Facts:

The case involves Francisco S. Banaad as the petitioner and Conrado C. Fule as the respondent. The case originated from the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch III, under Civil Case No. SP-1404, and was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 68190-R. On September 15, 1981, the Court of Appeals required Banaad to file his brief within forty-five (45) days of receiving the notice. On October 30, 1981, the appellate court granted an extension of ninety (90) days for filing the brief, with a warning that no further extensions would be entertained unless based on highly meritorious grounds. The deadline for filing the brief was set for January 30, 1982.

On January 28, 1982, The Vera Printing Press, through its manager, filed an ex-parte urgent motion requesting a fifteen (15) day extension to file the printed brief, citing concerns about potential delays due to brownouts and workload. However, on February 8, 1982, the Court of ...

Facts:

1. Case Background:

   • Petitioner Francisco S. Banaad is the defendant-appellant in a case before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 68190-R, entitled Conrado C. Fule vs. Francisco S. Banaad, for a sum of money. The case was appealed from the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch III, as Civil Case No. SP-1404.

2. Timeline of Events:

   • On September 15, 1981, the Court of Appeals required petitioner to file his brief within 45 days from receipt of notice.
   • On October 30, 1981, the Court of Appeals granted petitioner's counsel an extension of 90 days from the expiration of the reglementary period to file the brief, with a warning that no further extensions would be granted except on highly meritorious grounds. The deadline for filing the brief was January 30, 1982.
   • On January 28, 1982, The Vera Printing Press, through its manager, filed an ex-parte urgent motion for a special extension of 15 days to file the printed brief.
   • On February 8, 1982, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for extension, stating that The Vera Printing Press was neither a party nor counsel in the case.
   • On February 15, 1982, petitioner filed his brief along with a petition to admit the printed brief.
   • On February 19, 1982, private respondent's counsel filed an ex-parte motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the brief was filed 15 days late.
   • On March 23, 1982, the Court of Appeals denied the petition to admit the printed brief and dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of a valid reason for the delay and the improper filing of the motion by the printer.

3. Petitioner's Arguments:

   • Petitioner claimed that the 90-day extension granted by the Court of Appeals fell on January 31, 1982, which was a Sunday, making the deadline February 1, 1982.
   • He argued that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances, such as brownouts and the printer's heavy workload.
   • Petitioner also cited previous instances where the Court had granted extensions upon motions filed by The Vera Printing Press.

4. Court of Appeals' Reasoning:

   • The Court of Appeals emphasized that The Vera Printing Press was not a party or counsel in the case and had no authority to file motions.
   • It noted that petitioner's counsel should have filed the motion for extension, attaching an affidavit or certification from the printer.
   • The Court expressed concern over the implications of allowing printers to file motions, stating that it could lead to anarchy and undermine respect for the Court.

5. Supreme Court's Intervention:

   • Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on April 19, 1982.
   • He then filed a petition for Certiorari, Mandamus, and Preliminary Injunction, seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' resolutions and reinstate his appeal.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Liberal Application of Procedural Rules:

   • The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should be liberally applied to promote substantial justice, especially when there is no showing of intent to delay or prejudice to the opposing party.

2. Discretion of the Court:

   • The Court reiterated that judicial discretion must be exercised wisely and prudently, not capriciously, with a view to achieving substantial justice.

3. Precedents on Extensions:

   • The Court cited previous cases where extensions were granted upon motions filed by The Vera Printing Press, indicating that such extensions were not unprecedented.

4. Avoidance of Miscarriage of Justice:

   • The Court warned against the overstrict or rigid enforcement of procedural rules, as it could lead to a grave miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstated the appeal, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The Court underscored the importance of a liberal application of procedural rules to ensure that substantial justice is served.