VICTORIO DIAZ v. PEOPLE

VICTORIO P. DIAZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

AND LEVI STRAUSS [PHILS.], INC.

G.R. No. 180677, February 18, 2013

FACTS:

Victoria Diaz was charged with violation of Section 155, in relation to Section 170, of RA 8293, or the Intellectual Property Code. He allegedly sells counterfeit LEVI’S 501 jeans in his tailoring shops in Almanza and Talon, Las Piñas City.

The RTC found Diaz guilty as charged. Diaz appealed, but the CA dismissed the appeal on the ground that Diaz had not filed his appellant’s brief on time despite being granted his requested several extension periods.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA properly dismissed the appeal of Diaz due to the late filing of his appellant’s brief.

RULING:

Yes. The SC held that the CA properly dismissed the appeal. According to the SC, the usage of the word may in Section 1(e) of Rule 50 indicates that the dismissal of the appeal upon failure to file the appellant’s brief is not mandatory, but discretionary. Verily, the failure to serve and file the required number of copies of the appellant’s brief within the time provided by the Rules of Court does not have the immediate effect of causing the outright dismissal of the appeal. This means that the discretion to dismiss the appeal on that basis is lodged in the CA, by virtue of which the CA may still allow the appeal to proceed despite the late filing of the appellant’s brief, when the circumstances so warrant its liberality. In deciding to dismiss the appeal, then, the CA is bound to exercise its sound discretion upon taking all the pertinent circumstances into due consideration.

The records reveal that Diaz’s counsel thrice sought an extension of the period to file the appellant’s brief. The first time was on March 12, 2007, the request being for an extension of 30 days to commence on March 11, 2007. The CA granted his motion under its resolution of March 21, 2007. On April 10, 2007, the last day of the 30-day extension, the counsel filed another motion, seeking an additional 15 days. The CA allowed the counsel until April 25, 2007 to serve and file the appellant’s brief. On April 25, 2007, the counsel went a third time to the CA with another request for 15 days. The CA still granted such third motion for extension, giving the counsel until May 10, 2007. Notwithstanding the liberality of the CA, the counsel did not literally comply, filing the appellant’s brief only on May 28, 2007, which was the 18th day beyond the third extension period granted.

Under the circumstances, the failure to file the appellant’s brief on time rightly deserved the outright rejection of the appeal.