JENNIFER SAN JOSE FUJIWARA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. THE OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL AND CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

Fujiwara versus Office of the Civil Registrar General

The Case

This is the case of Jennifer San Jose Fujiwara, the petitioner, against the Office of the Civil Registrar General and the City Civil Registrar of San Juan City, the respondents. It is a proceeding that began as a petition in the trial court and reached the Supreme Court on the question of whether an appeal may be dismissed when the appellant fails to file its brief within the period allowed. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean illustration of the rule on dismissal of appeals for failure to file the appellant's brief, and of how strictly the Court treats repeated extensions of time.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court, where Jennifer San Jose Fujiwara filed her petition against the Office of the Civil Registrar General and the City Civil Registrar of San Juan City. From the ruling of the trial court, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. In that appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General, acting for the respondents, sought extensions of time to file the appellant's brief. The Court of Appeals granted an extension of sixty days, counted from the thirty-first of July 2014, or until the twenty-ninth of September 2014. It granted a further extension of thirty days, or until the twenty-ninth of October 2014, for a total extension of ninety days. In a Resolution dated the third of October 2014, the Court of Appeals categorically declared that no further extension to file the appellant's brief would be allowed. The Office of the Solicitor General then filed a Motion for Extension dated the twentieth of October 2014, praying for another thirty days, until the twenty-eighth of November 2014, to file the appellant's brief. The Court of Appeals denied that motion for lack of merit and, for failure to file the required appellant's brief within the extended period, dismissed the appeal. The matter then came before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Jennifer San Jose Fujiwara filed a petition in the trial court against the Office of the Civil Registrar General and the City Civil Registrar of San Juan City. The trial court ruled in the case, and the respondents brought the matter up on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

In the Court of Appeals, the respondents were required to file an appellant's brief. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing them, asked for and received an extension of sixty days, running from the thirty-first of July 2014 to the twenty-ninth of September 2014. It obtained a second extension of thirty days, until the twenty-ninth of October 2014, bringing the total extension to ninety days.

In its Resolution dated the third of October 2014, the Court of Appeals stated in no uncertain terms that no further extension to file the appellant's brief would be allowed. Despite this, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Motion for Extension dated the twentieth of October 2014, asking for another thirty days, until the twenty-eighth of November 2014. The appellant's brief was not filed within the extended period, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly denied the Office of the Solicitor General's Motion for Extension dated the twentieth of October 2014, which prayed for another thirty days to file the appellant's brief.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required appellant's brief within the extended period.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, paragraph (e) of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds: x x x (e) Failure of the appellant to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.

This is the provision under which the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, and it bears directly on the consequence of the appellant's failure to file its brief on time.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Motion for Extension dated the twentieth of October 2014 must be denied for lack of merit. The records showed that the Office of the Solicitor General had already been granted an extension of sixty days, until the twenty-ninth of September 2014, and another extension of thirty days, until the twenty-ninth of October 2014, for a total of ninety days. More importantly, the Court of Appeals had already declared in its Resolution dated the third of October 2014 that no further extension would be allowed. The motion therefore came against an express prohibition.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appeal must be dismissed. Having failed to file the required appellant's brief within the extended period, the appellant fell squarely within the ground for dismissal. The Court applied the rule in these terms:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds: x x x (e) Failure of the appellant to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.

The dismissal was thus in accordance with Section 1, paragraph (e) of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Doctrine

An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, where the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by the Rules. This is the ground set out in Section 1, paragraph (e) of Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and it applies even where the appellant is the Office of the Solicitor General.

The grant of extensions of time to file the appellant's brief is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and once the court has categorically declared that no further extension will be allowed, a subsequent motion for extension must be denied for lack of merit. A party who allows the extended period to lapse without filing the brief cannot escape the consequence that the Rules themselves attach to that failure.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the motion for extension and dismissed the appeal, so that the respondents lost the appeal and the ruling below in favor of Jennifer San Jose Fujiwara stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that failure of the appellant to file his brief within the time prescribed by the Rules is a ground for dismissal of the appeal under Section 1, paragraph (e) of Rule 50. Examiners like to use this case on the consequences of repeated motions for extension and on the strictness of the rule on filing the appellant's brief.