GR L 35630; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO. and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines moved to dismiss private respondent Galauran & Pilares Construction Company’s appeal before the Court of Appeals for the latter’s failure to file its appellant’s brief within the reglementary period. The appellate court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on April 27, 1972. Private respondent filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. Subsequently, on July 24, 1972, private respondent filed a motion to admit its appellant’s brief. The Court of Appeals, acting on this motion, issued a resolution on August 8, 1972, setting aside its prior resolutions dismissing the appeal, reviving the appeal, and admitting the late-filed brief.
Petitioner filed this certiorari petition, arguing that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in reviving the already-dismissed appeal and admitting the brief. Petitioner contends the dismissal order had become final. Private respondent counters that the appellate court acted within its sound discretion to serve the interest of justice by allowing the case to be decided on its merits rather than on a technicality.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in setting aside its order dismissing the appeal and in admitting the appellant’s brief.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that certiorari is a remedy solely for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The appellate court’s action did not constitute a capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of power. The ruling favored liberality in procedural construction to allow the real dispute to be judged on its merits, disregarding technicalities when no substantial rights are prejudiced. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the order of dismissal had not attained finality. The filing of the motion for reconsideration and the subsequent motion to admit the brief suspended the running of the period for finality. Therefore, the Court of Appeals acted within its jurisdiction in reviving the appeal to promote substantial justice.