regarding the period for filing briefs is mandatory and jurisdictional. The Court found no compelling reason to excuse the procedural lapse.
Petitioners’ counsel was already granted a 30-day extension. Her failure to file the brief within this extended period, and her proffered excuses of heavy workload and need for further research, constituted simple negligence. The Court ruled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. The circumstances did not warrant liberality, as the rules of procedure exist to ensure the orderly administration of justice and prevent indefinite delays. The dismissal of the appeal was a consequence of petitioners’ failure to adhere to the procedural rules, and the CA acted within its sound discretion in upholding these rules. The petition was dismissed.