SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241107. April 3, 2019.]
SYLVIA V. CO BENG, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241107 — Sylvia V. Co Beng versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolutions dated March 15, 2018 1 and July 24, 2018 2 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39623, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition and AFFIRM the Resolutions of the CA since the petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Resolutions as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
While the petitioner correctly pointed out that the dismissal of a case by the CA for failure to file an appellant's brief on time is merely directory and not mandatory, it is equally true, however, that the court possesses sufficient discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss an appellant's appeal. 3 The discretion must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case. 4
In the case at bar, the petitioner claims that her failure to file an appellant's brief was the result of the health issues she faced because of the case. She claims that she was intermittently hospitalized within the period between October 2016 to July 2017. However, she did not substantiate the said claim, as there were no pieces of evidence attached to the present Petition that would allow the Court to verify her claim. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that she indeed faced health problems during the said period, she is still unable to explain her failure to file the appellant's brief between August 2017 until the time that the CA dismissed the case on March 15, 2018.
It must be emphasized that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. 5 It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 6 As the Rules of Court itself provides, the "[f]ailure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of this brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules" 7 is a ground for dismissal of an appeal. The case relied upon by the petitioner for her appeal, the case of The Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court of Appeals, 8 itself stated "that the general rule is that failure to file the appellant's brief within the prescribed period would result in the dismissal of the appeal, and any exemption from the rule must be for the most compelling reasons and the delay must be for a reasonable period[.]"
In this case, the Court finds that even if the reason for the delay of the petitioner was compelling — health challenges she faced as a result of the case — the period of the delay was nevertheless unreasonable. The CA already waited around 11 months 9 for petitioner to file her appellant's brief and yet she failed to do so. Thus, the CA was justified in declaring the appeal abandoned.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-19. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
2.Id. at 20-22.
3. See Heirs of Spouses Natonton v. Spouses Magaway, 520 Phil. 723, 728-729 (2006).
4.Id. at 729.
5.Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, 708 Phil. 443, 445 and 452 (2013).
6.Id. at 445 and 452.
7. RULES OF COURT, Rule 50, Sec. 1 (e).
8. 574 Phil. 380, 395 (2008).
9. See rollo, p. 21.