Case Digest (G.R. No. 164150)
Facts:
The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, Represented by the Royal Embassy of Belgium v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Unified Field Corporation, Marilyn G. Ong, Victoria O. Ang, Edna C. Alfuerte, Mark Dennis O. Ang and Alvin O. Ang, G.R. No. 164150, April 14, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium, through its Royal Embassy, sued Unified Field Corporation (UFC) and several of its officers and directors in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 150, docketed as Civil Case No. 01‑976, for specific performance with damages. The complaint alleged that petitioner leased condominium units and parking spaces from UFC under a 30 July 1997 lease; petitioner exercised a contractual pre‑termination option by letter dated 23 June 2000, vacated and surrendered the premises on 31 July 2000, and demanded the return of unused advance rentals and the security deposit (totaling P1,093,600.00) within 45 days, but UFC refused to return the amounts.
Respondents filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and the case proceeded to pre‑trial. Respondents repeatedly failed to appear and did not file a pre‑trial brief, leading the RTC to declare that they waived the right to adduce evidence; petitioner then presented evidence ex parte. On 8 November 2002 the RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner ordering respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the principal amount of P1,093,600.00 plus interest, attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages, and costs.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA clerk sent a Notice to File Brief; respondents failed to file an appellant’s brief within the 45‑day reglementary period. On 30 September 2003 the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal as abandoned under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court for failure to file the required brief. On 27 October 2003 respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration attaching their brief and explaining the omission as inadvertence by counsel’s household staff. On 27 November 2003 the CA granted the motion, set aside its 30 September 2003 Resolution, and admitted the belated appellant’s brief. Petitioner sought reconsideration of that grant; the CA denied reconsideration on 5 May 2004.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court, assailing the CA Resolutions of 27 November 2003 and 5 May 2004 on the ground that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it granted respondents leave to file a belated appellant’s brief and set aside its dismissal of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)