GR L 65464; (August, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-65464 August 30, 1984
LEANDRO D. VALISNO, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and ANTONIO N. DE DIOS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Antonio N. De Dios filed two separate complaints for a sum of money with replevin against petitioner Leandro D. Valisno in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The lower court rendered a single consolidated decision adverse to Valisno, who then perfected separate appeals for the two cases. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) issued a notice to file an appellant’s brief for only one of the two appealed cases. Petitioner’s counsel, relying on the court’s established practice of granting a single 90-day extension for filing briefs, requested such an extension but was granted only 45 days. Upon receiving this resolution on the last day of the extended period, counsel immediately sought a further 15-day extension, which the IAC granted. Petitioner also filed a motion to file a consolidated brief for both cases to expedite resolution. While this motion was pending, petitioner filed his brief.
ISSUE
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal for filing the brief 14 days late.
RULING
Yes, the IAC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should serve justice, not defeat it. Petitioner’s counsel reasonably relied on the IAC’s established internal policy, as outlined in its Internal Operating Procedures, of granting a single non-extendable 90-day extension for filing briefs. The sudden departure from this practice without notice disrupted counsel’s preparation timetable. The Court has consistently held that the dismissal of an appeal for late filing of a brief is not automatic; appellate courts retain inherent discretion to amend their orders to serve substantial justice, especially when the brief has already been filed and reveals a meritorious defense. Petitioner’s intent in seeking to file a consolidated brief was to expedite, not delay, the resolution of the two related cases. Therefore, a liberal attitude was warranted. The resolutions dismissing the appeal were set aside, and the IAC was ordered to admit the appellant’s brief and proceed with the appeal.