G.R. No. L-41862 - B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-41862)

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Eulogio B. Reyes, sued the Director of Public Works, the Republic of the Philippines and B. R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. in Civil Case No. 757-R before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, and the trial court rendered judgment on 7 May 1973 holding petitioner liable for damages and absolving the other defendants.

Appellate Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

B. R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. timely appealed to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the case as C.A.-G.R. No. 53546-R; during the appeal Eulogio B. Reyes died and his heirs were substituted by leave of the Court of Appeals; counsel for petitioner, the law firm Baizas, Alberto & Associates, received notice to file the Appellant’s Brief on 19 February 1974, failed to file the brief by the 45-day period ending 5 April 1974, received a show-cause resolution dated 9 July 1974 (copy received 17 July 1974) and thereafter the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on 9 September 1974 for failure to file the brief and denied a motion for reconsideration on 9 October 1974.

Execution Proceedings and Motion to Reinstate

After the Court of Appeals’ dismissal became final and the record was remanded, the trial court issued a writ of execution on 21 October 1975 and the provincial sheriff attached petitioner’s Hough Pay Loader and scheduled its sale for 14 November 1975; petitioner filed on 6 November 1975 a Motion to Reinstate Appeal with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, alleging that the death of Atty. Crispin D. Baizas produced confusion in counsel’s office and that dismissal would deny petitioner its day in court.

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in the Supreme Court

B. R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. filed an original petition in the Supreme Court on 13 November 1975 seeking prohibition and mandamus against the Court of Appeals and injunctive relief against the sheriff; the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and required respondents to comment; after procedural amendments substituting the heirs and after filing of comments and reply, the Court initially denied the petition on 12 May 1976, reconsidered and ordered memoranda, and deemed the case submitted for decision on 29 November 1976.

Issues Presented

The sole legal issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reinstate an appeal previously dismissed for failure to file the Appellant’s Brief.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals had inherent authority to reinstate a dismissed appeal and that the death of Atty. Crispin D. Baizas and the ensuing dissolution or confusion of the law firm Baizas, Alberto & Associates constituted an unavoidable casualty or excusable circumstance that deprived petitioner of its right to appeal; petitioner relied principally on Heirs of Clemente Celestino vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-38690, 12 September 1975, 67 SCRA 22, as authorizing reinstatement under extraordinary circumstances and invoked precedents compassionate to parties victimized by perfidy or gross negligence of counsel.

Respondents’ Contentions

Respondents maintained that the dismissal for failure to file the brief resulted from inexcusable negligence of petitioner’s counsel, that the law firm Baizas, Alberto & Associates remained the counsel of record despite the death of Atty. Baizas, and that neither fraud nor extraordinary circumstances analogous to those in Heirs of Clemente Celestino were demonstrated; respondents further pointed to petitioner’s own inattentiveness in failing to inquire about the status of its appeal.

Legal Analysis and Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that an appellate court may, under exceptional circumstances, reinstate an appeal even after remittitur or may recall remittitur where its judgment was induced by fraud, as discussed in Heirs of Clemente Celestino, but emphasized that such remedies require a showing of fraud or peculiar facts warranting extraordinary relief; the Court reiterated controlling authority that the discretion to reinstate an appeal must be exercised only upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, a standard drawn from decisions such as Chavez vs. Ganzon, 108 Phil. 9, and Negros Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Court o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-41862)

Parties and Procedural Posture

B. R. SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. was the defendant-appellant in Civil Case No. 757-R and the petitioner before the Supreme Court.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS was the appellate tribunal that dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to file the Appellant's Brief and thereafter denied petitioner's motion to reinstate the appeal.
Eulogio B. Reyes originally was the plaintiff-appellee in Civil Case No. 757-R and was later substituted by his heirs after his death.
NICANOR G. SALAYSAY, in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, and ANTONIO MARINAS, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff, executed the writ of execution and proceeded to levy and schedule a sheriff's sale of petitioner's property.
The present proceeding was a petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order directed against the respondent Court of Appeals and the sheriffs.

Key Factual Allegations

The trial court rendered judgment on 7 May 1973 holding petitioner liable for damages and absolving other defendants.
Petitioner timely appealed to the Court of Appeals, which docketed the appeal as C.A.-G.R. No. 53546-R.
The law firm of Baizas, Alberto & Associates represented petitioner on appeal and received notice on 19 February 1974 to file the Appellant's Brief within forty-five days.
Counsel failed to file the brief, prompting the Court of Appeals to issue a show-cause resolution on 9 July 1974 and to dismiss the appeal by resolution dated 9 September 1974.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration on 28 September 1974 alleging that the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas and consequent disruption of the firm caused nonfiling, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion on 9 October 1974.
The appellate record was remanded and the trial court issued a writ of execution on 21 October 1975, whereupon the Provincial Sheriff scheduled a sheriff's sale for 14 November 1975.
Petitioner filed a motion to reinstate the appeal with a prayer for preliminary injunction on 5 November 1975, which the Court of Appeals denied on 10 November 1975.
Petitioner filed the instant petition in the Supreme Court on 13 November 1975 and obtained a temporary restraining order pending resolution.

Procedural History

The trial court decision dated 7 May 1973 was appealed to the Court of Appeals as C.A.-G.R. No. 53546-R.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for failure to file brief by resolution of 9 September 1974 and denied reconsideration on 9 October 1974.
Following remand and issuance of writ of execution, petitioner sought reinstatement and injunctive relief from the Court of Appeals, which was denied on 10 November 1975.
Petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and mandamus, to which the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and later denied the petition on 12 May 1976, then reconsidered and finally dismissed the petition on 7 February 1992.
The Supreme Court required memoranda and deemed the matter submitted for decision on 29 November 1976 before issuing its final resolution.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reinstate an appeal previously dismissed for failure to file the Appellant's Brief.
Whether the death of petitioner's counsel, Atty. Crispin Baizas, and the alleged dissolution or confusion of his law firm constituted a good and sufficient cause