FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237932. July 2, 2018.]
MARTIN R. NOVAL, JR. AND FEDELINA M. NOVAL, petitioners,vs. FERNANDO S. CLEMENT AND EILEEN MAY E. CLEMENT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 2, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237932 — Martin R. Noval, Jr. and Fedelina M. Noval, petitioners, vs. Fernando S. Clement and Eileen May E. Clement, respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' first and second Motions for Extension of Time 1 for a total of thirty (30) days within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period on March 27, 2018.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioners to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioners insist that their appeal before the CA should be reinstated as they had already "candidly explained that their failure to file the appeal brief was due to oversight. This circumstance may be considered as excusable as it occasionally happens to parties to a case." 2
Section 1, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Failure 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 this case, petitioners failed to file their appellants' brief despite having been given a total of seventy-five (75) days to do so. 3 Thus, the CA correctly dismissed petitioners' appeal in conformity with the Rules and prevailing jurisprudence. 4 After all, mere inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse 5 for the non-filing of the required brief, save for exceptional circumstances which would merit a liberal application of the Rules. 6 Unfortunately, no such circumstance was present in this case.
"The failure to file Appellant's Brief, though not jurisdictional, results in the abandonment of the appeal which may be cause for its dismissal." 7 It must be emphasized, too, that "the right to appeal is not a natural but a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law." 8 In this light, the appellate court correctly considered petitioners' appeal abandoned for failure to file their brief within the period prescribed under Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the May 31, 2017 and the February 23, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107570.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-de Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as acting member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. DETACa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-9.
2.Id. at 19.
3.Id. at 29.
4. See Beatingo v. Bu Gasis, 657 Phil. 552, 558-561 (2011). Italics supplied.
5.Id. at 560.
6.Id.
7.Sibayan v. Costales, et al., 789 Phil. 1, 9 (2016).
8.Id.