A.M. No. RTJ-18-2535 - Manalac vs. Gellada

Eulogio B. Reyes initiated an action for damages in the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Rizal, Pasay City Branch against petitioner B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. and other defendants in Civil Case No. 757-R.
The trial court rendered a decision on 7 May 1973 finding petitioner liable for damages while absolving the other defendants.
Petitioner, represented by the law firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES, timely appealed the adverse decision to the Court of Appeals, where the case was docketed as C.A.-G.R. No. 53546-R.

On 19 February 1974, petitioner (through its counsel) received notice to file the Appellant’s Brief within 45 days, setting the deadline on 5 April 1974.
Petitioner’s counsel failed to file the brief within the reglementary period.
On 9 July 1974, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring counsel to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for this failure.
Counsel did not comply with the order, and on 9 September 1974, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

On 28 September 1974, petitioner (this time represented as “BAIZAS LAW OFFICE”) filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal.
The motion attributed the failure to file the brief to the death of Atty. Crispin D. Baizas and subsequent confusion within the law firm, which allegedly led to its dissolution and internal disorganization.
On 9 October 1974, the respondent Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration, citing that a considerable period had elapsed since the notice and that no satisfactory cause was shown.

With no action by petitioner to file a petition for review, the dismissal became final and executory, and the records were remanded to the trial court for execution.
On 21 October 1975, the trial court issued a writ of execution, and on 5 November 1975, respondents’ sheriff and deputy sheriff attached petitioner’s property and scheduled its auction sale.
In response, on 6 November 1975, petitioner filed a motion to reinstate its appeal with a prayer for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the death of Atty. Baizas led to the inadvertent failure in filing its brief.

The motion to reinstate was denied by the Court of Appeals on 10 November 1975, noting that the law firm, as petitioner’s counsel, had received all relevant notices despite Atty. Baizas’ death.
On 13 November 1975, petitioner filed an original petition in the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeals, Eulogio B. Reyes (and his heirs), and Antonio Marinas, also seeking a temporary restraining order.
The Supreme Court required respondents to comment on the petition and initially issued a temporary restraining order.
After several submissions—including a mandated amendment of the petition (substituting the deceased Reyes with his heirs), partial comments, and respective replies—the case was deemed submitted for decision on 29 November 1976.

Whether the respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reinstate its appeal, which had been dismissed due to the failure to file the Appellant’s Brief.
Whether the death of Atty. Crispin D. Baizas constitutes an excusable or sufficient cause to justify the failure to file the brief.
Whether the dismissal of the appeal and subsequent judicial actions deprived petitioner of its due process rights.
Whether the inherent power of an appellate court to reinstate a dismissed appeal can be extended to cases of simple negligence rather than cases involving fraud or peculiar factual circumstances.