G.R. No. L-27492 July 31, 1967
SALUSTIANO O. MANALO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and TEMISTOCLES MACAPANPAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Salustiano Manalo was proclaimed the elected mayor of Pakil, Laguna in the November 12, 1963 elections. Respondent Temistocles Macapanpan filed an election protest. The Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered judgment on September 5, 1966, declaring Macapanpan the duly elected mayor. Manalo perfected his appeal to the Court of Appeals on September 19, 1966. On March 1, 1967, the Court of Appeals dismissed Manalo’s appeal for failure to file a printed brief within the reglementary period and for failure to file a motion for extension. Manalo moved for reconsideration, attaching an almost completed typewritten brief and asking for a three-week period to file his brief. The Court of Appeals denied the motion on April 7, 1967. Manalo filed the present petition for certiorari, challenging the dismissal orders as illegal and issued without due process. He argued that none of his three attorneys of record received the notice from the clerk of court that all evidence was attached to the record, which notice triggers the period to file the brief under Rule 124, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. Respondent Macapanpan countered that such notice was issued on January 11, 1967, sent by registered mail on January 17, 1967, and was delivered on January 30, 1967 to Atty. Magdaleno Palacol through an agent, and that the notice was previously offered for delivery to Manalo’s other counsel, who refused to accept it. Manalo’s lawyers denied authorizing the agent to receive mail but did not dispute that the other counsel were offered delivery and refused it.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion or without due process in dismissing Manalo’s appeal and denying its reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the questioned orders of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that it could not interfere with the discretion of the Court of Appeals in assessing the proofs submitted by the parties and found no adequate basis to rule that it was bound to believe any particular evidence. The Court emphasized that it must look with disfavor upon appellants in election cases who are protestees and fail to exercise due vigilance in prosecuting their appeals. The Court noted that Manalo offered no explanation for his failure to file his brief even after becoming aware of the notice or within the extended period he himself requested. The dismissal was grounded not merely on the alleged misdelivery of the notice but more on Manalo’s inaction and indifference in prosecuting his appeal. Failure to file an appellant’s brief is a valid ground for dismissal. The Supreme Court also declined to pass upon the alleged errors of the trial court, as the petition was not a certiorari against the trial court nor an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals. The orders dated March 1, 1967 and April 7, 1967 were affirmed.