Case Digest (G.R. No. 138495)
Facts:
The case involves Antonio Borbon, represented by his brother Candido Borbon as his guardian ad litem, as the petitioner against the Court of Appeals, Ernesto Catindig, spouses Renato and Princesita Sitay, and Amparo Investment Corporation as respondents. Antonio Borbon was declared incompetent due to chronic schizophrenia by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in Special Proceedings No. 924 on January 29, 1957. The Philippine National Bank (PNB) was appointed as his guardian. At that time, he owned a 277-square meter lot in Makati City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 49221. On September 19, 1957, the CFI issued an order declaring him competent and terminating the guardianship of PNB, which was annotated on his TCT on July 7, 1958. On the same day, he sold half of his lot to Mariano Sitay. Mariano later subdivided his portion into two lots, Lot 8-A and Lot 8-B, selling Lot 8-A to Renato Sitay, who mortgaged it to Amparo Investment Corporation. Marian...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 138495)
Facts:
1. Background of Antonio Borbon:
- Antonio Borbon, represented by his brother Candido Borbon as his guardian ad litem, was declared incompetent due to chronic schizophrenia by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal in 1957. The Philippine National Bank (PNB) was appointed as his guardian.
- On September 19, 1957, the CFI declared Borbon competent and terminated PNB's guardianship. This order was annotated on his Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 49221 on July 7, 1958.
2. Sale of Property:
- On July 7, 1958, Borbon sold one-half (½) of his 277-square meter lot in Makati City to Mariano Sitay.
- On February 7, 1978, Mariano Sitay subdivided his portion into Lot 8-A and Lot 8-B. He sold Lot 8-A to respondent Renato Sitay, who mortgaged it to Amparo Investment Corporation. Lot 8-B was sold to respondent Ernesto Catindig.
3. Legal Proceedings:
- On May 23, 1997, Borbon, through his brother Candido, filed a complaint for reconveyance of property against the respondents, alleging that the sales and mortgage were void due to his lack of consent as he was suffering from acute schizophrenia at the time.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint on September 24, 1997, ruling that the action for reconveyance had prescribed.
- Borbon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 57392.
4. Failure to File Appellant’s Brief:
- The CA required Borbon to file his appellant’s brief within 45 days from notice. Borbon filed multiple motions for extension, totaling 60 days, but failed to file the brief by the final deadline of September 7, 1998.
- On December 9, 1998, the CA dismissed the appeal for failure to file the brief within the extended period.
- Borbon filed a motion to admit the appellant’s brief on February 16, 1999, which was 159 days late. The CA denied the motion on March 9, 1999, as the dismissal had become final and executory.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Rules on Filing Appellant’s Brief:
- Under Section 7, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the appellant must file the brief within 45 days from notice. Courts may grant extensions, but the motion must be filed within the period to perfect the appeal.
- Borbon’s counsel failed to file the brief despite multiple extensions, and the delay of 159 days was inexcusable.
Counsel’s Negligence:
- The Court emphasized that lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence under the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 18 and 19).
- The counsel’s failure to file the brief or transfer the case to another lawyer constituted gross negligence, prejudicing Borbon’s case.
Finality of Dismissal:
- The CA’s dismissal of the appeal became final and executory when no motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. The late filing of the appellant’s brief could not revive the appeal.
Disciplinary Action:
- The Court required Borbon’s counsel, Atty. Manuel Marquez, to show cause why he should not be held administratively liable for his failure to protect his client’s interests.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the inexcusable delay in filing the appellant’s brief. The counsel’s negligence was a serious lapse in duty, warranting disciplinary action.