DIOSDADO CHAVEZ AND LEONILA CELESTE, PETITIONERS, VS. BUENAVENTURA GANZON AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

The petitioners Diosdado Chavez and Leonila Celeste brought an
action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against the respondent
Buenaventura Ganzon to recover damages (case No. 3204). After trial the
Court rendered judgment ordering the respondent Buenaventura Ganzon to
pay the petitioners P1,700 as actual, moral and exemplary damages.
Having appealed to the Court of Appeals, respondent Ganzon was
required, pursuant to section 12, Rule 48 of the Rules of Court, to
file his brief within the reglementary period of 45 days which was to
expire on 22 April 1957 (CA-G. R. No. 19107-R). Upon motion filed on 17
April 1957 by attorney Cirilo Ganzon, an extension of 30 days from 22
April to file appellant’s brief was granted to respondent Ganzon by the
Court of Appeals in its resolution of 7 May 1957, “with the warning
that no further extension will be given.” On 13 December 1957 the
petitioners filed a motion to declare the appeal of respondent Ganzon
abandoned and dismissed for failure to file his brief as provided for
by 1 (e) of Rule 52 of the Rules of Court. On 20 December 1957
respondent Ganzon filed an opposition where he stated that the
preparation and filing of appellant’s brief had been entrusted to
attorney Leon P. Gellada, a collaborating counsel in the trial court,
who despite promise and assurance that he would prepare and file the
brief failed to do so. A reply to the opposition was filed by the
petitioners. As prayed for by the latter, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeal by resolution adopted on 23 December 1957. On 6
January 1958 the respondent filed his printed brief and a pleading
entitled “rejoinder,” to which the petitioners replied on 9 January. On
the last mentioned date, the respondent moved for the reconsideration
of the resolution of 23 December 1957. On 11 January 1958 the
petitioners filed an objection to the motion. On 16 January, the motion
for reconsideration was denied. On 8 February 1958 respondent Ganzon
filed an ex parte second motion for reconsideration of the
resolution of 23 December 1957 which had dismissed the appeal and of 16
January 1958 which had denied the first motion for reconsideration. By
a resolution adopted on 24 February 1958, the Court of Appeals granted
the ex parte second motion for reconsideration, reinstating
the appeal, allowing the appellant’s brief and requiring the appellees
to file their brief within the reglementary period from receipt of
appellant’s brief.

Having failed to secure the setting aside of the last resolution,
the petitioners have come to this Court for a writ of certiorari under
Rule 67 of the Rules of Court to annul it.

The petitioners contend that the respondent Court of Appeals acted
contrary to law and/or with grave abuse of discretion in reinstating
the appeal of respondent Buenaventura Ganzon, which had been previously
dismissed for failure to file his brief on time, allowing his brief
filed long after the dismissal of his appeal, and requiring the
petitioners, the appellees therein, to file their brief. On the other
hand, respondent Ganzon claims that section 1(e) of Rule 52 of the Rules of Court grants the Court of Appeals ample discretion to dismiss and reinstate an appeal.

Granting that the power or discretion to reinstate an appeal that
had been dismissed is included in or implied from the power or
discretion to dismiss an appeal,^[1]
still such power or discretion must be exercised upon a showing of good
and sufficient cause, in like manner as the power or discretion vested
in the appellate court to allow extensions of time for the filing of
briefs.^[2] There must be such
a showing which would call for, prompt and justify its exercise.
Otherwise, it cannot and must not be upheld. The point then to
determine is whether the delay in filing respondent Ganzon’s brief was
due to a good and sufficient cause. On the second page of his ex parte
second motion for reconsideration dated 8 February 1958 and in his
answer to the petition for certiorari filed in this case, respondent
Ganzon explains the cause of his failure to file his brief on time,
thus—

* * * the making and filing of the brief for the
defendant-appellant (respondent herein) was entrusted to another
attorney who appeared as co-counsel with Mr. Cirilo Y. Ganzon in the
trial of the above-entitled case in the court below; all the while Mr.
Cirilo Y. Ganzon sincerely and honestly believed that the brief was
prepared and filed on time. * * *

* * *

The
reason why the preparation and the filing of the brief was entrusted to
another attorney was, to be frank and truthful, because Mr. Cirilo Y.
Ganzon was very busy several months preceding the November 12, 1957
elections. He was the campaign manager of then re-electionist Rep. Jose
M. Aldeguer for the Fifth District of Iloilo Province comprising 15
towns. He was the chief legal counsel entrusted with the task of filing
inclusion and exclusion cases in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo
with the view to preserve and safeguard the sanctity of free elections.
* * *

The explanation cannot be deemed a good and sufficient cause or a
legal reason or justification for not filing his (respondent’s) brief
within the time fixed by or provided for in the Rules^[3]
because the political activities of respondent’s counsel as campaign
manager of a congressman seeking re-election did not deprive and could
not have deprived him of the opportunities, means and ways of
contacting the collaborating attorney to whom he had entrusted the
preparation and filing of respondent Ganzon’s brief, and of finding out
or verifying whether it was being prepared and if already prepared
whether it was filed in accordance with the Rules. The political
activities of respondent Ganzon’s attorney as campaign manager of a
re-electionist congressman and the filing and handling of inclusion and
exclusion cases in the general elections of 1957, that prompted him to
delegate or entrust to another lawyer the preparation and filing of the
then appellant’s brief, do not constitute sufficient reason or cause
which would excuse or relieve him from the adverse effects of his
failure to file timely the appellant’s brief, because when respondent
Ganzon’s counsel accepted the case, he bound himself to perform his
obligations and duties toward the court and his client. He knew that
there are certain fixed periods of time that had to be met and complied
with. And even viewed or construed liberally the delay of respondent
Ganzon in filing his brief could not be justified, because when he was
granted the first extension of time for the filing of his brief, he was
warned that “no further extension will be given.” He did not heed the
warning and allowed more than seven months to pass without even asking
the Court of Appeals to set aside or modify the warning. Consequently,
in reinstating the appeal which had been dismissed, the Court of
Appeals gravely abused its discretion.

The writ prayed for is granted and the resolution of 24 February 1958 granting the ex parte
second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Ganzon is
annulled and set aside, with costs against respondent Buenaventura
Ganzon.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 1 (e), Rule 52, of the Rules of Court.

^[2] Section 16 (e), Rule 48, of the Rules of Court.

^[3] Section 12, Rule 48, of the Rules of Court.