FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221039. November 20, 2017.]
JESUS MEJIO, VICTOR ANGUAY, TIMOTEA LIBRIA, ALFREDO TALISAY, JR., DAYLINDA BONTIA, ET AL., petitioners,vs. FLORAMILO OUANO, BUENAVENTURA OUANO, MIRAFLOR OUANO DE QUITUGUA, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows: HESIcT
"G.R. No. 221039 (Jesus Mejio, Victor Anguay, Timotea Libria, Alfredo Talisay, Jr., Daylinda Bontia, et al. v. Floramilo Ouano, Buenaventura Ouano, Miraflor Ouano De Quitugua, et al.)
The Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the public respondent committed any reversible error in the challenged Resolutions as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
As consistently reiterated, the Court of Appeal's (CA's) power to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief is a matter of judicial discretion. Consequently, a dismissal on this ground is neither mandatory nor ministerial; the fundamentals of justice and fairness must be taken into consideration, keeping in mind the background and circumstances of the case. 1
In the present case, the Court finds that the excuse of petitioners' counsel was flimsy and deserves scant consideration and, thus, the propriety of the dismissal of their appeal. Verily, petitioners' counsel was only able to present bare assertion that he made an honest mistake in computing the period within which to file the appellant's brief. There was no other sufficient evidence adduced which would persuade the Court to exculpate them from the effect of their failure to file their brief.
Indeed, technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice and to benefit the deserving. Although petitioners cited several jurisprudence which disregarded procedural rules, it is noted that there were underlying considerations in those cases which warranted the setting aside of procedural technicalities. Here, there exists no such consideration. 2
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions dated December 19, 2014 and September 11, 2015 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03969 dismissing the petitioners' appeal are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Bachrach Corporation v. Philippine Ports Authority, 600 Phil. 1, 6 (2009).
2.Sps. Bergonia v. Court of Appeals and Bravo, Jr., 680 Phil 334, 343 (2012).