PRUDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND MABUHAY INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.

On May 28, 1976, respondent Court of Appeals granted private
respondent as defendant-appellant an extension of ninety (90) days from May 22,
1976 within which to file appellant’s brief “with a warning that no
further extension will be granted.”

However, on August 23,
1976, private respondent was given an additional extension of
fifteen (15) days from August 20, 1976
within which to file appellant’s brief.

Appellant’s brief was actually filed on September 4, 1976. 
Twenty-six (26) days thereafter or on September 30, 1976, respondent Court of Appeals issued the
following resolution:

“No appellee’s brief having been filed within the reglementary
period, the Court RESOLVED TO SUBMIT the case for decision without appellee’s
brief”

which
was received on October 7, 1976 by herein petitioner, who filed on October 25,
1976 a motion for reconsideration of said resolution, which motion was denied
on November 5, 1976.

Under Section 11 of Rule
46 of the Revised Rules of Court, private respondent, as appellant, had an initial
period of forty-five (45) days within which to file its brief.  Add the first extension of ninety (90) days
and the additional extension of fifteen (15) days, private respondent was given
a total of one hundred fifty (150) days or five (5) months within which to file
its brief.

Under Section 7 of
Republic Act No. 5434 – which is not shown to be applicable to the case at bar
as this law refers to appeals from the Court of Agrarian Relations, Secretary
of Labor, Land Registration Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, the Patent Office, and the
Agricultural Inventions Board – appellant had only thirty (30) days as its
initial period within which to file its brief and was given actually one hundred
thirty-five (135) days or about four months and a half within which to file its
brief, after adding thereto the two extensions of ninety days and fifteen days
respectively.

With the record not
showing that petitioner-appellee received a copy of appellant’s brief, the
respondent Court of Appeals resolved to consider the case as submitted on the
erroneous impression that petitioner as appellee, failed to file its brief
within the reglementary period, twenty six (26) days from the filing of
appellant’s brief.  The grave injustice
inflicted on petitioner as appellee, is thus patent, which was aggravated by
the denial of appellee’s motion for reconsideration of respondent Court’s
resolution of September 30, 1976, despite the fact that petitioner specified in
its motion for reconsideration that appellant’s brief was filed on September 4,
1976 and that it had not received copies of appellant’s brief as of October 25,
1976 when it filed its motion for reconsideration.  The respondent Court of Appeals acted
with precipitate haste and thereby committed a grave abuse of discretion.

WHEREFORE, THE ORDERS DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1976 AND
NOVEMBER 5, 1976 ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE AND RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS IS HEREBY
DIRECTED TO GRANT TO HEREIN PETITIONER THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE RULES WITHIN
WHICH TO FILE APPELLEE’S BRIEF.  NO
COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.