G.R. No. L-38071 April 25, 1974
SERAPION PADASAS and DAMASA DASOY, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Seventh Division, HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Chairman, HON. CRISOLITO PASCUAL and HON. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, Members; PEDRO FLORES and OLYMPIA C. FLORES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Serapion Padasas and Damasa Dasoy appealed to the Court of Appeals from an adverse decision of the Court of First Instance of Aklan in a case for recovery of possession and ownership. The appellate court granted them an initial 45-day period, later extended by 90 days, to file their printed brief, with the final deadline set for November 2, 1973. On October 23, 1973, petitioners filed a motion for a second extension of 20 days, supported by an affidavit from their printer citing a heavy workload. This motion was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 31, 1973.
Subsequently, on November 14, 1973, petitioners filed a verified petition for reconsideration, attaching another printer’s affidavit which explained that the delay was due to intermittent power failures and an oil shortage, though the brief was near completion. Pending resolution of this petition, petitioners managed to file 40 printed copies of their brief by registered mail on November 22, 1973. However, the Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated November 23, 1973, denied the motion for reconsideration and subsequently dismissed the appeal on December 12, 1973, for failure to file the brief on time.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file their brief within the extended period, considering the alleged excusable causes for the delay?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullified the dismissal, and reinstated the appeal. The Court emphasized that while the failure to file a brief on time is generally a valid ground for dismissal, procedural due process demands fairness and a hearing on the merits when the delay is excusable. The Court found the petitioners’ explanation—intermittent power failures and an oil shortage hindering the printer’s work—to be credible and beyond their control. This was substantiated by the printer’s affidavits and the fact that the brief was ultimately filed.
The ruling was anchored on the precedent set in Monticines v. Court of Appeals, where the Supreme Court reinstated an appeal dismissed under similar circumstances, stressing liberality to serve the ends of justice. The present case was deemed even stronger, as the causes of delay were objectively verifiable and not attributable to the petitioners’ negligence. The Court held that the respondent court should have considered these circumstances, especially since the brief was already submitted. Dismissing the appeal under these conditions constituted a denial of the fundamental right to be heard (audi alteram partem), amounting to a grave abuse of discretion. The reinstatement ensures the appeal is decided on its merits.