GR L 28983; (March, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28983 March 30, 1979
FAUSTINO SAN JUAN, CORAZON SAN JUAN and VIRGINIA SAN JUAN, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MODESTA JACOBE, CLEMENTE SAMORIO and EMILIANO ADRIANO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners received notice from the Court of Appeals on November 15, 1967, to file their brief within 45 days, or by December 30, 1967. They filed successive motions for extension, citing pressure of work. The first two motions were granted, extending the deadline to February 18, 1968. A third motion for extension, filed on February 16, 1968, was denied by the Court of Appeals on March 7, 1968, on the ground it was filed two days late. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the motion was mailed on February 16, as shown by the Binangonan postmark, making it timely filed. They also cited counsel’s illness and printing press delays. Despite filing their brief on March 20, 1968, the appellate court denied a fourth extension and dismissed the appeal on March 23, 1968, noting the prior denial and that no brief had been filed. Reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions for extension and dismissing the appeal?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the challenged resolutions. The legal logic centers on the proper exercise of judicial discretion and the correction of a factual error. The Court of Appeals based its denial of the third motion on a misapprehension of fact; the motion was mailed on February 16, 1968, which under the Rules of Court is the date of filing, making it timely, not late. This error tainted subsequent rulings, including the denial of the fourth motion and the dismissal.
The Supreme Court emphasized that while the grant of extensions is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised wisely to serve substantial justice. The expiration of the time to file a brief is not a jurisdictional defect, unlike the late filing of a notice of appeal. Furthermore, petitioners demonstrated no intent to delay, and no prejudice to appellees was shown. Their filed brief presented substantive arguments on a land controversy, warranting a hearing on the merits. Therefore, the interests of justice required reinstating the appeal and admitting the brief.