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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

STRONGHOLD INSURANCE v. CUENCA

-
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. TOMAS CUENCA, MARCELINA CUENCA, MILAGROS CUENCA, BRAMIE T. TAYACTAC, and MANUEL D. MARANON, JR. G.R. No. 173297, March 6, 2013 FACTS: Marañon filed a complaint with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in the RTC against the Cuencas and Tayactac for the collection of a sum of money and damages. The RTC granted the application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment conditioned upon the posting of a bond of P1 Million executed in favor of the Cuencas. Marañon posted bond in the amount of P1 Million issued by Stronghold Insurance. Enforcing the writ of preliminary attachment, the sheriff levied upon the equipment, supplies, materials and various other personal property belonging to Arc Cuisine, Inc., to which the respondents where stockholders. But the levied properties were ordered by the CA to be delivered back to the Cuencas and Tayactac due to the damages sustained from the enforceme...
Read more

DIGEST: George Bongalon v. People of the Philippines

-
Image
GEORGE BONGALON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013 FACTS: The petitioner, George Bongalon, was charged of child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. He allegedly struck Jayson, a minor, with his hand and slapped him on the face after the latter threw stones at George's daughter. The RTC found George guilty as charged. This was affirmed by the CA, but the said court modified the penalty. The petitioner elevated the matter to the SC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, ROC. ISSUE: 1.             Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy. 2.             Whether the petitioner is guilty of child abuse, under RA 7610. RULING: 1.             No. The SC held that the petitioner adopted the wrong r...
Read more