CMTC INTERNATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION vs.
BHAGIS INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION.
December 10 2012 | J. Peralta | Rule 1 / Strong considerations of substantial justice
PETITIONERS: CMTC International Marketing Corp.
RESPONDENTS: Bhagis International Trading Corp.
SUMMARY: Petitioner failed to file appellant’s brief within the reglementary period exclusively due to counsel’s negligence.
Court sustained petitioner for strong considerations of substantial justice.
DOCTRINE: Where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the strict application of the rules
of procedure may be relaxed, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner instituted a Complaint for Unfair Competition and/or Copyright Infringement against respondent before the
RTC Makati. Dismissed. Petitioner seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal before CA.
2. CA issued a Notice to File the Appellant's Brief on May 20, 2005, which was received by the law office representing
petitioner on May 30, 2005. It required petitioner to file appellant’s brief within forty-five (45) days from receipt of notice.
Despite said notice, petitioner failed to file its appellant's brief timely. Hence, on August 19, 2005, the appellate court
issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal.
3. Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Admit Appellant's
Brief, which was filed forty-two (42) days late from the date of its expiration on July 15, 2005. Denied, hence this petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. Was the dismissal of petitioner's appeal for its failure to file appellant's brief within the reglementary period, proper? NO
RATIO:
1. Procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, since they are designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the
administration of justice. However, exceptions to the Rules are recognized, but only for the most compelling reasons
where stubborn obedience to the Rules would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.
2. If an appellant failed to file a motion for extension of time to file his brief on or before the expiration of the
reglementary period, the Court of Appeals does not necessarily lose jurisdiction to hear and decide the appealed
case, and that the Court of Appeals has discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss appellant's appeal, which discretion
must be a sound one to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play having in mind the
circumstances obtaining in each case.
3. Where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the strict application of the rules of
procedure may be relaxed, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.
4. When petitioner filed its motion attaching therewith its appellant's brief, there was a clear intention on the part of
petitioner not to abandon his appeal. Were it not for its counsel's act of inadvertently misplacing the Notice to File
Brief in another file, petitioner could have seasonably filed its appellant's brief as its counsel had already prepared
the same even way before the receipt of the Notice to File Brief.
5. The rule, which states that the mistakes of counsel binds the client, may not be strictly followed where observance
of it would result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or where the interest of justice so requires.
And petitioner had no participatory negligence in the dismissal of its appeal.
GRANTED. Remanded for further proceedings.
