Spouses Paglinawan v. Spouses Trampe

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242340. November 18, 2021.]

SPOUSES MARLON PAGLINAWAN and IRISH CALMA PAGLINAWAN, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES JULIAN TRAMPE and CARMEN TRAMPE, MICHAEL TRAMPE and LEOPOLDO SALGATAR, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242340 (Spouses Marlon Paglinawan and Irish Calma Paglinawan v. Spouses Julian Trampe and Carmen Trampe, Michael Trampe and Leopoldo Salgatar). — On appeal are the Resolutions dated May 8, 2018 1 and September 27, 2018 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 110091, which dismissed petitioners' appeal after ruling that their Appellants' Brief 3 dated April 18, 2018 was filed out of time. Likewise, the instant appeal partially assails the CA resolutions for not reconsidering the Decision 4 dated September 21, 2016, and Order 5 dated August 17, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80 of Morong, Rizal, particularly in (1) striking down the 10% monthly interest rate agreed upon by the parties for being excessive and exorbitant; (2) adjudging respondents Michael Trampe and Leopoldo Salgatar liable to pay interest from the time of default and not from the time of execution of the loans; (3) declaring the real estate mortgage executed by respondent Carmen Trampe invalid; (4) not adjudging Carmen liable for the loans; and (5) not awarding attorney's fees in petitioners' favor.

In the case at bar, the CA denied the request of Spouses Marlon and Irish Paglinawan (petitioners) to extend the time for filing their Appellants' Brief by reason of their counsel's work in other equally important cases, professional commitments, and intermittent dizziness diagnosed as "Benign Peripheral Positional Vertigo," for which he was confined at the Morong Doctors' Hospital from February 3 to 4, 2018. 6 The CA found the reasons given by petitioners unsubstantiated. 7 Although the Medical Certificate submitted by their counsel was issued on March 14, 2018, or two days prior to petitioners' filing of their Motion for Extension of Time, the same pertains to counsel's confinement during February 3 to 4, 2018, thereby allowing counsel to rest for two weeks and giving him ample time to prepare and file the requisite Appellants' Brief. 8 The CA also did not give credence to the social media photo showing counsel's confinement for being undated. 9

Notably, petitioners do not deny the discrepancy between the date of counsel's confinement and the date when he filed the motion for extension. Petitioners also do not dispute, nor offer any explanation for the lack of date of the social media post they submitted as proof of their counsel's confinement. Instead, in their petition for review, they argue that their "Appellants' Brief deserves to be admitted" because it was filed prior to the rendition of the Resolution dated May 8, 2018, denying their motion for extension, and that the CA, in a 1994 case, granted an extension of 90 days, with an additional period of 20 days, and even admitted an Appellants' Brief filed one day late. 10

This Court agrees with the CA.

Since an appeal is not a matter of right, but is a mere statutory privilege, a party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules; otherwise, the privilege is lost. 11 In this regard, Section 12, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court clearly instructs that the extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause, and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. In any event, what constitutes good and sufficient cause as would merit such suspension would be discretionary upon the courts. 12 CAIHTE

Similar to the court a quo, this Court is not convinced that the hospitalization of petitioner's counsel from February 3 to 4, 2018 due to "intense episodes of dizziness" 13 indeed hindered petitioners from filing their Appellants' Brief on March 19, 2018, that could have warranted an extension of the period to file their pleading. At the same time, heavy workload, standing alone, is hardly a compelling or meritorious reason to allow extensions of time to file pleadings. 14 Notably, an examination of the Appellants' Brief submitted by petitioners before the CA reveals that apart from the argument on the reckoning date of interest payment, all the arguments contained therein are a mere rehash of arguments already raised in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration 15 dated October 11, 2016 before the RTC. Hence, this Court concurs with the CA that the reasons proffered by petitioners are not good and sufficient causes under Section 12, Rule 44, and finds the appellate court to have exercised its sound discretion when it declared petitioner's appeal as abandoned and dismissed.

Moreover, considering that, as a general rule, motions for extension are not granted, petitioners cannot assume that the CA will act favorably on a motion for extension of time to file a pleading. 16 Thus, petitioners' claim that their Appellants' Brief warrants admission for being filed prior to the CA's denial of the motion for extension of time to file the same is simply untenable.

Anent petitioners' argument that jurisprudence is replete with instances where the reglementary period was extended to allow the courts to decide cases on their merits, 17 this Court remains unpersuaded. Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. 18 While this Court has previously relaxed prescriptive periods in cases where application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, 19 the instant petition failed to demonstrate the need to relieve the petitioners of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 20

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. This Court AFFIRMS the Resolutions dated May 8, 2018, and September 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110091, which declared the appeal filed by Spouses Marlon Paglinawan and Irish Calma Paglinawan abandoned and dismissed for failure to file their Appellants' Brief on time.

SO ORDERED." LOPEZ, M., J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales, concurring; rollo, pp. 52-54.

2.Id. at 10-13.

3.Id. at 185-207.

4. Rendered by Presiding Judge Sheila Marie A. Ignacio; id. at 131-147.

5.Id. at 167-176.

6.Id. at 10-13; 52-54.

7.Id. at 53.

8.Id. at 12.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 29-30; 234-235.

11.Deepak Kumar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 247661, June 15, 2020.

12.Philcontrust Resources, Inc. v. Santiago, 814 Phil. 507, 519 (2017).

13.Rollo, p. 28.

14. See Adtel, Inc. v. Valdez, 816 Phil. 110 (2017).

15.Rollo, pp. 148-157.

16. See Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. v. COMELEC, 782 Phil. 1306 (2016).

17.Rollo, pp. 30-31.

18.De Leon v. Hercules Agro Industrial Corp., 734 Phil. 652, 663 (2014).

19.Spouses Godinez v. Spouses Norman, G.R. No. 225449, February 26, 2020.

20. See Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 95 (1998).