Don Lino Gutierrez & Sons, Inc. v. Alvendia
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a 1963 compromise judgment rendered by the City Court of Manila in a case between Don Lino Gutierrez & Sons, Inc. and Jesus Alvendia. In 1968, the corporation initiated a new action to revive this judgment, which the City Court again ruled in favor of the corporation. Alvendia appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance of Manila. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila conducted a trial de novo and affirmed the City Court's judgment with modifications. Alvendia, represented by counsel Escolastico Viola, appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals via a record on appeal. The Clerk of Court notified Viola and the petitioner's counsel about the forwarding of the record. The Court of Appeals subsequently issued a notice to Viola, requiring payment of docket and legal research fees within fifteen days and the filing of forty copies of the printed record on appeal within sixty days, warning of dismissal for non-compliance. Viola received this notice but allegedly did not prioritize it as he believed he was no longer Alvendia's counsel. Due to non-compliance, the Court of Appeals dismissed Alvendia's appeal. Later, Alvendia, through new counsel Rodolfo A. Espiritu, filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting Viola had ceased to be his counsel and that another attorney was to handle the appeal. The Court of Appeals granted this motion, reinstated the appeal, and later denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Don Lino Gutierrez & Sons, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' resolution that reinstated Alvendia's appeal and to compel the Court of Appeals to remand the case for execution of the judgment. The petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in reinstating the appeal, citing Alvendia's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for perfecting an appeal, specifically the timely payment of docket fees and the filing of the printed record on appeal, as stipulated in Rules 50 and 46 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner contended that Alvendia was bound by his counsel's negligence and that the appeal had become final and should have been dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Alvendia's appeal despite his failure to comply with the notice to pay docket and legal research fees and to file the printed record on appeal within the reglementary periods. Whether Alvendia is bound by the negligence of his counsel of record.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated July 15, 1974, which reinstated the appeal of respondent Jesus Alvendia, and affirmed the resolution of May 3, 1974, dismissing his appeal for failure to pay the docket and legal research fees within the reglementary period. Costs were against Alvendia.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Alvendia's appeal: The Court held that the CA did not err in dismissing Alvendia's appeal motu proprio for failure to pay the docket fee and submit the printed record on appeal within the prescribed periods, citing Rules 50 and 46 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal is a consequence of the appellant's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for perfecting an appeal. The Court emphasized that the periods for performing acts incident to an appeal must be strictly complied with, and transgressions thereof are generally not tolerated, lest the periods become inutile through subterfuges and manufactured excuses. Reinstating the appeal under these circumstances constituted a grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of whether Alvendia is bound by the negligence of his counsel of record: The Court ruled that Alvendia is bound by the negligence of his lawyer, Attorney Viola. Viola was negligent in not informing Alvendia of the notice to pay fees and file the record on appeal, and also in not formally withdrawing as counsel or informing the CA that another lawyer had taken over. In the absence of a formal withdrawal, Viola remained the counsel of record. Viola's claim that he did not give importance to the notice because he was no longer counsel and assumed the other law office was also notified was deemed flimsy. The Court reiterated the principle that a client is bound by the actions and omissions of his counsel. Furthermore, even if Atty. Baizas' office was supposed to handle the appeal, the death of Atty. Baizas did not excuse the associates from attending to the appeal, especially since Atty. Espiritu was collaborating with Viola and did not file a formal appearance in the CA. The Court also noted that notice to one of two attorneys is sufficient.
Main Doctrine
A party is bound by the negligence of his counsel of record. Failure to pay the docket fee and file the printed record on appeal within the reglementary period, as notified to the counsel of record, constitutes an abandonment of the appeal, and the dismissal thereof by the Court of Appeals is a valid exercise of its discretion, which will not be disturbed absent grave abuse.