11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423

where the appellant fails to perfect his appeal within the

reglementary period, resulting in the appellate court’s failure to
obtain jurisdiction over the case. With more reason, there should
be a wider latitude in exempting a case from the strictures of
procedural rules when the appellate court has already obtained
jurisdiction over the appealed case and, as in this case, petitioner
failed to file the appellant’s brief.
VOL. 423, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 175
Same; Same; The rules allowing motu proprio dismissals
Tamayo vs. Court of Appeals
merely con-fer a power and does not impose a duty, and the same
* is not mandatory but
G.R. No. 147070. February 17, 2004.

_______________
SANTIAGO TAMAYO alias BATOG, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE * THIRD DIVISION.
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Technical and 176

procedural rules are intended to ensure, not suppress, substantial

justice.–Except for criminal cases where the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua or death, an appeal from the judgment of the
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
lower court is not a matter of right but of sound judicial
discretion. The circulars of this Court prescribing technical and Tamayo vs. Court of Appeals
other procedural requirements are meant to promptly dispose of
unmeritorious petitions that clog the docket and waste the time of
merely directory, which requires a great deal of prudence,
the courts. These technical and procedural rules, however, are
considering all the attendant circumstances.–However, while, as a
intended to ensure, not suppress, substantial justice. A deviation
general rule, a review on appeal is not a matter of right but of
from their rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain their
sound judicial discretion and may be granted only when there are
prime objective for, after all, the dispensation of justice is the core
special and important reasons therefor, still it must be
reason for the existence of courts.
remembered that appeal is an essential part of our judicial
Same; Same; Distinction should be made between the failure system. Courts should thus proceed with extreme care so as not to
to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period and the deprive a party of this right. “Laws and rules should be
failure to file a brief within the period granted by the appellate interpreted and applied not in a vacuum or in isolated abstraction
court.–A distinction should be made between the failure to file a but in light of surrounding circumstances and attendant facts in
notice of appeal within the reglementary period and the failure to order to afford justice to all.” The need to safeguard petitioners’
file a brief within the period granted by the appellate court. The rights should caution courts against motu proprio dismissals of
former results in the failure of the appellate court to acquire appeals, specially in criminal cases where the liberty of the
jurisdiction over the appealed decision resulting in its becoming accused is at stake. The rules allowing motu proprio dismissals
final and executory upon failure of the appellant to move for merely confer a power and does not impose a duty; and the same
reconsideration. The latter simply results in the abandonment of is not mandatory but merely directory, which therefore requires a
the appeal which can lead to its dismissal upon failure to move for great deal of prudence, considering all the attendant
its reconsideration. circumstances. Thus, substantial justice would be better served by
Same; Same; There should be a wider latitude in exempting a reinstating petitioner’s appeal.
case from the strictures of procedural rules when the appellate Same; Same; Dismissal of an appeal on purely technical
court has already obtained jurisdiction over the appealed case and grounds is frowned upon since our general policy is to encourage
petitioner failed to file the appellant’s brief.–In a considerable hearings of appeals on their merits.–Moreover, dismissal of an
number of cases, the Court has deemed it fit to suspend its own appeal on purely technical grounds is frowned upon since our
rules or to exempt a particular case from its strict operation general policy is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423

This Court is therefore constrained to relax the rules to give way without his knowledge and consent. On January 31, 2002,
to the paramount and overriding interest of justice. the Court of Appeals issued another resolution denying
reconsideration on the ground that
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the
Court of Appeals. “x x x as of 29 January 2001 or forty-one (41) days after the filing
of this Motion, accused Santiago Tamayo still failed to submit his
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Appellant’s Brief. Accordingly, the Court viewed this non-
     Nolan R. Evangelista for petitioner. compliance as an abandonment of his appeal.
     The Solicitor General for the People. “WHEREFORE, for failure to file the mandatory Appellant’s
Brief within the reglementary period, the present appeal is
CORONA, J.:
2
hereby DISMISSED.”

In this petition for review, petitioner1

Santiago Tamayo Hence, this petition.
alias Batog prays that the resolutions dated November 10, Petitioner maintains that he should not be made to bear
2000 and January 31, 2001 of the Court of Appeals be the adverse consequences of his former counsel’s
reversed and set aside, and that the appellate court be negligence: He claims that his former counsel abandoned
directed to reinstate and give due course to his appeal. his case without informing him and that it was only when
On December 15, 1998, petitioner was convicted by the his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals that he
Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, San Carlos City of arson learned of his former counsel’s withdrawal from the case.
punishable under He further contends that the exercise by the appellate
court of the power to dismiss the appeal was not in
_______________ accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play as he
was denied his right to be heard on appeal.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Alicia L. Santos and concurred in by
Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto and Bernardo P. Abesamis.
_______________
177
2 Rollo, p. 26.

VOL. 423, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 177 178

Tamayo vs. Court of Appeals

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Art. 321, No. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. He was Tamayo vs. Court of Appeals
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six years and one day
of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day of He insists that the Court of Appeals should have excused
reclusion temporal as maximum. Petitioner appealed his the procedural lapse since strict compliance with the rules
conviction to the Court of Appeals by filing a notice of meant sacrificing justice for technicality. Considering that
appeal. On June 30, 1999, the appellate court required him no material injury was suffered by the People of the
to file an appellant’s brief. Petitioner, however, failed to file Philippines by reason of the delay in the filing of his brief,
the required brief despite the lapse of one year. This the appellate court should have allowed him to file it even
prompted the Court of Appeals to issue the assailed beyond the reglementary period.
resolution dated November 10, 2000 dismissing his appeal. In his comment, the Solicitor General argues that the
The Court of Appeals treated petitioner’s failure to file the Court of Appeals acted correctly in issuing the assailed
appellant’s brief as an abandonment of his appeal, resolutions since: (a) the delay in filing the brief was not
pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on merely a matter of a few days or weeks but of more than
Criminal Procedure. one year; (b) for more than a year, petitioner negligently
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, praying that he be failed to exert effort to confer with his counsel about the
given ample time to prepare his appellant’s brief. He progress of his appeal; (c) knowing the gravity of the
averred that he was completely unaware of the non-filing of offense and the severity of the penalty imposed on him,
the brief by his former counsel who withdrew from the case
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423

petitioner should have been diligent enough to its becoming final and executory upon failure of the
communicate with his counsel concerning his case; and (d) appellant to move for reconsideration. The latter simply
even though he filed a motion for reconsideration of the results in the abandonment of the appeal which can lead4 to
dismissal of his appeal, prudence dictated that, without its dismissal upon failure to move for its reconsideration.
waiting for the resolution of his motion, he should have In the instant case, when appellant learned about the
filed his brief within a reasonable time. Clearly, petitioner dismissal of his appeal, he timely moved for its
failed to do what was reasonable under the circumstances, reconsideration on the ground that he had no knowledge
hence his appeal was rightly dismissed for the second time. that his counsel not only failed to file the required brief but
Petitioner, in his reply, retorts that he could not be actually withdrew as such without his consent. Apparently,
expected to presume that the motion for reconsideration the Court of Appeals did not act on petitioner’s motion
would be granted. His primordial concern then was for his praying for the reinstatement of his appeal. Instead, it
appeal to be reinstated. Thus, before filing the requisite precipitately issued a resolution dismissing the appeal for
brief, he still had to wait for the order of the Court of the second time on the same ground–that petitioner was
Appeals reinstating the appeal. deemed to have abandoned his appeal. According to the
We grant the petition. Court of Appeals, forty-one (41) days from the filing of
Except for criminal cases where the penalty imposed is appellant’s motion for reconsideration had already lapsed
reclusion perpetua or death, an appeal from the judgment and no brief was ever filed. We hold, however, appellant
of the lower court is not a matter of right but of sound not responsible therefor because he was waiting for the
judicial discretion. The circulars of this Court prescribing resolution of his motion for reconsideration. It must be
technical and other procedural requirements are meant to recalled that, in his motion, he prayed for the
promptly dispose of unmeritorious petitions that clog the reinstatement of his appeal and that he be given sufficient
docket and waste the time of the courts. These technical time to file his brief in the event of reinstatement of his
and procedural rules, however, are intended to ensure, not appeal. It would have been improper therefore for
suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from their rigid appellant to presume the favorable outcome of the motion
enforcement may thus be allowed to attain their prime he filed. He was not expected to file his brief right after
objective for, after all, the dispensation
3
of justice is the core moving for the reconsideration of the dismissal of his
reason for the existence of courts. appeal without an order from the court directing him to do
so. In a considerable number of cases, the Court has
_______________ deemed it fit to suspend its own rules or to exempt a
particular case from its strict operation where the
3 Acme Shoe, Rubber & Plastic Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 260 appellant fails to perfect his appeal within the
SCRA 714 (1996). reglementary period, resulting in the appellate court’s
failure to obtain jurisdiction over the case. With more
179
reason, there should be a wider latitude in

VOL. 423, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 179 _______________

Tamayo vs. Court of Appeals 4 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 358 SCRA
501 (2001).
It must be noted that, in the case at bar, it is not disputed
that petitioner timely filed his notice of appeal and that the 180
appellate court acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Petitioner merely failed to submit his appellant’s brief
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
within the period provided by the rules. A distinction
should be made between the failure to file a notice of Tamayo vs. Court of Appeals
appeal within the reglementary period and the failure to
file a brief within the period granted by the appellate court. exempting a case from the strictures of procedural rules
The former results in the failure of the appellate court to when the appellate court has already obtained jurisdiction
acquire jurisdiction over the appealed decision resulting in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423 11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 423

over the appealed case and, as in this case, petitioner failed SO ORDERED.
to file the appellant’s brief.
This is not to say, however, that technical and      Vitug (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio-
procedural rules governing appeals, including those Morales, JJ., concur.
prescribing reglementary periods, need not be observed at
Petition granted, assailed resolutions reversed and set
all or may be ignored at will. The remedy of appeal may be
availed of only in the manner provided for by law and the aside. Petitioner’s appeal reinstated.
rules. However, while, as a general rule, a review on appeal
Note.–The right of appeal is merely a statutory privilege
is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and
and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by,
may be granted only when there are special and important
and in accordance with, the provisions of the law. (Antonio
reasons therefor, still it must be remembered that appeal is
vs. Commission on Elections, 315 SCRA 62 [1999])
an essential part of our judicial system. Courts should thus
proceed with extreme care so as not to deprive a party of ––o0o––
this right. “Laws and rules should be interpreted and
applied not in a vacuum or in isolated abstraction but in
light of surrounding circumstances 5
and attendant facts in
order to afford justice to all.” The need to safeguard
petitioners’ rights should caution courts against motu
proprio dismissals of appeals, specially in criminal cases
where the liberty of the accused is at stake. The rules © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
allowing motu proprio dismissals merely confer a power
and does not impose a duty; and the same is not mandatory
but merely directory, which therefore requires a great deal6
of prudence, considering all the attendant circumstances.
Thus, substantial justice would be better served by
reinstating petitioner’s appeal.
Moreover, dismissal of an appeal on purely technical
grounds is frowned upon since our general policy is to
encourage hearings of appeals on their merits. This Court is
therefore constrained to relax the rules to give way to the
paramount and overriding interest of justice.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED. The November 10, 2000 and January 31, 2001
resolutions of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE, and petitioner’s appeal is REINSTATED.
Petitioner is hereby ordered to file his appellant’s brief in
the Court of Appeals within a non-extendible period of
fifteen days from receipt of this decision.

_______________

5 Magsaysay Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 513 (1996).
6 Sapad vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 304 (2000).

181

VOL. 423, FEBRUARY 18, 2004 181

Cordero vs. Enriquez
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175ca0f0a4366370b51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8