GR L 65211; (July, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-65211; July 31, 1987
EDGARDO P. TOLEDO, ET. AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND TRADERS COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORP., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Edgardo and Carmen Toledo purchased a car from Fabar Sales Inc., executing a promissory note and a chattel mortgage, which were later assigned to respondent Traders Commercial Credit Corp. Upon the petitioners’ default in payment, the respondent filed a collection suit. The petitioners failed to file an answer, leading to their declaration in default and a judgment against them. They filed a notice of appeal, and the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) required their appellant’s brief within 45 days from April 11, 1983, making the deadline May 26, 1983.
Instead of filing the brief, petitioners filed a “Motion to Lift the Order to File Appellants’ Brief” on May 21, 1983, which the IAC denied on July 5, 1983. Only on July 16, 1983, did they file an “Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellants’ Brief,” and they eventually submitted the brief itself on August 12, 1983. The IAC, in its assailed Resolution dated August 16, 1983, denied the motion for extension and dismissed the appeal, noting the motion was filed long after the reglementary period had lapsed.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the IAC’s application of Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates dismissal for failure to file the required brief within the reglementary period. The 45-day period to file the brief expired on May 26, 1983. The motion for extension was filed only on July 16, 1983, which was indisputably beyond the deadline. The filing of the “Motion to Lift the Order” did not suspend the running of the period to file the brief. While the Court has, in the interest of substantial justice, occasionally relaxed procedural rules, such liberality is not warranted here. The Court examined the records and found the petitioners’ case patently unmeritorious, as their core defense of denying receipt of the car and their signatures was contradicted by documentary evidence and a prior fiscal’s finding in a related estafa case. Since the lower court’s decision was supported by the records, no equitable grounds existed to excuse the procedural lapse. The petition was denied.