TAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R 80812 September 2, 1992 FACTS: Petitioner Luz E.

Tan was charged for the crime of Illegal Recruitment under the New Labor Code of the Philippines. She pleaded not guilty during arraignment. The prosecution then presented all its witnesses. The defense wasnt able to present its witness despite several schedules of hearing. Consequently, the trial court declared petitioner to have lost her right to present evidence and the case was deemed submitted for decision. On May 28, 1986, the trial court found the petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner then filed for a Notice of Appeal with the CA and when she could not file her brief within the 30-day reglamentary period, she moved and was granted a 90-day extension until August 12, 1987. On August 4, 1987, petitioner filed an Urgent Manifestation and motion praying that the period for the filing of Appellants Brief be suspended, and that she be given five days (until August 9, 1987) to file a Motion for New Trial. The CA, on August 18, 1987, denied aforesaid Manifestation but granted the filing of a Motion for New Trial provided that the decision of the trial court had not yet become final on account of petitioners failure to file her brief. Petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial on August 24, 1987 which motion was denied by the court. Then, petitioner filed a motion for leave to admit Appellants Brief. This was denied on October 7, 1987. ISSUE Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioners appeal for failure to submit her Appellants Brief, considering that the filing of a motion for a new trial automatically suspends the filing of said brief. RULING: The petition is devoid of merit. Petitioners filing of the Motion for New Trial did not suspend the period for filing appellants brief which was due to expire on August 12, 1987. Such assumption is not supported by the Rules of Court or any other authority. When Tan filed her Motion for New Trial, she did not take any step to file her brief, but simply waited for the resolution of said motion, such being subsequently denied. Petitioner was grossly negligent and had no one to blame but herself in losing her right to appeal since the right to appeal is a statutory right and the party who seeks to avail the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost, as in the case at bar. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit