This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-06-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the record shows that petitioner, through counsel, asked the Court of Appeals for an extension until December 20, 1997 within which to submit himself before it and to file the appellant's brief.[9] However, petitioner failed to comply with his commitment. Such omission is fatal to his appeal.[10] Thus, the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution of March 31, 1998, considered petitioner's appeal as having been abandoned and consequently dismissed the same. The Resolution became final and executory on May 5, 1998.[11] As such, the Appellate Court, in its assailed Resolution dated August 6, 1998, correctly denied petitioner's subsequent Motion For Leave To File Appellant's Brief submitted on July 21, 1998, or more than two (2) months after the finality of the Resolution dismissing the appeal. | |||||
|
2001-04-04 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Rule 50, Section 1(e), of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure[3] provides that an appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals on its own accord or on motion of the appellee for failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time prescribed by the Rules. The obvious reason for this rule is that upon appeal, the appellate court can only but place reliance on the pleadings, briefs and memoranda of parties such as may be required.[4] the dereliction of duty by counsel affects the client. While, exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of counsel, the factual and case settings in this instance, however, would not warrant such an exception; indeed, petitioners themselves may not be said to be entirely faultless. | |||||