This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In this regard, the Court's pronouncement in Natonton v. Magaway[36] is apropros: As held by the Court in Gregorio v. Court of Appeals (70 SCRA 546 [1976]), "(T)he expiration of the time to file brief, unlike lateness in filing the notice of appeal, appeal bond or record on appeal is not a jurisdictional matter and may be waived by the parties. Even after the expiration of the time fixed for the filing of the brief, the reviewing court may grant an extension of time, at least where no motion to dismiss has been made. Late filing or service of briefs may be excused where no material injury has been suffered by the appellee by reason of the delay or where there is no contention that the appellee's cause was prejudiced." | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Natonton v. Magaway,[33] this Court deemed it proper to underscore once more that the dismissal of an appeal for the late filing of the appellant's brief is discretionary upon the court, depending on the circumstances surrounding the same:In Carco Motor Sales v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-44609, August 31, 1977, 78 SCRA 526), this Court held: | |||||
|
2007-06-21 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the CA may dismiss an appeal for failure to file appellant's brief on time. It is given the discretion which must be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case.[29] | |||||