Facts:

The case titled Francisco Allam, et al. vs. Valentina Acosta, Nieves Bulan, et al., bearing G.R. No. L-20242, was decided on January 31, 1964, by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The petitioners, Francisco Allam and others, sought to annul various resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals regarding their appeal from a decision made by the Court of First Instance of Isabela in Civil Case No. 1070. The dispute originated when, on June 22, 1961, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals notified the counsel for the petitioners, Atty. Inigo B. Tejada, of the reception of the record on appeal and the need to remit a docketing fee of PHP 198.75. The petitioners failed to remit the amount within the period set, prompting the appellees to request the dismissal of the appeal. The Court of Appeals granted this motion through a resolution on September 4, 1961.

Following this, on September 23, 1961, a new counsel, Atty. Vicente T. Velasco, Jr., entered an appearance for the petitioners and f

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• This is a petition for certiorari filed by Francisco Allam, et al., challenging the resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. No. L-29551-R as allegedly being in abuse of discretion.
• The appeal originated from the Court of First Instance of Isabela (Civil Case No. 1070) where defendants Valentina Acosta, et al., appealed the decision.

Notice and Initial Proceedings

• On June 22, 1961, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals notified appellant’s counsel (Atty. Inigo B. Tejada) of receipt of the record on appeal and instructed him to remit P198.75 to cover docketing fees and estimated printing costs.
• Appellants failed to remit the required amount within the prescribed period, prompting appellees to move for dismissal of the appeal.
• The motion for dismissal was granted by the Court of Appeals on September 4, 1961.

Motions for Reconsideration and Extensions

• On September 23, 1961, Atty. Vicente T. Velasco, Jr. entered his appearance and filed a motion for reconsideration, attributing the delay in remitting fees to the “excusable negligence or mistake” of the appellants.
• The motion for reconsideration was granted on October 7, 1961, reconsidering the dismissal.
• On November 7, 1961, and again on December 15, 1961, separate notices were sent to file the appellants’ brief, with an extension of 30 days granted from January 4, 1962.

Change of Counsel and Subsequent Extensions

• On January 25, 1962, Atty. Velasco sought withdrawal as counsel due to internal differences, with a similar motion filed by Atty. Tejada. Both motions were granted on February 21, 1962.
• Appellants, on their own motion, were granted a second extension of 30 days from February 5, 1962, to file their brief.
• On March 5, 1962, new counsel (Attys. Aurelio S. Ramones and Silvestre Br. Bello) filed their appearance and requested another extension, for which a third extension of 20 days (from March 7, 1962) was granted.
• On March 26, 1962, just one day before the previous extension expired, yet another group of counsel (Attys. Carbonell and Perfecto) appeared on behalf of the appellants and petitioned for a further 45-day extension.
• The Court of Appeals, by resolution on March 28, 1962, granted the petition, resulting in a fourth extension from March 27, 1962.

Final Developments and Filing of the Brief

• On April 14, 1962, appellees sought a reconsideration of the March 28 resolution and requested the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file within the reglementary period.
• The motion by the appellees was denied on May 15, 1962, with the court noting that the brief had already been filed on May 10, 1962, which was within the extended period.
• Despite the numerous extensions due to the repeated change of counsel, the filing of the brief was ultimately effected in due time.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by granting multiple extensions for the filing of the appellants’ brief, considering that:

• The delay and repeated requests for extension were primarily due to the change of counsel.
• The repeated extensions prolonged the original 45-day period to more than 170 days.

• Whether the fact that the appellants eventually filed their brief on May 10, 1962, nullifies or minimizes any potential abuse of discretion in granting the several extensions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)