G.R. No. 92862 - Santos vs. Court of Appeals

The private respondent lost in a suit for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City and subsequently appealed the decision.
The appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals, where the respondent was required to submit its appellant’s brief within 45 days from receipt of the notice.

The private respondent’s counsel received the notice on May 24, 1989, setting the deadline for the brief to expire on July 8, 1989.
No appellant’s brief was filed within the prescribed 45-day period, nor was any motion made to request an extension of time.

On September 19, 1989, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring the private respondent to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed for the failure to file the appellant’s brief.
The private respondent did not respond to this show-cause order.
On October 4, 1989, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the appeal due to the non-filing, which was reiterated on December 12, 1989, again without any response from the private respondent.

On December 11, 1989, after the lapse of 201 days from the start of the reglementary period—and following the expiration of an additional 10-day period provided for a show-cause—the respondent court dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

On January 17, 1990, the private respondent moved for the reconsideration of the dismissal and requested that the appellant’s brief be admitted.
The counsel for the private respondent claimed that the delay was due to:

An employee of another client misappropriating the case records and only returning them after Christmas 1989.
Difficulties caused by the aborted coup d’état in December 1989 and frequent power interruptions in the Makati area.

The respondent court, after an opposition filed by the petitioner, granted the motion for reconsideration on February 21, 1990.

The court noted the absence of any affidavit or sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations regarding the misplaced records.
It took judicial notice of the power interruptions and the occurrence of the aborted coup d’état.

Subsequent to the respondent court’s reversal of its prior dismissal, the petitioner elevated the issue to the Supreme Court.
The petitioner argued that the reinstatement of the appeal amounted to grave abuse of discretion, particularly given the lengthy delay and the inadequate reasons presented for missing the deadline.
Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that the procedural lapse should have been addressed through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 rather than through the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

The Supreme Court criticized the conduct of the private respondent and its counsel, deeming it a careless disregard of the Rules of Court and an act of contempt toward the authority of the respondent court.
The Court observed that, had the private respondent desired more time or relief, it could have promptly sought extensions like other law offices did under similar circumstances.
The Court further took note of the counsel’s repeated noncompliance with the Supreme Court’s orders, including the failure to file a Comment within the prescribed period.
As a disciplinary measure, the law office of Cruz, Palabyab, Llorin and Associates was fined One Thousand Pesos, with a stern warning that any further disobedience would incur more severe consequences.

Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the respondent court was proper given the respondent’s failure to file the appellant’s brief within the prescribed 45-day period.
Whether the subsequent motion for reconsideration by the private respondent, with its alleged reasons (misplaced records, aborted coup d’état, and power interruptions), was sufficient to justify its delay in filing the required brief.
Whether the respondent court erred in reinstating the appeal despite the clear and repeated warnings regarding the non-compliance with procedural deadlines.
Whether the petitioner’s elevation of the issue to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari was appropriate, notwithstanding the alternative remedy of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.