"x x x.
The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the Civil Service Commission’s appeal for failure to file the required memorandum
Failure to comply with the Rules or with any order of the court is a ground to dismiss the action.54 Specifically on the appellant’s failure to file a memorandum with the Court of Appeals, Rule 44, Section 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SEC. 10. Time for filing memoranda in special cases.— In certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases, the parties shall file, in lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice issued by the clerk that all evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record.
The failure of the appellant tofile his memorandum within the period therefor may be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
Rule 50, Section 1 reiterates that the appellant’s failure to file the required memorandum within the reglementary period is a ground for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal:
SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.— An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals,on its motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
. . . .
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules[.]
In this case, the Court of Appeals ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda. Instead of filing the memorandum, the Regional Office requested additional 30 days to file the pleading. The additional period requested lapsed without the Regional Office filing the required memorandum. The Court of Appeals, therefore, correctly dismissed the appeal.
That "the case was not properly calendared in the list of due dates of the . . . Associate
Solicitor [handling the case]"55 and the Associate Solicitor’s "overwhelming workload"56 do not justify counsel’s failure to file the memorandum on behalf of the Regional Office. We have ruled that heavy workload is no excuse for failure to comply with the reglementary periods under the Rules.57
x x x."
G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014
ATTY. ANACLETO B. BUENA, JR., MNSA, in his capacity as
Regional Director of Regional Office No. XVI, Civil Service Commission,
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Cotabato City, Petitioner, vs. DR.
SANGCAD D. BENITO, Respondent.
