February 1970 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > February 1970 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-23065 February 16, 1970 - PEDRO BABALA v. COURT OF APPEALS:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-23065. February 16, 1970.]
PEDRO BABALA, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PATRICIO CANELA, Respondents.
Edmundo A. Narra, Generoso F. Obusan and Leon L. Asa for Petitioner.
Marciano C. Dating, Jr. respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; DISMISSAL, FAILURE TO PAY DOCKET FEE AS A RESULT OF FAILURE TO RECEIVE NOTICE PERTAINING THERETO. — Where counsel for the appellant failed to claim the registered letter containing the notice to pay docket fee, despite the two notices sent to his office and was received by two responsible persons, both working in the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc., where his office is also located, the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the docketing fee.
2. ID.; ATTORNEYS; CHANGE OF ADDRESS; DUTY TO ADOPT SYSTEM TO INSURE RECEIPT OF NOTICES. — An attorney who does not stay in one place permanently owes it to himself and to his clients to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly all judicial notices during his absence from his address of record.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; BEING A SMALL PRACTITIONER, NOT AN EXCUSE FOR NOT HAVING RECEIVED NOTICES. — Atty. Edmundo A. Narra admits that he has not made provision for a regular clerk in his office. His excuse that he was "a small practitioner" is unacceptable. The fact that he holds his office at the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. and that the two persons who at different times received the two registry notices in question both hold responsible positions in the bank, do not sit well with his claim that the registry notices were not turned over to him. Counsel’s negligence was inexcusable.
2. ID.; ATTORNEYS; CHANGE OF ADDRESS; DUTY TO ADOPT SYSTEM TO INSURE RECEIPT OF NOTICES. — An attorney who does not stay in one place permanently owes it to himself and to his clients to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly all judicial notices during his absence from his address of record.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; BEING A SMALL PRACTITIONER, NOT AN EXCUSE FOR NOT HAVING RECEIVED NOTICES. — Atty. Edmundo A. Narra admits that he has not made provision for a regular clerk in his office. His excuse that he was "a small practitioner" is unacceptable. The fact that he holds his office at the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. and that the two persons who at different times received the two registry notices in question both hold responsible positions in the bank, do not sit well with his claim that the registry notices were not turned over to him. Counsel’s negligence was inexcusable.
D E C I S I O N
SANCHEZ, J.:
Pursuant to defendant’s appeal from the judgment in Civil Case No. 317 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, entitled "Patricio Canela, Plaintiff v. Pedro Babala, Defendant" the Court of Appeals issued a notice by registered mail for defendant to pay the docket fee in 15 days and to file the printed record on appeal in 60 days, from notice thereof.
The first registry notice coming from the postmaster addressed to defendant’s counsel, Attorney Edmundo A. Narra, and covering the registered mail was received by Nicolas Lamadrid, a bookkeeper, on February 13, 1964, and the second by Rebecca B. Abilgos, an assistant manager, on February 24, 1964, both of the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. where said defendant’s counsel had his office. In both instances, counsel was out of the office. The registered matter was not taken from the post office.
On April 8, 19647 the Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss the appeal "for failure to pay the docketing fee." A motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in its resolution of May 6, 1964. On May 26, 1964, a second motion was likewise overruled.
Defendant comes to this Court on petition for certiorari to overturn the Court of Appeals’ resolutions of April 8, May 6 and May 26, 1964, and mandamus to compel reinstatement of the appeal.
We affirm.
A rule long familiar to practitioners in this jurisdiction is that "it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that efficiently takes into account all court notices sent to him." 1 Controlling here is Enriquez v. Bautista, 79 Phil. 220, 222. There, petitioners’ former counsel allegedly failed to receive any of the three registry notices of the registered letter sent to him by the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Bataan addressed "c/o House of Representatives, Manila." This registered mail contains the third order of the court denying petitioners’ intervention in Special Proceedings No. 1645 of the said court. It was intimated that said attorney failed to get the notices because the House of Representatives was not then in session and he stayed either in Manila or Bataan. We dismissed this excuse as without merit. We said: "It is noteworthy that the registered letter of the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Bataan containing a copy of the order in question was sent to the very address given by petitioners’ attorney in the petition for intervention, and there is no showing that the clerk of court was ever notified by him of any change of address. The excuse that the attorney did not stay in one place permanently, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as an attorney owes it to himself and to his clients to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly all judicial notices during his absence from his address of record."cralaw virtua1aw library
Atty. Edmundo A. Narra, petitioner’s counsel, admits that he has not made provision for a regular clerk in his office. His excuse that he was "a small practitioner" is unacceptable. The facts that he holds his office at the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. and that the two persons who at different times received the two registry notices in question both hold responsible positions in the bank, do not sit with his claim that the registry notices were not turned over to him. Counsel’s negligence was inexcusable. No grave abuse of discretion there was on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal and in refusing to reconsider its resolution of dismissal.
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the resolutions under review are hereby affirmed.
No costs. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar; Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.
The first registry notice coming from the postmaster addressed to defendant’s counsel, Attorney Edmundo A. Narra, and covering the registered mail was received by Nicolas Lamadrid, a bookkeeper, on February 13, 1964, and the second by Rebecca B. Abilgos, an assistant manager, on February 24, 1964, both of the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. where said defendant’s counsel had his office. In both instances, counsel was out of the office. The registered matter was not taken from the post office.
On April 8, 19647 the Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss the appeal "for failure to pay the docketing fee." A motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in its resolution of May 6, 1964. On May 26, 1964, a second motion was likewise overruled.
Defendant comes to this Court on petition for certiorari to overturn the Court of Appeals’ resolutions of April 8, May 6 and May 26, 1964, and mandamus to compel reinstatement of the appeal.
We affirm.
A rule long familiar to practitioners in this jurisdiction is that "it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that efficiently takes into account all court notices sent to him." 1 Controlling here is Enriquez v. Bautista, 79 Phil. 220, 222. There, petitioners’ former counsel allegedly failed to receive any of the three registry notices of the registered letter sent to him by the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Bataan addressed "c/o House of Representatives, Manila." This registered mail contains the third order of the court denying petitioners’ intervention in Special Proceedings No. 1645 of the said court. It was intimated that said attorney failed to get the notices because the House of Representatives was not then in session and he stayed either in Manila or Bataan. We dismissed this excuse as without merit. We said: "It is noteworthy that the registered letter of the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Bataan containing a copy of the order in question was sent to the very address given by petitioners’ attorney in the petition for intervention, and there is no showing that the clerk of court was ever notified by him of any change of address. The excuse that the attorney did not stay in one place permanently, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as an attorney owes it to himself and to his clients to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving promptly all judicial notices during his absence from his address of record."cralaw virtua1aw library
Atty. Edmundo A. Narra, petitioner’s counsel, admits that he has not made provision for a regular clerk in his office. His excuse that he was "a small practitioner" is unacceptable. The facts that he holds his office at the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. and that the two persons who at different times received the two registry notices in question both hold responsible positions in the bank, do not sit with his claim that the registry notices were not turned over to him. Counsel’s negligence was inexcusable. No grave abuse of discretion there was on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal and in refusing to reconsider its resolution of dismissal.
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the resolutions under review are hereby affirmed.
No costs. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar; Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Baring v. Cabahug, L-23229, July 20, 1967, 20 SCRA 696, 699; Colcol Philippine Bank of Commerce, L-21137, November 17, 1967, 21 SCRA 890, 892.
