G.R. NO. 164220 - GERARDO AOANAN, SR., VS. JOSE AOANAN, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for failure of the plaintiff to substantiate his claim by mere preponderance of evidence, the issuance of a Writ of Injunction is hereby DENIED and the instant case is hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff Gerardo Aoanan is hereby ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.00 to the defendant by way of moral damages. [3] Aggrieved by the aforequoted Decision, petitioner instituted an appeal before the Court of Appeals which was dismissed by the appellate court in a Resolution dated 18 February 2004, the pertinent portion of which reads: It will be noted that despite many extensions granted by this Court (five extensions for a total of 135 days), no brief was filed on time. The uniform grounds for extensions, that is, "pressure of work and volume of equally important works" in all the motions granted shows bad faith and lack of sincerity in filing the brief on time. Also, in his comment/opposition to the motion to dismiss, appellant gives a totally different reason for the delay the alleged cancer ailment of his sister. It was only on July 1, 2003, or one day late at that that the appellant filed his brief. Consequently, for failure of appellant to file brief on time, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED (Sec. 1 [e], Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure). [4] Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied hence, the instant petition. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals denied him of his right to appeal and said denial was legally and factually baseless, if not arbitrary. Though petitioner admits that he had indeed requested several extensions of time to file his brief, he maintains that said extensions were filed within the time requested and before each extension period has lapsed. Petitioner explains that he had only until 30 June 2003 to file his appellant's brief as prayed for in his Amended Motion for Last Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief, unfortunately, on account of the brown-out during the entire daytime of 27 June 2003 and due to the malfunction of his counsel's printer, petitioner was not be able to beat the deadline and thus, needed a few more hours to submit the brief. Hence, on 30 June 2003, before the expiration of the last extension period granted, petitioner filed his Motion for One (1) Day Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief. Moreover, petitioner insists that the interest of justice would be best served if his appellant's brief was admitted and the appeal was allowed to proceed since there was no great prejudice upon respondent by the lapse of another night. We reject the postulations. Section 12, Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is clear in its mandate that an "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." Therefore, extensions are generally not allowed except for a showing that the extension is prayed for on the basis of a reasonable