G.R. No. L-13831; May 16, 1960
DIOSDADO CHAVEZ and LEONILA CELESTE, petitioners, vs. BUENAVENTURA GANZON and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Diosdado Chavez and Leonila Celeste obtained a judgment for damages against respondent Buenaventura Ganzon in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Respondent Ganzon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 19107 -R). The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s counsel, attorney Cirilo Ganzon, a single 30-day extension to file the appellant’s brief, with an express warning that no further extension would be given. Respondent failed to file the brief within the extended period. On December 13, 1957, petitioners moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the brief. In his opposition, respondent explained that the preparation and filing of the brief had been entrusted to a collaborating counsel, attorney Leon P. Galleda, who failed to fulfill the task. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by resolution on December 23, 1957. On January 6, 1958, respondent filed his printed brief and a “rejoinder,” and later moved for reconsideration, which was denied on January 16, 1958. Respondent then filed an ex parte second motion for reconsideration. On February 24, 1958, the Court of Appeals granted this second motion, reinstated the appeal, allowed the late-filed brief, and required petitioners to file their appellee’s brief. Petitioners, failing to have this last resolution set aside, filed the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in reinstating respondent Ganzon’s appeal, which had been dismissed for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and annulled the Court of Appeals’ resolution of February 24, 1958. The Court held that while the appellate court has discretion to dismiss and reinstate an appeal under the Rules, such discretion must be exercised upon a showing of good and sufficient cause. Respondent’s explanation—that his counsel was busy with political activities as a campaign manager and handling election cases, leading him to entrust the brief to another attorney who failed to file it—was not a good and sufficient cause. Accepting a case binds counsel to comply with reglementary periods. The prior warning from the Court that “no further extension will be given” was disregarded, and respondent allowed over seven months to pass without seeking relief from that warning. Therefore, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in reinstating the appeal. Costs were imposed on respondent Buenaventura Ganzon.