NICANOR T. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND H.M. MONTENEGRO & ASSOCIATES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Santos versus Court of Appeals and H.M. Montenegro and Associates

The Case

This is a petition brought by Nicanor Santos against the Court of Appeals and H.M. Montenegro and Associates, Incorporated, arising from the appellate court's decision to reinstate an appeal that had already been dismissed for failure to file the appellant's brief. Santos had won a judgment for damages in the trial court, and the private respondent lost there and appealed. When the private respondent failed to file its brief within the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, but later reconsidered and reinstated it. Santos came to the Supreme Court to challenge that reinstatement as grave abuse of discretion. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest statement that procedural rules are not mere technicalities to be ignored at will, and that appellate courts must not be so tolerant of a party's inexcusable delay as to defeat the winning litigant's right to speedy justice.

Procedural History

The private respondent lost in a suit for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. It appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on May 17, 1989 required it to file its brief within 45 days from notice. The notice was received by its counsel on May 24, 1989, so the 45-day period expired on July 8, 1989. No brief was filed, and no motion for extension was made. On September 19, 1989, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring the private respondent to show cause why its appeal should not be considered abandoned or dismissed for failure to file the appellant's brief. This was ignored. On October 4, 1989, Santos filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and reiterated it on December 12, 1989; the private respondent did not react to either motion. On December 11, 1989, two hundred and one days from the start of the 45-day period and after the expiration of the 10-day period to show cause, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. More than a month later, on January 17, 1990, the private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and for admission of its brief, alleging that an employee of another client had taken the records and returned them only after Christmas of 1989, and that it could not file on time because of the aborted coup d'etat in December and the frequent power interruptions in Makati. The Court of Appeals granted the motion on February 21, 1990, citing the interest of substantial justice, admitting the brief, and giving the appellee 45 days to file its brief. Santos's motion for reconsideration was denied, so he came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, faulting the reinstatement as grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

Santos obtained a judgment for damages against the private respondent in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City. The private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. On May 17, 1989, the appellate court required the private respondent to file its appellant's brief within 45 days from notice, which notice its counsel received on May 24, 1989. The period expired on July 8, 1989, without any brief and without any motion for extension.

On September 19, 1989, the Court of Appeals required the private respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file the brief. The private respondent ignored the warning. Santos moved twice to dismiss the appeal, on October 4 and December 12, 1989, and the private respondent did not react to either motion. On December 11, 1989, two hundred and one days from the start of the period and after the show-cause period had lapsed, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal under Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

Only on January 17, 1990, more than a month later, did the private respondent move for reconsideration and for admission of its brief. Its counsel blamed an employee of another client who had taken the records and returned them after Christmas, and invoked the aborted coup d'etat and the power interruptions in Makati. The Court of Appeals granted the motion on February 21, 1990, in the interest of substantial justice, admitting the brief and giving the appellee 45 days to file its brief. Santos's motion for reconsideration was denied, so he elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the appeal after it had been dismissed for failure to file the appellant's brief.
• Whether or not the private respondent's counsel should be disciplined for its disregard of the Rules of Court and of the orders of the Supreme Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. The appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, on any of the following grounds: x x x (f) Failure of the appellant to file his brief within the time prescribed by these Rules.

This is the provision under which the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, and the provision the Supreme Court holds should not have been relaxed in favor of the private respondent.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the appeal. The Court noted that the private respondent's conduct revealed a careless disregard of the Rules of Court and even a contemptuous rejection of the authority of the appellate court. Required to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, the private respondent did not dignify the warning with a response. Only after the appeal was dismissed did it move for reconsideration, and for reasons too flimsy to be believed. The motion carried no supporting affidavits, and there was no showing of how the coup d'etat and the power interruptions prevented counsel from filing the brief on time, especially since the period began on May 24, 1989, long before the failed November-December coup d'etat. Other law offices similarly inconvenienced had not been similarly remiss. The Court stressed that the appellee, no less than the appellant, was entitled to speedy justice, and that the non-filing of the brief had the effect of postponing action on the judgment Santos had already won. In reinstating the appeal, the appellate court allowed itself to emasculate the policy of expeditious judicial action mandated by the Constitution itself.

On the second issue, the Court held that the private respondent's counsel should be disciplined. The Court noted that the irresponsibility of counsel did not stop at the appellate court but marred even the proceedings in the Supreme Court, where the private respondent failed to file the required Comment and ignored the show-cause resolution. The Court fined the law office of Cruz, Palabyab, Llorin and Associates One Thousand Pesos, to be paid to the Cashier of the Court within ten days from notice, as a warning to other lawyers similarly disposed. The Court also noted that the record did not show whether the private respondent condoned or contributed to its counsel's negligence, and that if it did not, it could file administrative charges against counsel with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The Court also addressed a procedural point: considering the ground invoked, the petitioner should have filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 rather than a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, but the Court disregarded this procedural lapse to correct the obvious flaw in the challenged resolutions.

Doctrine

Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but to provide a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they acknowledge. The other alternative is the settlement of their conflict through the barrel of a gun. Accordingly, an appellate court commits grave abuse of discretion when it reinstates an appeal dismissed under Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court upon grounds too flimsy to be believed and without any showing that the delay was justified. The winning litigant, no less than the appellant, is entitled to speedy justice.

Disposition

The petition was granted, the resolution of the Court of Appeals reinstating the appeal was set aside, with costs against the private respondent, and the law office of Cruz, Palabyab, Llorin and Associates was fined One Thousand Pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that procedural rules are not mere technicalities to be ignored at will, for adjective law insures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Examiners like to use this case on the consequences of failure to file the appellant's brief under Section 1(f), Rule 50, on grave abuse of discretion in reinstating a dismissed appeal, and on the discipline of counsel who disregards the orders of the Court.