ANITO P. ABIERTAS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANGELINA Y. MORON-ABIERTAS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE,

On February 17, 2014, this Court issued a Resolution^[1], directing the oppositor-appellant to submit the proof of receipt of the Appellant’s Brief by petitioner-appellee’s counsel, Atty. Samuel C. Lagunsad.

On March 10, 2014, oppositor-appellant filed a Manifestation and Motion^[2], through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), praying an additional period of fifteen (15) days from March 8, 2014 or until March 24, 2014 to comply with the above-mentioned Resolution.

On June 20, 2014, the Judicial Records Division (CA-JRD) made a report^[3] that no compliance has been made by the oppositor-appellant as per Civil docket entry.

Upon re-verification, the Judicial Records Division (CA-JRD) made a report^[4] that still no compliance has been made by the oppositor-appellant as of January 23, 2015 as per Civil docket entry.

Under Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, 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:

xxx                  xxx                   xxx

(h)	Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court without justifiable cause;

The above-quoted when applied means that the failure of the herein appellant to comply with the directive of this Court without justifiable cause, may cause the dismissal of its appeal. Records show that this Court issued a Resolution dated February 17, 2014 which was received on March 3, 2014, directing the oppositor-appellant to submit proof of receipt by counsel of petitioner-appellee of the Appellant’s Brief. Oppositor-appellant failed to comply with the directive in the Resolution despite the lapse of the time given to do so.

The Supreme Court explicitly stated in the case of Zamboanga Forest Managers Corp., v. New Pacific Timber and Supply Co., et al.,^[5] that a party’s failure to comply with the CA’s directive without justifiable cause is a ground for the dismissal of an appeal under Section 1 (h), Rule 50 of the Rules.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for failure of the oppositor-appellant to comply with the directive of the Court without justifiable cause.^[6]

SO ORDERED.

Delos Santos, J., Chairperson, and Lopez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, page 64.

^[2] Rollo, pages 66-68.

^[3] Rollo, dorsal portion of page 71.

^[4] Ibid, page 71.

^[5] G.R. No. 173342, October 13, 2010.

^[6] Regalado, Florenz D., REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Eight Revised Edition, Vol. 1, Notes on the Revised Rules of Court, Rule 50, Sec. 1 (h), p. 579.