G.R. No. L-29374 February 18, 1970
FAUSTINO RAZALAN and INES GUERRERO, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ALFONSO D. CONCEPCION and ISABEL DE CONCEPCION, THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Faustino Razalan and Ines Guerrero were the lessees in an action for rescission of a contract of lease filed by respondents Spouses Alfonso D. Concepcion and Isabel de Concepcion in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. The trial court rendered a decision decreeing rescission and ordering petitioners to pay 650 cavans of palay and vacate the leased premises. Petitioners appealed by Record on Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 39751 -R). The CA issued a notice on December 26, 1967, received by petitioners’ counsel on January 9, 1968, advising that the record was complete and the brief must be filed within 45 days. Petitioners filed a motion for a 30-day extension, which was granted from February 23, 1968. On March 21, 1968, petitioners moved for a second extension of 30 days from March 23, 1968. The CA granted only a 20-day extension from March 24, 1968, ending April 13, 1968. Notice of this resolution dated April 4, 1968, was mailed on April 17, 1968, and petitioners claim to have received it on April 23, 1968. On April 20, 1968, petitioners filed a motion for a third extension of 30 days from April 22, 1968. This motion was received by the CA on April 27, 1968. The CA dismissed the appeal because the motion for a third extension was filed on April 20, 1968, which was seven days after the expiration of the second extension period on April 13, 1968. A motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to file their brief on time.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that petitioners’ claim of late notice of the second extension resolution lacked merit because they did not file their brief until May 9, 1968, which was 17 days after the expiration of the 30-day period they had originally requested in their second motion for extension. The Rules of Court (Section 15, Rule 46) provide that extensions for filing briefs are allowed only for good cause and if the motion is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. Petitioners’ motion for a third extension was filed after the second extension had already expired. Furthermore, the policy of the courts, as established in Yabut vs. Ventura and subsequent cases, is to grant extensions sparingly, typically limiting second extensions to 20 days. Petitioners’ counsel should have been aware of the Court of Appeals’ policy (Resolution No. VIII, dated January 3, 1963) to limit second extensions to 20 days. The reason given in their motion (that the brief was with a printing press) was insufficient to warrant a departure from this policy, as a 39-page brief could be printed within 20 days. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that reinstating the appeal would serve no useful purpose because petitioners’ main defense in the underlying case—that the Agricultural Tenancy Act should govern the rentals—was manifestly untenable, as the contract was an ordinary civil lease, not agricultural tenancy, given the land area (over 145 hectares) and the absence of a claim that cultivation was through petitioners’ own labor and that of their immediate household. The petition for certiorari was dismissed and the writ denied.