GR L 76549; (December, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-76549 December 10, 1987
Catalina, Enrique, Rosario, Flordeliza, Rizalaida and Socorro, all surnamed Roxas, as heirs of the late Segundo Roxas, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals and Andres Roxas, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of Segundo Roxas, appealed a Regional Trial Court decision dismissing a complaint for reconveyance. The Court of Appeals required them to file their appellant’s brief within 45 days from March 18, 1986. They filed two successive motions for extension, both granted, extending the deadline. On July 21, 1986, two days before the expiration of the second extension, they filed a third motion for a 15-day extension counted from notice.
While this third motion was pending resolution, petitioners filed their brief on August 25, 1986. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the third motion in a Resolution dated October 2, 1986, noting the brief was filed 18 days beyond the period prayed for in the motion. It declared the brief filed out of time and dismissed the appeal. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in declaring the appellants’ brief filed out of time and dismissing the appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The allowance of motions for extension of time to file briefs is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, to be exercised wisely and prudently. The Court found the respondent court’s resolutions were a sound exercise of this discretion given the case’s peculiar circumstances.
The Court noted that from the receipt of the notice to file the brief to the actual filing, 160 days had lapsed, during which petitioners were granted significant leeway. The policy of the Court of Appeals is to limit a second extension to 20 days, yet it relaxed this and granted 60 days based on a self-serving plea of illness unsupported by a medical certificate. Petitioners abused this laxity. Lawyers cannot presume their motions for extension will be granted, nor can they expect that any grant will be counted from notice of the resolution. The brief, a mere 26 pages, could have been completed well within the periods already given. The dismissal of the appeal for failure to timely file the brief was therefore justified. The petition was denied.