G.R. No. 135287 - PHILHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR SPS. JOVENAL AND CELIA TORING, VS. CONSOLIDATED ORIX LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed the case pursuant to Rule 50, Section 1(e), of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the resolution was received by Atty. Vega on 09 June 1998. It was, however, only on 07 July 1998, or 28 days after the receipt of the notice of dismissal, that counsel filed a "Very Urgent Motion for Reconsideration." Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the motion for having been filed out of time. Petitioners, with a new counsel, now come before this Court in this petition for review on certiorari seeking the remand of the case to the appellate court and another chance to file the appellants' brief. Petitioners anchor the instant petition on the ground that the failure of their former counsel to file the required brief constitutes gross mistake or negligence which should not bind them as to do so would deprive them of due process and will cause them serious injustice. Had their counsel not been remiss in his work, petitioners claimed, it could have been shown that partial payments were made to respondent and that petitioner spouses, being merely officers of petitioner corporation, should not be made liable for the debts of the corporation. Petitioners explained that their former counsel was already gravely ill during the time he was supposed to file appellants' brief. Petitioners said that their counsel had failed to inform them about this omission and the subsequent dismissal of their appeal. On 15 October 1998, petitioners manifested that Atty. Rodolfo L. Vega had died of the illness that inflicted him. Regrettably the Court finds itself unable to hold that the appellate court has committed a reversible error. 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. The complaint for a sum of money and damages was instituted several years back. Petitioners were thrice declared in default. In the pretrial proceedings, it was not only the counsel of petitioners but the parties themselves who were required to appear and to take part in the hearings. [5] After an adverse decision by the trial court, petitioners' counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal. The petition for relief, subsequently filed, was correctly dismissed by the trial court for lack of merit. The appeal to the Court of Appea