FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-28983 March 30, 1979.]
FAUSTINO SAN JUAN, CORAZON SAN JUAN and VIRGINIA SAN JUAN, petitioners,vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, MODESTA JACOBE, CLEMENTE SAMORIO, and EMILIANO ADRIANO, respondents.
Salonga, Ordoñez, Yap, Sicat, & Associates for petitioners.
Edgardo M. Carreon for private respondents.
SYNOPSIS
The xerox copy of the envelope containing petitioners' motion for extension of time to file brief bears two post office stamps, one postmarked Binangonan, Rizal, where it was mailed, dated February 16, 1968, and the other postmarked, Manila, where it was received, dated February 20, 1968. The Court of Appeals denied the motion on the ground that it was "filed 2 days late."
On petition for mandamus, the Supreme Court held the motion must be considered filed on February 16, 1968, or two days before the last day, which was February 18, 1968, since it is the date of mailing which is considered as the date of filing.
Petition for mandamus is granted, the appeal ordered reinstated and petitioner's brief admitted.
SYLLABUS
1.
2.
3.
4.
D E C I S I O N
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J p:
This is a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus seeking to nullify the Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals dated (1) March 8, 1968, denying petitioners' Motion for a third extension of time to file their brief; (2) March 23, 1968, denying the Motion for a fourth extension to file said brief and dismissing the appeal; and (3) April 6, 1968, refusing reconsideration, admission of the brief and reinstatement of the appeal.
The following chronology of events will give the background of the present controversy: prLL
November 15, 1967
December 29, 1967
January 11, 1968
January 27, 1968
February 21, 1968
February 16, 1968
March 2, 1968
March 7, 1968
March 14, 1968
Petitioners then prayed for an extension of one week from March 14, 1968 within which to file their brief.
March 18, 1968
March 21, 1968
March 23, 1968
The appeal was likewise dismissed upon appellees' Motion.
March 26, 1968
April 6, 1968
Hence, on May 3, 1968, petitioners presented this Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus praying that the afore enumerated Resolutions of the Court of Appeals be set aside, that their appeal be reinstated, and their printed brief admitted.
Specifically, petitioners assign the following errors to respondent Court:
"I
IN DENYING ADMISSION OF PETITIONERS' BRIEF ON THE GROUND THAT THE THIRD EXTENSION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF WAS FILED `2' DAYS LATE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND HAS ACTED IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AS TO CALL FOR THE EXERCISE BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION.
"II
IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS ON THE GROUND, NAMELY, 1) THAT THE THIRD PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF OF THE PETITIONERS WAS FILED 2 DAYS LATE 2) THAT THE BRIEF OF PETITIONERS HAS NOT BEEN FILED UP TO MARCH 23, 1966 WHEN SAID GROUNDS ARE BELIED BY THE VERY RECORDS OF RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS SAID COURT HAS ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND/OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.
"III
IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS, THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS DEPRIVED THE PETITIONER OF THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW CAUSING THEM IRREPARABLE INJURY AS THE DISMISSAL OF THEIR APPEAL WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF SANCTIONING THE ACTS OF LAND GRABBING PERPETRATED AGAINST THEM BY HEREIN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS."
There is no question that the allowance or denial of motions for extensions of time is addressed mainly to the sound discretion of the Court. It is likewise axiomatic that such discretion must be exercised "wisely and prudently, never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice."
In this case, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' Motion for a 3rd extension to file their brief on the ground that said Motion was "filed 2 days late." This was a clear misapprehension of the facts. The xerox copy of the envelope containing that 3rd Petition bears two post office stamps, one postmarked Binangonan, Rizal, dated February 16, 1968, and the other postmarked Manila, dated February 20, 1968. 1 Since it is the date of mailing which is considered as the date of filing under Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, it is evident that petitioners' 3rd Petition must be considered filed on February 16, 1968, or two days before the last day, which was February 18, 1968. The error was compounded when respondent Court denied the 4th Petition for extension "it appearing that the earlier petition for a 3rd extension had been denied."
Respondent Court likewise denied on March 23, 1968, the petition for 4th extension on the ground that up to then the appeal brief had not been filed. As pointed out, however, by petitioners in their Petition to Admit Plaintiffs-Appellants Brief dated March 21, 1968, they had actually filed their printed Brief on March 20, 1968, three days before respondent Court's Resolution dated March 23, 1968. prLL
The interests of substantial justice, therefore, mandate that petitioners' appeal be reinstated and their printed brief admitted. Equally relevant in the resolution of this case is the consideration that the expiration of the time to file brief, unlike lateness in filing the notice of appeal, appeal bond or record on appeal is not a jurisdictional matter. 2
Additionally, this case involves a land controversy and the brief presented by petitioners presents cogent reasons for hearing petitioners' side.
"Suffice it to state that where there is no assertion or showing whatsoever of any intent to delay on the part of appellant or of injury or prejudice to the appellee, and valid special reasons are presented for the granting of an additional extension within which to file the appellant's brief which in fact is filed within the requested extended period and such briefs shows that it is not perfunctory but on the contrary presents strong prima facie arguments for hearing the side of the appellant instead of dismissing the appeal outright, the exercise of sound discretion favors the granting of such extension of time in consonance with the settled principle that judicial discretion must be exercised `wisely and prudently, never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice." 3
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals denying petitioners' 3rd and 4th Petitions for extension of time within which to file their brief are set aside, petitioners' appeal ordered reinstated and their brief admitted.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.
1.p. 97, Rollo.
2.Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 120 [1976].
3.Oyao vs. People, 75 SCRA 424-25.