GR 173017; (March, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173017 March 17, 2009
FELIMON BIGORNIA, SPO3 BORROMEO GORRES, ADELIANO RICO, SPO3 JOVENTINO BIGORNIA, SPO3 ALMANZOR JANGAO, SPO2 MESTERIOSO ARANCO, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (23rd Division), and MELCHOR AROMA, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Melchor Aroma filed an action for replevin with damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Norte, alleging petitioners detained his fishing vessel for 14 days after it was seized. The RTC ruled in favor of Aroma, ordering petitioners to pay jointly and severally various sums as damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. On January 19, 2004, their counsel received notice to file an appellants’ brief within 45 days, or until March 4, 2004. Petitioners filed their brief on March 18, 2004, 14 days late. The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution expunging the brief and dismissing the appeal for failure to file on time pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari, explaining the delay was due to their counsel’s campaign for Vice Governor of Lanao del Norte and faulting the appellate court for sending the notice to file brief two years after the appeal was taken.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in not admitting the appellants’ brief and dismissing the appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions, reinstated the appeal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court ruled that while the dismissal of an appeal for failure to file the brief on time is technically allowed, it is directory and discretionary, not mandatory. The discretion must be exercised soundly in accordance with justice and fair play. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are intended to ensure, not suppress, substantial justice. Considering the substantial amount of damages involved, that petitioners are police officers with meager salaries, and the wider latitude allowed when the appellate court has already obtained jurisdiction over the appealed case (as here, where only the brief was filed late, not the appeal itself), the interest of substantial justice compelled the reinstatement of the appeal to hear the case on its merits.