G.R. No. 45155; July 31, 1936
CARMEN C. VIUDA DE ORDOVEZA, petitioner, vs. HONORIA RAYMUNDO, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner is the appellee in a case pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The appellant (respondent here) failed to file her brief by the deadline of March 20, 1936. On March 31, 1936, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for this failure. The appellant filed petitions for reconsideration. On April 14, 1936, the Court of Appeals granted the second petition, reinstated the appeal, and gave the appellant five additional days to file her brief. The appellee moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The appellee then filed this petition for certiorari, seeking to annul the reinstatement order.

ISSUE

1. Did the Court of Appeals lose jurisdiction to reinstate the appeal after the lapse of fifteen days from the expiration of the briefing period?
2. Did the Court of Appeals have the authority to grant an additional period to file the brief upon reinstating the appeal?

RULING

1. No. The Court of Appeals did not lose jurisdiction. Under the applicable rules (Rule 24 of the Supreme Court), the dismissal of an appeal for failure to file a brief is not automatic; the court “may” dismiss it, implying discretion. Since the appeal was dismissed by court order on March 31, 1936, the fifteen-day period for the court to retain jurisdiction (before remanding the record) should be counted from that date, not from the original briefing deadline. The reinstatement order on April 14, 1936 was within that period.
2. Yes. The Court of Appeals had the authority to grant an additional period. Rule 23 allows the court to fix time by special order. Furthermore, courts have the inherent power to suspend their own rules or make exceptions when required by justice.
The petition for certiorari is denied.

AI Generated by Armztrong.