G.R. No. L-18275 October 26, 1961
Cotabato Rice Mill, Inc., plaintiff-appellee, vs. Salazar Adam, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This case originated from a civil action for the recovery of a sum of money filed by Cotabato Rice Mill, Inc. against Salazar Adam in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. The defendant denied the complaint’s material averments and set up a counterclaim. When the case was called for trial on October 25, 1960, neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared, leading to an ex parte hearing. The trial court, based on the plaintiff’s evidence, rendered judgment holding the defendant liable for P2,565.00 with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The defendant appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Upon elevation of the record, the appellant’s counsel was duly notified to file the printed brief within forty-five days. The appellant filed two successive motions for extension, which the Court granted, the second extension coming with an explicit warning that “NO FURTHER EXTENSION will be given.” After the expiration of this second extension, the appellant filed a third motion, which was received by the Court only after the deadline had lapsed. This motion requested another thirty-day extension and contained an assurance that if the brief was not filed by October 5, 1961, the appeal would be considered abandoned and withdrawn.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure of the appellant to file the required brief within the reglementary period, despite granted extensions and a final warning from the Court.

RULING

Yes, the appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of procedural rules governing the perfection of appeals. The Court had already granted two extensions for filing the appellant’s brief, with the second extension expressly conditioned on a warning against any further extension. The appellant disregarded this warning by filing a third motion for extension only after the second extension period had already expired. The Court found that the appellant’s subsequent inaction, coupled with the “assurance” in his last motion that the appeal would be considered abandoned if the brief was not filed by a certain date, constituted a clear abandonment of the appeal. The failure to file the brief within the allowed periods is a ground for dismissal of the appeal, as it indicates a failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence. The dismissal is a consequence of the appellant’s own neglect and a necessary enforcement of procedural rules to ensure the orderly administration of justice and prevent undue delay. The appealed decision of the trial court thus stands.