In their decision, Associate Justice Alexandro Castro, Justices Pro-Tempore Katherine Maraman and Herbert D. Soll denied the motion of Felipe Q. Atalig, doing business as Casa de Felipe, and Elvira Custodio Atalig.
The Commonwealth Development Authority sued the appellants for non-payment of a loan amounting to $26,684. The trial court has issued a judgment in favor of CDA.
On March 13, 2008, the appellants requested a settlement conference, but before granting their request, the court determined it necessary to establish whether settlement was a realistic possibility or whether it would merely cause added delay and expense.
The case was set for preliminary settlement conference where both parties identified a potential settlement option and agreed to pursue it informally outside a court-facilitated settlement conference.
The appellants were granted an additional 30 days, or a total of 70 days from the date of the preliminary settlement conference to file their opening brief if the settlement was unsuccessful.
On June 10, 2008, when the appellants had to file their brief, they filed a motion to extend time, which the court denied.
The high court said the appellants did not move the court to file a late brief, and took no other action to file their appeal.
The Supreme Court stated that “a motion to extend time for filing a brief may be granted only upon written motion supported by a showing of diligence and substantial need.”
The Supreme Court decision further stated that “the motion must be supported by an affidavit that includes a statement that opposing counsel does or does not object to the extension or why the moving party has been unable to determine any such party’s position.”
The high court stated that the appellants’ motion lacked merit.
The appellants requested an additional 90 days to file their brief, which is more than double the 40 days provided by law.
The decision stated that the language of the appellants’ counsel, Ramon Quichocho, amounted to little more than saying, “I’m too busy right now.”
This shows a lack of respect for the court and the opposing party, and it lacks the detailed explanation necessary to support appellants’ requested 90-day extension, the high court stated.
The justices said if the appellants asked for an additional day, two days or even a week, the court might be persuaded that they honestly needed more time to file a brief, but 90 days made it clear that the appellants were not diligently laboring to meet their deadline.
The Supreme Court said over nine months have passed since the court denied the appellants’ motion to extend time but the appellants did not file a timely brief or a motion requesting permission to file a late brief. They also did not explain their delay or pursue their appeal.
