G.R. No. 164150 - THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, REPRESENTED BY THE ROYAL EMBASSY OF BELGIUM, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, UNIFIED FIELD CORPORATION, MARILYN G. ONG, VICTORIA O. ANG, EDNA C. ALFUERTE, MARK DENNIS O. ANG AND ALVIN O. ANG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [petitioner] and against the [respondents], ordering the latter, jointly and severally, to pay [petitioner]: the principal amount of Php1,093,600.00 representing two (2) months rentals and security deposit, plus interest of 12% per annum from September 15, 2000, until the principal amount due is fully paid, plus 6% per annum on the interest due from the filing of this complaint until the principal amount is fully paid; the sum of Php400,000.00, as and by way of attorney's fees and litigation expenses; the sum of Php100,000.00, as moral damages; the sum of Php100,000.00, as exemplary damages; and costs of suit. [12] Respondents elevated the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals. They received a Notice to File Brief [13] from the Court of Appeals. Respondents were unable to comply with this directive. Petitioner thus filed on 17 September 2003 with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Dismiss Appeal of the respondents on the ground that respondents' counsel received the Notice to File Brief on 16 July 2003 as shown by the Registry Return Receipt and had forty-five (45) days or until 1 September 2003 to file their appellants' brief, but failed to do so. No opposition to the said Motion to Dismiss Appeal was filed by respondents. Neither did they file a motion for extension of time to file appellants' brief. On 30 September 2003, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution which reads: For failure of the [herein respondents] to file their brief within the reglementary period, this appeal is hereby considered ABANDONED and accordingly DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended. [14] On 27 October 2003, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration [15] of the foregoing Resolution stating that their failure to file their appellants' brief was due to their counsel's inadvertence, attaching their brief thereto and praying for its admission. Respondents' counsel had used his residence as his mailing address and the domestic helper might have misplaced the notice to file brief; hence, respondents' counsel failed to monitor the running of the reglementary period for the filing of the appellants' brief. On 27 November 2003, the Court of Appeals resolved respondents' Motion for Reconsideration as follows: For consideration is [herein respondents'] Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's resolution dated September 30, 2003 dismissing their appeal for failure to file the [appellants'] brief within the reglementary period. [Respondents] contend that their failure to file the same was due to inadvertence and not for the purpose of delay. WHEREFORE, finding the motion to be meritorious and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court resolves to GRANT the motion. Accordingly, this Court's resolution dated September 30, 2003 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered allowing the filing of the [appellants'] brief. The appellants' brief attached t