Jose v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a petition filed by Danilo Omega seeking to declare his marriage to Criselda F. Jose null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 22, granted the petition, declaring the marriage void and awarding custody of the three children to the plaintiff, Danilo Omega. Procedural History: Following the Regional Trial Court's decision on November 14, 1994, Criselda F. Jose, without the assistance of her counsel from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), filed a Notice of Appeal on December 7, 1994. The Court of Appeals sent a notice to pay the docket fee to her counsel, Atty. Margarito D. Yap, which he received. However, the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on October 24, 1995, due to the failure to pay the docket fee within the reglementary period. An Entry of Judgment was issued on May 9, 1996, certifying that the dismissal had become final and executory as of December 1, 1995. Criselda, through new counsel, later filed a Motion for Leave to File Omnibus Motions/Motion to Reinstate Appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on December 16, 1996, as the dismissal had already become final. Her subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner Criselda F. Jose filed a petition with the Supreme Court, erroneously entitled as a Petition for Review on Certiorari, but which should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The petition argues that the Court of Appeals committed grave error in denying her motion to reinstate the appeal, asserting a violation of her constitutional right to due process. Specifically, she questions whether she was validly served notice to pay the docketing fee and notice of the resolution dismissing her appeal, given that she appealed the case herself without counsel. She also questions the denial of her motion to reinstate the appeal.
Issue(s)
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WHO APPEALED HER CASE BY HERSELF WITHOUT COUNSEL WAS VALIDLY SERVED WITH NOTICE TO PAY THE DOCKETING FEE AND NOTICE OF THE RESOLUTION DISMISSING HER APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE DOCKETING FEE. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE OMNIBUS MOTIONS/MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL AND THE OMNIBUS MOTIONS/MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for leave of court to file omnibus motions or motion to reinstate appeal. Its Resolution dated October 24, 1995 dismissing petitioner’s appeal had become final and executory as of December 1, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of valid service of notice to pay docketing fee and notice of dismissal: The Court held that Atty. Margarito Yap, the counsel of record from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), was properly sent the notice to pay the docket fees by the appellate court. Since petitioner Criselda F. Jose did not file a formal notice of withdrawal of appearance for Atty. Yap or the PAO, Atty. Yap remained the counsel of record for all intents and purposes concerning the appeal. Therefore, the appellate court acted correctly in sending the notice to Atty. Yap, and the petitioner is bound by the mistakes, negligence, or omissions of her counsel. Section 22, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court presumes that an attorney who appears in a lower court continues to represent the client on appeal unless a formal withdrawal is filed in the appellate court. The petitioner's claim of not receiving notice was insufficient to overcome the presumption of proper service to her counsel of record. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' denial of the motion to reinstate the appeal: The Court found no cogent reason to be liberal in the present case. Payment of docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply renders the judgment final and executory. While the Court may allow liberal construction of the Rules of Court on equitable considerations in certain instances to serve the demands of justice, this is not applicable here. The petitioner failed to pursue her appeal for almost two years, only inquiring about its status after one year and five months from filing the notice of appeal. Furthermore, she failed to show that her appeal was extremely meritorious or that depriving her of it would unduly affect her substantial rights. Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reinstate the appeal, as the dismissal resolution had already become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reinstate the appeal when the docket fees were not paid within the reglementary period, as the counsel of record was properly notified and no formal withdrawal of appearance was filed.