Palteng v. Respicio
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves two separate ejectment cases initiated by Florentina Respicio and Rosa Mallabo against Dionisio Palteng, Dionisio Valdez, Andres Caliguiran, Regidor Basilio, Ernesto Britos, and Simplicio Cadiente. The Justice of the Peace Court of Gamu, Isabela, ruled against the defendants, who then appealed to the Court of First Instance of Isabela. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Isabela jointly tried the two cases, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 1174 and 1204. On May 31, 1962, the trial court again ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to vacate the lands, pay damages for lost produce since 1957, and cover attorney's fees. The defendants appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, filing their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, which were approved and the records transmitted. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' resolutions dismissing their cases for failure to pay docket fees. They argue that the dismissal constituted a grave abuse of discretion because the notice to pay fees was sent to their original trial counsel, Atty. Pacifico Capuchino, instead of their appellate counsel, Atty. Teodulo E. Mirasol, who filed the appeal documents. The petitioners contend that service on Atty. Capuchino was ineffective as Atty. Mirasol should have been considered the counsel of record for the appeal. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeals for failure to pay docket fees when the notice to pay was allegedly served on the wrong counsel. Whether service of notice to pay docket fees on the original counsel of record in the trial court is valid when a new counsel has filed the notice of appeal and record on appeal, without formal substitution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the resolutions of dismissal were valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the petitioners' argument lacked merit. It was undisputed that Atty. Capuchino was the petitioners' counsel of record in the trial court. While Atty. Mirasol filed the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, there was no formal relief of Atty. Capuchino or formal substitution by Atty. Mirasol. Consequently, on record, the defendants-appellants were considered represented by both attorneys. The Court cited Section 2 of Revised Rule 46, which states that attorneys of record in the court below are considered attorneys in the Court of Appeals, and that notice of any change must be served on the adverse party and filed with the Court. The absence of such formal notification meant that both attorneys were still considered counsel for the petitioners. On Issue 2: The Court reiterated the principle that where a party is represented by two attorneys, service of notice or pleading on either of them is sufficient to bind such party. Therefore, the notice to pay docket fees sent to Atty. Capuchino was considered proper and adequate notice to the defendants (petitioners). Their failure to pay the docket fees, a mandatory requirement for the perfection of an appeal, constituted a valid ground for dismissal by the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that if Atty. Mirasol was indeed engaged to replace Atty. Capuchino, the provisions of Section 2, Revised Rule 46, and Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court regarding formal substitution should have been complied with. Since these were not followed, the service on Atty. Capuchino was legally binding on the petitioners, and the Court of Appeals acted correctly in dismissing the appeals.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an appeal by the Court of Appeals due to the non-payment of docket fees. The Court held that notice to pay docket fees sent to the original counsel of record in the trial court was valid, even though a new counsel had filed the notice of appeal and record on appeal, because there was no formal substitution of attorneys. The Court emphasized that under the Rules of Court, service on either of two attorneys of record is sufficient, and failure to comply with the notice for payment of docket fees warrants dismissal.