When the Court May Excuse a Late Appellant's Brief: Licup v. People

The Rules of Court require an appellant to file a brief within the period set by the Court of Appeals, and a failure to do so generally leads to dismissal of the appeal. In Licup v. People (G.R. No. 268658, February 26, 2026), the Supreme Court reminded litigants and courts alike that this rule is not absolute. Where a person's liberty hangs in the balance and the opposing party suffers no real prejudice, the interest of substantial justice may justify admitting a belated brief.

The facts of the case

Roberto Licup was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Dangerous Drugs Act. He filed a notice of appeal and was later directed by the Court of Appeals to file his appellant's brief within thirty days from receipt of notice, which he received on January 7, 2022.

Licup filed his brief and sent copies to the Office of the Solicitor General through LBC courier on January 13, 2022. The courier, however, failed to deliver the copy to the court. Licup learned of this only after the Court of Appeals issued a resolution in May 2022 declaring the appeal abandoned and dismissing it under Rule 124, Section 8 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

What the appellate court held

The Court of Appeals denied Licup's motion for reconsideration. It reasoned that because LBC was not yet an accredited courier at the time of mailing, the brief was deemed filed only on the date of actual receipt, even if it had been posted earlier. It also noted that Licup had ample time to file, that the courts in the National Capital Region were physically closed for part of January 2022 with deadlines extended, and that litigants are bound by their own and their counsel's lack of vigilance.

The issue before the Supreme Court

The question was whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to admit the belated appellant's brief.

The Court's ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It agreed with two preliminary points: that filing through a private, unaccredited courier is treated like ordinary mail, with the date of actual receipt deemed the date of filing, and that failure to file the required brief may be a ground for dismissal under Rule 124, Section 8.

Nevertheless, the Court held that procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice. It relied on its 2008 decision in Government of the Kingdom of Belgium v. Court of Appeals (574 Phil. 380), which set out guidelines on dismissal for failure to file an appellant's brief. Among these: the power to dismiss is discretionary, not mandatory; late filing does not automatically dismiss an appeal; and the appellate court may still allow the appeal where equity justifies an exception, no material injury was suffered by the appellee, and the delay was for a reasonable period. The Court also cited CMTC International Marketing Corp. v. Bhagis International Trading Corp. (700 Phil. 575, 2012) and Nolasco v. Purence Reality Corporation (931 Phil. 205, 2022).

The Court found that dismissing the appeal would result in the permanent deprivation of Licup's liberty, and that the Office of the Solicitor General was not prejudiced—it had received a copy of the brief and had even asked for more time to file its appellee's brief. The Court also considered that the filing took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts and post offices were forced to close for extended periods.

Grave abuse of discretion, the Court explained, arises when a court acts capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily, or despotically, evading a positive duty or refusing to perform a legal obligation. It may also occur where there is a gross misapprehension of facts. The Court stressed that the right to life and liberty enjoys primacy in the hierarchy of rights.

The Court nullified the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, remanded the case for further proceedings, and directed that it be prioritized and expedited because Licup is a detainee.

Practical takeaways

• A late appellant's brief does not automatically doom an appeal. The Court of Appeals has discretion to dismiss or to allow the appeal, and that discretion must be exercised with equity in mind.
• Filing through a courier that is not accredited by the courts is treated like ordinary mail: the brief is deemed filed on the date it is actually received, not the date it was sent.
• Litigants should confirm actual receipt by the court, not merely rely on delivery to the opposing party or on tracking portals after the fact.
• Where the consequence of dismissal is loss of liberty or property, and the opposing party has not been prejudiced, courts may relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice.
• In criminal appeals, procedural deadlines are enforced strictly, but the Supreme Court has shown willingness to correct dismissals that ignore the gravity of the stakes.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.