GR 135507; (November, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135507 . November 29, 2005.
PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. NELSON GOIMCO, SR., SPOUSES ISABELO and REMEGIA LADIA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., a common carrier, was held liable by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for damages arising from a 1983 bus collision. The RTC awarded substantial sums to respondent-passenger Nelson Goimco, Sr. and the heirs of the deceased Isabelo Ladia, Jr. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA issued an order directing petitioner to file its appellant’s brief within fifteen days from October 2, 1997. Petitioner, through its counsel, failed to file the required brief within the reglementary period.
Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, attributing the failure to its counsel’s excusable negligence, specifically the alleged loss of the office logbook containing deadlines. The CA denied the motion, finding that counsel, a large law firm, could have updated its schedules within the four-month period from the notice to the deadline, and thus the negligence was inexcusable.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy, as certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The proper recourse was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. More importantly, the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in strict compliance with procedural rules.
The Court found no grave abuse in the CA’s application of the rules. Section 7, Rule 44 mandates the filing of the appellant’s brief within the prescribed period, and Section 1(e), Rule 50 explicitly authorizes dismissal for failure to comply. Petitioner’s excuse of a lost logbook was unpersuasive; counsel had a duty to consistently monitor case records. The negligence of counsel, being inexcusable, is binding upon the client. The dismissal, being a consequence of petitioner’s own counsel’s failure to adhere to procedural rules, did not constitute a denial of due process. The petition was dismissed.