OCTAVIO INFANTADO, PETITIONER, VS. FELIPE LIWANAG & THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Octavio Infantado
was defendant in Civil Case No. 43903 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
while respondent Felipe Liwanag was the
plaintiff.  A judgment was rendered by
the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissing respondent Liwanag’s
complaint.  Said respondent appealed to
the Court of Appeals.  The 45-day period
within which respondent Liwanag should file his brief
expired on July 26, 1963, without his having filed the brief, and neither did
he ask for extension of time to file the brief. 
On August 23, 1963, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for
failure on the part of respondent Liwanag to file his
brief.  On August 26, 1963, respondent Liwanag received notice of the resolution of the Court of
Appeals dismissing the appeal.  On August
27, 1963, said respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution
dismissing his appeal, and at the same time he prayed that he be granted a
period of 25 days within which to file his brief.  The record does not show what was the ground for the motion for
reconsideration and for the prayer for a grant of 25 days within which to file the brief.  On September 2, 1963, herein petitioner filed an opposition to the motion for
reconsideration.  On September 4, 1963, the Court of Appeals granted
the motion for reconsideration, thereby reinstating the appeal, and at the same
time granted respondent Liwanag a period of 25 days,
counting from August 27, 1963, within which to file his brief.  The record shows that respondent Liwanag filed a printed brief, dated August 30, 1963.  Herein petitioner, as appellee,
filed his printed brief under date of October
20, 1963.  In his brief
petitioner did not raise any ques­tion regarding the action of the Court of
Appeals in recon­sidering the previous resolution of August 23, 1963, dismis­sing
the appeal, and granting the respondent a period of 25 days within which to
file his brief.

On September 11, 1964, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision
reversing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.  On October 2, 1964, petitioner filed with the
Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision alleging, as
reason therefor, that the Court of Appeals had
already lost jurisdiction over the case when the decision was rendered
“because the period provided by the Rules of Court for plaintiff-appellant
had already expired when he did file his brief”.^[1]
Upon said motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of
Appeals, herein petitioner has come up to this Court on a petition for
certiorari, contending that the Court of Appeals erred and gravely abused its
discretion when it reconsidered the resolution dismissing respondent’s appeal
and granted respondent a period of
25 days within which to file his
brief.  Petitioner further contends that
the Court of Appeals no longer had jurisdiction
to decide the case because “when the appellant failed to file his brief within the legal period, the
decision of the court of origin has become final and executory“.^[2]

The instant petition has no merit.

It is noteworthy that petitioner does not question the correctness
of the decision of the Court of Appeals on the merits of the case.  The petitioner simply makes the belated plea
before this Court that the Court of Appeals had gravely abused its discretion
when it reconsidered the resolution dismissing the appeal on the ground that respondent Liwanag
had not filed his brief within the reglementary
period and when it granted respondent Liwanag a
period of 25 days within which to file his brief.  The petitioner, if at all, should have raised
this question in a petition for certiorari before this Court right after the
Court of Appeals had reconsidered its previous resolution dismissing the appeal
and when it granted the new period of 25 days. 
What the petitioner did was to leave respondent Liwanag
to file his brief within the period granted him by the Court of Appeals, and
then filed his brief in answer to respon­dent Liwanag’s
brief.  The petitioner waited until the
Court of Appeals had decided the case against him on the merits, and then
brought the present petition before this Court. 
As we have adverted to, the petitioner does not question the correctness
of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, but be simply claims that the Court of Appeals no longer had
jurisdiction to decide the case.

 We do not agree with the petitioner’s contention that the Court of Appeals lost
jurisdiction to decide the case.  The
mere lapse of the period to file appellant’s brief does not automatically
result in the dismissal of the appeal and the loss of jurisdiction by the
appellate court over the appeal.  After
the expiration of the period to file appellant’s brief, there is still
need for the appellate court to act — that is, to order the dismissal of the
appeal upon motion by the appellee, or to order the
dismissal motu propio.  After the dismissal of the appeal by the
court the party adversely affected by the dismissal still has a period of
fifteen days from notice of the order of dismissal within which to file a
motion for reconsideration, and the court can still reinstate the appeal if the
motion for reconsideration is timely filed.

The record shows that the
resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing respondent Liwanag’s appeal was received by the said respondent on August 26, 1963.  On August
27, 1963, respondent
Liwanag filed his motion for reconsideration of the
resolution dismissing the appeal. 
Certainly, the motion for reconsideration was filed by respondent Liwanag on time.  The
Court of Appeals, therefore, still had jurisdiction to reconsider the
resolution dismissing the appeal and to grant, if it considers justifiable,
respondent Liwanag the 25-day period within which to
file the brief.  It is within the
inherent power and discretion of the Court of Appeals to amend whatever order
it had made in order to render substantial justice.^[3] We presume that the Court of Appeals
found the motion for reconsideration
filed by respondent Liwanag to be meritorious and
that there was justification for
granting him a period of 25 days
to file his brief.  This Court will not
control the discretion of the Court of Appeals in this regard.  We hold that the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction, and it did not abuse its discretion, when it reinstated the
appeal and granted respondent Liwanag a period
to file his appeal brief.

The Court, therefore, resolves to dismiss the instant petition,
without costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., did not take part.

^[1] As quoted from the motion for
reconsideration.

^[2]
As quoted from the petition for certiorari.

^[3] Rule 135, par. (g), Rules of Court; Veluz vs. Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, 42 Phil. 557, 563.