G.R. No. 164668; February 14, 2005
ASIAN SPIRIT AIRLINES (AIRLINE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE), petitioner, vs. SPOUSES BENJAMIN AND ANNE MARIE BAUTISTA, KARL BAUTISTA and GLORIA POMERA, respondents.

FACTS

The respondents, Spouses Bautista, filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against Asian Spirit Airlines (petitioner) before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding them temperate, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting it to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a resolution dated December 10, 2003, directed the petitioner to file its appellant’s brief within forty-five days from notice. The petitioner received the notice on December 17, 2003, making the deadline January 31, 2004. The petitioner failed to file its brief by this date.
On March 3, 2004, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal due to this failure. Only on March 10, 2004, after receiving the respondents’ motion, did the petitioner file an unverified “Motion to Admit Attached Appellant’s Brief.” The CA denied this motion and granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. The petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA gravely erred in strictly applying the rules on dismissal and that its appeal was meritorious.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the dismissal of the appeal. The Court ruled that under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, the CA may dismiss an appeal for the appellant’s failure to file its brief within the period provided by the rules. The petitioner’s excuse for the delay—that its counsel instructed a secretary to file a motion for extension, which the secretary then forgot—was deemed totally unacceptable. The Court emphasized that the motion to admit the brief was unverified and was not supported by any affidavit from the secretary or a copy of the alleged unfiled motion for extension.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle that while the rules of procedure should be liberally construed to promote justice, this liberality cannot be invoked to justify a wanton disregard of the rules. The right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The petitioner not only neglected to file its brief on time but also failed to seek an extension on a cogent ground before the original deadline expired. The Court found no persuasive reason to exempt the petitioner from the procedural consequences of its failure, as such leniency would undermine the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Strict compliance is enjoined to prevent needless delay, and the petitioner’s procedural lapse warranted the dismissal of its appeal.