GR L 31630; (June, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31630 June 23, 1988
CATALINO BLAZA and DOMINGO GERUELA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Catalino Blaza and Domingo Geruela were convicted of robbery by the Court of First Instance. They appealed to the Court of Appeals. Their counsel, Atty. Augusta A. Pardalis, received the notice to file the appellants’ brief on April 2, 1969, granting him 30 days. He filed three successive motions for extension, all granted, citing heavy workload and, in the final motion, the alleged unavailability of specific transcripts of stenographic notes in the lower court. The Court of Appeals granted a final 30-day extension but ignored his request for the transmission of transcripts. Counsel failed to file the brief by the July 1, 1969 deadline. After three months of inaction, the appellate court dismissed the appeal per Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court for failure to file the brief. A motion for reconsideration was denied, the court noting it was counsel’s duty to read the transcripts at the appellate court if he lacked copies.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for their counsel’s failure to file the appellants’ brief.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners are bound by the negligence of their counsel de parte. The record established his failure was inexcusable. The invoked Section 8, Rule 122 presumes an official copy of the transcript remains in the lower court, and counsel presented no evidence to rebut this presumption. He was given ample time—90 days total—to file the brief. His claim of awaiting a resolution on his transcript request was false, as the registry receipt showed he received the final extension order on July 15, 1969, yet he took no action for three months. The Court emphasized that counsel’s duty is to adopt the norm of practice expected of men of good intentions, which he failed to do. The petitioners’ ancillary claim of a meritorious defense based on the victim’s initial failure to name her assailants was deemed unpersuasive, as positive identification in court is paramount. The dismissal was a proper application of procedural rules to prevent indefinite delays.