G.R. No. L-12309; April 30, 1959
JUANA ALONZO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. VALENTINA ROSARIO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari to set aside a resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioners’ appeal. The case originated from an action for partition filed by the respondents against the petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The petitioners defended by claiming the property was the paraphernal property of Juana Alonzo, giving the respondents no interest. After a partial stipulation of facts and several postponements, the petitioners’ counsel failed to appear at trial due to illness. The respondents were allowed to present evidence, and the trial court rendered a decision on April 11, 1955, declaring the property conjugal and ordering partition. Petitioners filed a verified motion to set aside the decision on May 26, 1955 (one month and 15 days later) under Rule 38, Section 3, on grounds of mistake and excusable negligence. This motion was denied for lack of an accompanying affidavit of merits. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting petitioners to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
On February 5, 1957, petitioners’ counsel received notice to file their brief within 45 days. On February 10, 1957, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. On February 20, 1957, the Court of Appeals directed petitioners’ counsel to answer the motion to dismiss within 10 days. Counsel filed his opposition on March 1, 1957, and prayed that, due to the pending motion to dismiss, he be allowed to file the petitioners’ brief from the time he receives notice of the court’s resolution on the motion if it is denied. On April 2, 1957, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying the motion to dismiss but also denying the counsel’s motion for extension of time to file the brief. Upon receipt, counsel filed an urgent petition for reconsideration, praying for at least 15 days from that date to file the brief if the motion was denied. The Court of Appeals denied this motion and dismissed the appeal in a resolution dated April 12, 1957. Despite this, counsel filed the petitioners’ brief on April 17, 1957.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the brief on time, considering the pendency of a motion to dismiss the appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal. The Court ruled that the period during which the motion to dismiss the appeal was pending should be excluded from the computation of the 45-day period granted to file the brief. By analogy to Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court (which states that a motion to dismiss interrupts the time to plead in courts of first instance) and the precedent in Torres vs. Ribo, a bona fide motion to dismiss suspends the period for filing a responsive pleading until the motion is decided, as a favorable ruling would make filing unnecessary. Applying this principle, if the motion to dismiss the appeal had been granted, filing a brief would have been unnecessary. Therefore, the period from the filing of the motion to dismiss (February 10, 1957) until its resolution (April 12, 1957) should be excluded. With this exclusion, the brief filed on April 17, 1957, was deemed filed on time. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for decision on the merits.