Facts:

The case revolves around Nicario Avisado and Toribio Alfeche (petitioners) and spouses Jorge and Narcisa Villafuerte (respondents). The events leading to this litigation began with a legal action filed by the Villafuertes against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court (Branch XVII) of Cebu City for damages and the declaration of a contract's nullity. On July 12, 1986, the trial court declared the petitioners in default after they failed to file an answer or any responsive pleading to the complaint, conducting an ex parte hearing which led to a decision on August 21, 1986, in favor of the respondents. The court declared various agreements and documents between the parties null and void, ordering the petitioners to pay the respondents a total of P58,000, including reimbursements, damages, and attorney's fees.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioners appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The IAC granted them a period of 90 days or until Septem

...

Facts:

Initiation of the Case in the Regional Trial Court

• Spouses Jorge and Narcisa Villafuerte (respondents) instituted an action in RTC (Branch XVII) of Cebu City against Nicario Avisado and Toribio Alfeche (petitioners) for damages and declaration of nullity of contract.
• The underlying dispute involved several documents, namely:
• The Memorandum Agreement dated November 24, 1984, executed by Narcisa Villafuerte and Nicario Avisado and notarized by Notary Public Hermes T. Montecillo.
• A promissory note dated September 24, 1984, signed by both plaintiffs.
• The Deed of Absolute Sale of a Residential Lot dated September 24, 1984, notarized by Notary Public Jesus V. Rosal.

Default and Alleged Irregularities in Service

• Petitioners failed to file an answer or responsive pleading, prompting the RTC, on 12 July 1986, to declare them in default and to order the reception of respondents’ evidence ex parte.
• On 4 August 1986, petitioners filed a motion to set aside the default order on the ground that they were not properly served with the summons and complaint.
• The record, particularly the Return of Summons, showed service by substituted means rather than personal service.
• It was noted that the prescribed conditions for substituted service were arguably not met.
• Despite these allegations, the RTC maintained that there was valid service, and subsequently, on 21 August 1986, a decision was rendered in favor of the respondents, declaring the key documents null and void and ordering petitioners to pay various sums (reimbursement, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses).

Appeal Proceedings and Extensions in the Intermediate Appellate Court

• Petitioners appealed the RTC decision as indicated by the record in the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC).
• A Resolution dated 22 June 1987 granted petitioners a 90-day period (until 9 September 1987) to file their appellants’ brief, with an admonition that no further extension would be granted except upon highly meritorious grounds.
• A critical development occurred when petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Lucinio Sayman, died on 18 August 1987, leading to complications in the filing process.
• Developments following the death of counsel:
• On 9 November 1987, the respondent court required petitioners to show cause within ten days as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to submit the brief.
• On 19 February 1988, petitioners filed a Manifestation informing the court of Atty. Sayman’s death and requested additional time to engage new counsel.
• By Resolution dated 10 March 1988, the respondent court granted a 30-day inextendible period from notice for filing the brief.

Subsequent Motions and Dismissal of the Appeal

• On 7 April 1988, new counsel filed a motion to further extend the deadline for filing the brief until 5 May 1988.
• The respondent court, through a Resolution dated 25 April 1988, denied this motion and dismissed the appeal for failing to file the brief within the extended period.
• On 4 May 1988, petitioners moved for reconsideration, submitting forty copies of the brief.
• A Resolution dated 31 May 1988 from the respondent court denied the motion for reconsideration and ordered that the "Brief for Defendants-Appellants" be expunged from the records.

Issue:

• Whether the dismissal of the appeal for the failure to file the appellants’ brief within the extended deadlines was proper.
• Whether the death of petitioners’ original counsel constitutes a “good and sufficient cause” warranting further extension despite the inextendible 30-day period.
• Whether the respondent court correctly applied Rule 46, Section 15 of the Rules of Court regarding the granting of extensions for filing briefs.
• How to balance the need for efficient case management with litigants’ rights to due process and sufficient opportunity to be heard, particularly under unforeseen circumstances.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)