GR 173390; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173390; June 27, 2012
MELCHOR L. LAGUA, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Melchor L. Lagua was convicted of homicide by the Regional Trial Court. He filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted him bail pending appeal and issued an order requiring him to file his appellant’s brief within 45 days. Petitioner received two extensions from the CA, the second coming with an explicit warning that no further extension would be allowed. Despite these extensions, he failed to file the brief. Consequently, the CA dismissed his appeal for abandonment in September 2004.
The CA later granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated the appeal, giving him a final, non-extendible 30-day period to file the brief. Petitioner again failed to comply. The CA thus issued the first assailed Resolution in November 2005, dismissing the appeal for the second time. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was filed three days late, along with a motion to admit his belatedly filed appellant’s brief. The CA denied this motion in its second assailed Resolution in May 2006, noting the appeal’s dismissal had become final and that petitioner had trifled with procedural rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to file his appellant’s brief.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a clear showing that the lower tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, or despotic manner amounting to an evasion of a positive duty. The CA’s actions were a proper exercise of its discretion under the Rules of Court.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with prescribed procedures. Petitioner’s repeated and unjustified failures to file his brief, despite multiple extensions and explicit warnings from the appellate court, constituted a clear disregard of procedural rules. His claim of counsel’s negligence does not excuse the delay, as the negligence of counsel binds the client. The CA acted well within its authority under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court in dismissing the appeal for abandonment. The judgment of conviction having attained finality, the State has a right to its execution. The Court cannot countenance the use of its extraordinary certiorari jurisdiction to relieve a party from the consequences of their own procedural lapses.