G.R. No. L-23697 December 28, 1968
OCTAVIO INFANTADO, petitioner, vs. FELIPE LIWANAG and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Octavio Infantado was the defendant and respondent Felipe Liwanag was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 43903 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which dismissed Liwanag’s complaint. Liwanag appealed to the Court of Appeals. The 45-day period to file his brief expired on July 26, 1963, without Liwanag filing the brief or requesting an extension. On August 23, 1963, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to file the brief. Liwanag received notice of this dismissal on August 26, 1963. On August 27, 1963, Liwanag filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and prayed for a 25-day period to file his brief. The record does not show the grounds for this motion. Petitioner Infantado filed an opposition on September 2, 1963. On September 4, 1963, the Court of Appeals granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the appeal, and granted Liwanag 25 days from August 27, 1963, to file his brief. Liwanag filed a printed brief dated August 30, 1963. Infantado, as appellee, filed his brief on October 20, 1963, without raising any question about the Court of Appeals’ action to reinstate the appeal and grant an extension. On September 11, 1964, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing the trial court. On October 2, 1964, Infantado filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court of Appeals had lost jurisdiction because the period for filing the appellant’s brief had expired. After this motion was denied, Infantado filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and lost jurisdiction to decide the case when it reconsidered its resolution dismissing the appeal and granted respondent Liwanag an extension to file his brief.

RULING

The petition has no merit. The Court of Appeals did not lose jurisdiction and did not gravely abuse its discretion. The mere lapse of the period to file an appellant’s brief does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal and loss of jurisdiction. The appellate court must still act to dismiss the appeal, either upon motion or motu proprio. After a dismissal order, the adversely affected party has fifteen days from notice to file a motion for reconsideration, and the court can still reinstate the appeal if the motion is timely. Here, Liwanag received the dismissal resolution on August 26, 1963, and filed his motion for reconsideration on August 27, 1963, which was timely. Therefore, the Court of Appeals still had jurisdiction to reconsider the dismissal and grant an extension. It is within the court’s inherent power and discretion to amend its orders to render substantial justice. The Supreme Court presumes the Court of Appeals found the motion meritorious and will not control its discretion in this regard. The petition is dismissed.