BACHRACH CORPORATION,
Petitioner, -
versus - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY,
Respondent. |
G.R. No. 159915
Present: *QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, carpio
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: March 12, 2009 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
We have before us the
Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] filed by the
petitioner, Bachrach Corporation (petitioner),
that seeks to reverse the Court of Appeal (CA) rulings dismissing the
petitioner’s appeal for failure to file an appeal brief.[2]
ANTECEDENTS
The respondent Philippine Ports Authority (respondent),
as lessor, entered into a 99-year contract of lease with the petitioner over
its properties denominated as Blocks 180 and 185. The lease will expire in the years 2017 and
2018, respectively. Since the rentals for these properties were based on the
rates prevailing in the previous decades, the respondent imposed rate
increases. Separately from these properties, the respondent owned another
property –
The parties tried to extrajudicially settle
their differences. A Compromise Agreement was drafted in 1994, but was not
fully executed by the parties.[3] Only
the petitioner, its counsel, and the respondent’s counsel signed; the
respondent’s Board of Directors was not satisfied with the terms and refused to
sign the agreement.
To compel the respondent to implement the
terms of the Compromise Agreement, the petitioner filed a complaint for
specific performance with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The
amendment/supplement sought in the instant motion seeks the inclusion of
Granting
for the sake of argument, but not in any way insinuating that plaintiff has a
right to demand performance of the “Compromise Agreement,” this Court can only
mandate performance of its provisions. And considering that the “Compromise
Agreement” speaks only of Block Nos. 185 and 180, this Court can only direct
actual performance by defendant Philippine Ports Authority of its terms and
conditions, and that is with respect to the lease of these blocks (185 and 180)
and no other. It would therefore be a mistake for this court to grant the
motion and allow inclusion of
On
On
The petitioner elevated the dismissal
to the CA. On
For failure of the plaintiff-appellant,
Bachrach Corporation to file the required brief, the appeal is hereby
considered DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended.
The Motion for Extension of Time to File
Appellant’s Brief is NOTED.
SO
ORDERED.[10]
On
THE PETITION
The
petition asks the Court to liberally apply the rules of procedure, grant its
appeal, and thereby require the CA to entertain the appeal it dismissed. The petitioner raises the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN NOT GIVING A LIBERAL APPLICATION OF SECTION 1(E) RULE 50 OF THE RULES OF
COURT TO THE PRESENT CASE CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 6, RULE 1 OF THE SAME
RULES[;]
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN NOT REVERSING THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT RES JUDICATA BARS THE
FILING OF CIVIL CASE NO. 00-99431[;]
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN NOT REVERSING THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSING CIVIL CASE NO.
00-99431.
The
threshold issue the case presents is whether the CA erred in dismissing the
petitioner’s appeal on the ground that no brief was timely filed.
OUR RULING
The petition is devoid of merit.
Rule 50, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
enumerates the grounds for the dismissal of appeals; paragraph (e) thereof provides
that an appeal shall be dismissed upon –
[f]ailure
of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief
or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules.
In a long line of cases, this Court has held
that the CA’s authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the
appellant’s brief is a matter of judicial discretion.[12]
Thus, a dismissal based on this ground is neither mandatory nor ministerial;
the fundamentals of justice and fairness must be observed, bearing in mind the
background and web of circumstances surrounding the case.[13]
In the present case, the petitioner
blames its former handling lawyer for failing to file the appellant’s brief on
time. This lawyer was allegedly transferring to another law office at the time
the appellant’s brief was due to be filed.[14] In his excitement to transfer to his new firm,
he forgot about the appeal and the scheduled deadline; he likewise forgot his
responsibility to endorse the case to another lawyer in the law office.[15]
Under the circumstances of this case,
we find the failure to file the appeal brief inexcusable; thus, we uphold the
CA’s ruling.
The handling lawyer was undoubtedly at
fault. The records show that even the
filing of a motion for reconsideration from the Regional Trial Court’s ruling
was late. In this case, he even had the
benefit of an extended period for the filing of the brief, but nevertheless
failed to comply with the requirements.
If the present counsel were to be believed, the former counsel did not even make a proper turnover of his
cases – a basic matter for a lawyer and his law office to attend to before a
lawyer leaves.
But while fault can be attributed to the
handling lawyer, we find that the law firm was no less at fault. The departure of a lawyer actively handling
cases for a law firm is a major concern; the impact of a departure, in terms of
the assignment of cases to new lawyers alone, is obvious. Incidents of
mishandled cases due to failures in the turnover of files are well-known within
professional circles. For some reason,
the law firm merely attributes the failure to file the appeal brief to the
handling lawyer. This is not true and is
a buck-passing that we cannot accept.
The law firm itself was grossly remiss in its duties to care for the
interests of its client.
We note as a last point that the original 45-day
period for the appellant to submit its brief expired on
From these perspectives, the CA cannot in any
way be said to have erred in dismissing the appeal.
WHEREFORE, we DENY
the petition for review and,
consequently, AFFIRM the Court of
Appeals’ Resolutions dated
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Acting Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions
in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
* Acting
Chief Justice per Special Order No. 581 dated
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Resolution of November 11, 2002
dismissing the appeal, penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, with
Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Regalado E. Maambong,
concurring; rollo, p. 36;
Resolution of September 8, 2003 denying the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration; rollo, p. 38.
[3] Rollo, pp. 96-100.
[4] See pp. 1 and 2 of the Compromise Agreement, rollo, pp. 96-97.
[5] Rollo, p. 43.
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 14.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rollo, pp. 40-41.
[10] Supra note 1, p. 1.
[11] Rollo, pp. 44-53.
[12] Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137771, June 6, 2002, 383 SCRA 175; Aguam v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137672, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 784; Catindig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 33063, February 28, 1979, 88 SCRA 675.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Rollo, p. 17.
[15]