G.R. No. 83281, December 4, 1989
FLORENTINO OZAETA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JALWINDOR MANUFACTURERS, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Florentino Ozaeta was held liable by the Regional Trial Court for damages due to patent infringement. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. On June 5, 1987, he was granted a 60-day extension, until August 4, 1987, to file his appellant’s brief. Instead of filing the brief or seeking a further extension before this deadline, petitioner filed a motion to suspend the appellate proceedings on July 17, 1987. He based this on a pending administrative case before the Philippine Patent Office where he sought to nullify the private respondent’s patent.
The Court of Appeals required comment on the motion and eventually denied it on January 27, 1988. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied on March 7, 1988. Throughout this nearly seven-month period, petitioner took no action to file his brief. Only on March 15, 1988, well after the August 4, 1987 deadline had lapsed, did he file a motion for a 30-day extension to file the brief. This motion was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was proper, finding no error in the appellate court’s action. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with procedural rules governing appeals. The pendency of an administrative case to nullify a patent is not among the grounds for mandatory suspension of a judicial action under the Rules of Court. Consequently, the filing of the motion to suspend proceedings did not toll or interrupt the running of the period to file the appellant’s brief.
Petitioner and his counsel were grossly negligent. They erroneously assumed the motion to suspend automatically stopped the clock for filing the brief. The period expired on August 4, 1987. Petitioner’s subsequent motion for extension filed on March 15, 1988 was rendered infirm because, under the Rules, a motion for extension must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. Filing it seven months late was a fatal procedural misstep.
The right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Failure to file the required brief within the granted period, coupled with the failure to timely seek an extension, results in the loss of that right. The Court found no cogent reason to relax the rules, as the negligence was solely attributable to petitioner’s counsel. Thus, the appealed decision had properly become final and executory.