Case Summary (G.R. No. 164668)
Procedural Background
The spouses Bautista, representing their son and Gloria Pomera, initiated a complaint against Asian Spirit Airlines, claiming breach of contract and damages. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on March 24, 2003, awarding them a total of P473,371.25 in damages, which included temperate, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The airline's counterclaim was dismissed. Following the denial of its motion for reconsideration, Asian Spirit Airlines appealed the decision, leading to the case being docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 79317.
Failure to File Brief and Court Dismissal
After being instructed by the Court of Appeals to submit its appellant’s brief by January 31, 2004, the petitioner failed to comply within the allotted time. On March 3, 2004, the appellees filed a motion for dismissal due to this failure. Although the petitioner subsequently filed an unverified motion to admit its late brief on March 10, 2004, the Court of Appeals denied this motion and dismissed the appeal, citing the petitioner’s non-compliance with the rules regarding the timely filing of appeals.
Basis for Petitioner’s Argument
Asian Spirit Airlines contended that the Court of Appeals had erroneously applied the provisions of the Rules of Court regarding the dismissal of appeals. The petitioner argued that the late filing did not materially prejudice the respondents and that its brief was significant enough to warrant consideration of the merits of the case. The petitioner emphasized the importance of having its appeal heard, asserting a fundamental right to due process.
Respondents’ Stance
In response, the respondents asserted that the discretionary authority of the Court of Appeals regarding compliance with filing deadlines should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court. They argued that allowing the appeal would set a negative precedent, undermining the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules.
Supreme Court’s Rationale
In its decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be dismissed for failing to timely file a brief. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to file its brief by the deadline and provided an unacceptable excuse, claiming their counsel's secretary neglected to file a motion for extension. The Supreme Court emphasized that the failure of a secretary to file documents is ultimately the responsibility of the counsel, which underscores the need for lawyers to maintain an effective s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 164668)
Case Citation
- 491 Phil. 476; 102 OG No. 18, 2777 (May 1, 2006)
- G.R. No. 164668, February 14, 2005
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Asian Spirit Airlines (Airline Employees Cooperative)
- Respondents: Spouses Benjamin and Anne Marie Bautista, Karl Bautista, Gloria Pomera
Procedural History
- The case stems from a complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City for breach of contract and damages.
- The trial court rendered a decision on March 24, 2003, in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioner to pay damages amounting to:
- P5,000.00 as temperate damages
- P200,000.00 as moral damages
- P150,000.00 as exemplary damages
- P50,000.00 as attorney's fees
- P18,371.25 as litigation expenses
- The petitioner’s counterclaim was dismissed.
- Following the denial of its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner appealed, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 79317.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- On December 10, 2003, the CA directed the petitioner to file its brief within 45 days of notice, which was received on December 17, 2003.
- The petitioner failed to file the brief by the January 31, 2004 deadline.
- On March 3, 2004, the respondents filed a motion for dismissal due to the petitioner’s failure to file its brief.
- The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to admit its attached brief on March 10, 2004, which was opposed b