Case Digest (G.R. No. L-425)
Facts:
- Motion for reconsideration filed by defendants-appellants, Juan Ventura and Eustaquia Coloma, against the resolution of the court dismissing their appeal and ordering the entry of final judgment in the case.
- Defendants' attorney requested for two extensions of time to file their brief, with the second extension not to go beyond August 10, 1946.
- Attorney assumed that his second petition for extension had been favorably considered and granted by the Supreme Court, leading to the late filing of their brief.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Motion for reconsideration denied and dismissal of the appeal upheld.
- Attorney is not justified in assuming that he would be given the entire period of extension he had asked for.
- Section 16 of Rule 48 of the Rules of Court states that extensions of time for filing briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause.
- Policy of granting no more than 15 days for the first extension and 10 days for the second extension.
- Defendants' attorney had already been granted a first ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Decision based on the rule and policy of granting extensions of time for filing briefs sparingly.
- Attorneys should not assume that their requests for extensions will be automatically granted and should file their motions for extens...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-425)
Facts:
In the case of De Yabut v. Ventura, the defendants-appellants, Juan Ventura and Eustaquia Coloma, filed a motion for reconsideration after their appeal was dismissed and the entry of final judgment was ordered by the court. The defendants' attorney argued that he believed his second petition for an extension to file their brief had been favorably considered and granted by the Supreme Court.
Issue:
The main issue raised in this case is whether the defendants' attorney can assume that their request for an extension will be automatically granted or that they have been given the entire period of extension they asked for.
Ruling:
The court ruled against the defendants' motion for reconsideration. The court emphasized that an attorney cannot assume that their request for an extension will be automatically granted or that they have been given the entire period of extension they asked for. The court explained that the Rules of Court and the practice of the court do not inspire reassurance of a favorable action on such motions. The court's policy is to grant extensions of time sparingly, allowing no more than 15 days for a first e...