G.R. No. L-27156 - JUNE 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-27156June 30, 1967 Alfredo B. Grafil, et al. vs. Jose Y. Feliciano, et al. G.R. No. L-26112June 30, 1967 Republic, et al. vs. Jaime de los Angeles, et al. G.R. No. L-25952June 30, 1967 Margarita Salvador, et al. vs. Andres Sta. Maria, et al. G.R. No. L-25922June 30, 1967 Antonio T. Esperat vs. David P. Avila, et al. G.R. No. L-23307June 30, 1967 Damaso P. Perez, et al. vs. Monetary Board, et al. G.R. No. L-23060June 30, 1967 Beatriz Paterno, et al. vs. Jacoba T. Paterno, et al. G.R. No. L-22710June 30, 1967 Domingo Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22196June 30, 1967 Esteban Morano, et al. vs. Martiniano Vivo G.R. No. L-21780June 30, 1967 Makati Development Corp. vs. Empire Insurance Co. G.R. No. L-21469June 30, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Tividad, et al. G.R. No. L-20555 and L-21449June 30, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Zoilo Castro G.R. No. L-20333June 30, 1967 Emiliano Acuña vs. Batac Producers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20119June 30, 1967 Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Jesus P. Morfe, et al. G.R. No. L-20047June 30, 1967 Petra Hawpia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20024June 30, 1967 Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-18901June 30, 1967 Kabankalan Sugar Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-25860June 29, 1967 Fernando T. Bernad, et al. vs. Alfredo Catolico G.R. No. L-22995June 29, 1967 William Addenbrook y Barker vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21633-34June 29, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. vs. Botelho Shipping Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-21627June 29, 1967 People's Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-21533June 29, 1967 Hermogenes Maramba vs. Nieves de Lozano, et al. G.R. No. L-21511June 29, 1967 Gertrudes Carlos vs. Overseas Factors, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20530June 29, 1967 Manila Surety and Fidelity Company, Inc. vs. Trinidad Teodoro, et al. G.R. No. L-20478June 29, 1967 In re: Nemesio Huang (Uy) Nemesio Huang (Uy) vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20153June 29, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Fulgencio Baquiran A.C. No. 516June 27, 1967 Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. vs. Esteban Degamo A.C. No. 661June 26, 1967 In re: Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. Fernando E. Ricafort vs. Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. G.R. No. L-22979June 26, 1967 Rheem of the Phil., Inc., et al. vs. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et al. G.R. No. L-22796June 26, 1967 Delfin Nario, et al. vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company G.R. No. L-22272June 26, 1967 Antonia Maranan vs. Pascual Perez, et al. G.R. No. L-21888June 26, 1967 Basilia F. vda. de Zaldarriaga vs. Pedro Zaldarriaga, et al. G.R. No. L-21109June 26, 1967 National Shipyards & Steel Corp. vs. Caridad J. Torrento, et al. G.R. No. L-20068June 26, 1967 Edgardo O. Alzate vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-19550June 19, 1967 Harry S. Stonehill, et al. vs. Jose W. Diokno, et al. G.R. No. L-23372June 14, 1967 In re: Int. Est. of Pio Duran Cipriano Duran, et al. vs. Josefina B. Duran G.R. No. L-23678June 6, 1967 Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis, et al. vs. Edward A. Bellis, et al. G.R. No. L-22580 and L-22950June 6, 1967 Allied Workers' Association of the Phil. vs. Court of industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-22331June 6, 1967 Maria Bautista vda. de Reyes Rodolfo Lanuza vs. Martin de Leon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Alfredo B. Grafil, et al. vs. Jose Y. Feliciano, et al. Republic, et al. vs. Jaime de los Angeles, et al. Margarita Salvador, et al. vs. Andres Sta. Maria, et al. Antonio T. Esperat vs. David P. Avila, et al. Damaso P. Perez, et al. vs. Monetary Board, et al. Beatriz Paterno, et al. vs. Jacoba T. Paterno, et al. Domingo Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Esteban Morano, et al. vs. Martiniano Vivo Makati Development Corp. vs. Empire Insurance Co. People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Tividad, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Zoilo Castro Emiliano Acuña vs. Batac Producers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc., et al. Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Jesus P. Morfe, et al. Petra Hawpia vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. Kabankalan Sugar Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Fernando T. Bernad, et al. vs. Alfredo Catolico William Addenbrook y Barker vs. People of the Philippines Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. vs. Botelho Shipping Corp., et al. People's Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Hermogenes Maramba vs. Nieves de Lozano, et al. Gertrudes Carlos vs. Overseas Factors, Inc., et al. Manila Surety and Fidelity Company, Inc. vs. Trinidad Teodoro, et al. In re: Nemesio Huang (Uy) Nemesio Huang (Uy) vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Fulgencio Baquiran Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. vs. Esteban Degamo In re: Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. Fernando E. Ricafort vs. Jose G. Baltazar, Jr. Rheem of the Phil., Inc., et al. vs. Zoilo R. Ferrer, et al. Delfin Nario, et al. vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company Antonia Maranan vs. Pascual Perez, et al. Basilia F. vda. de Zaldarriaga vs. Pedro Zaldarriaga, et al. National Shipyards & Steel Corp. vs. Caridad J. Torrento, et al. Edgardo O. Alzate vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. Harry S. Stonehill, et al. vs. Jose W. Diokno, et al. In re: Int. Est. of Pio Duran Cipriano Duran, et al. vs. Josefina B. Duran Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis, et al. vs. Edward A. Bellis, et al. Allied Workers' Association of the Phil. vs. Court of industrial Relations, et al. Maria Bautista vda. de Reyes Rodolfo Lanuza vs. Martin de Leon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-27156             June 30, 1967

ALFREDO B. GRAFIL and LRM MINING COMPANY,petitioners-appellants,
vs.
THE HON. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources;
THE HON. FERNANDO S. BUSUEGO, as Director of Mines and the MANILA MINING CORPORATION,respondent appellees.

Eriberto D. Ignacio and Armando D. Ignacio for petitioners-appellants.
Abraham F. Sarmiento for respondent-appellee Manila Mining Corporation.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al.

R E S O L U T I O N

CASTRO,J.:

In a protest filed with the Bureau of Mines on July 9, 1959, the Manila Mining Corporation charged that the mining, claims of Alfredo B. Grafil were made to overlap 26 of its 147 claims in barrio Del Pilar in Cabadbaran, Agusan, in order to create a conflict, contrary to section 57 of the Mining Act, Com. Act 137. Manila Mining asked that Grafil and his men be restrained from invading its property.

Grafil denied the charge and contended that if there was an overlapping of claims the situation was brought about by Manila Mining which had moved its claims from their original location to where his claims were. The LRM Mining Company later intervened to assert common interest in the claims in dispute.

The Bureau of Mines found no overlapping and upheld Grafil and LRM Mining's right to preference in the lease of the area covered by the claims. On appeal, however, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reversed the decision of the Bureau after finding that 72 of Grafil's claims did in fact overlap those of Manila Mining. It was held that while Grafil had earlier located his claims, he had not made a valid location for the reason that the claims were at the time held by another party, and that on the other hand the location of the same mining claims by Manila Mining, while subsequent to that of Grafil, was made after the right of the former owner had expired.1äwphï1.ñët

Failing to secure a reconsideration of the decision of the Secretary, Grafil and LRM Mining filed in the Court of First Instance of Agusan a petition for review, naming the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resource, the Director of Mines and Manila Mining as respondents. But on motion of Manila Mining the case was dismissed by the court on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture.¹

A copy of the order of dismissal, dated May 8, 1965, was received by Attorney Jose G. Montilla, counsel for Grafil and LRM Mining, on May 28. On June 9 Atty. Montilla filed a motion for reconsideration which the court denied in its order of July 10. A copy of this order was sent by registered mail to Atty. Montilla at his given address at 204 Cinerama Building, Claro M. Recto Avenue, Manila, but despite three notices given him by the Manila Post Office on July 27, August 9 and August 17, counsel failed to claim the mail with the result that it was returned to the court on September 10. In the meantime, Atty. Montilla notified the Agusan court that he had moved office to 304 AIU Building, Juan Luna, Manila. The notice was dated August 30, and was received by the court on September 2.

It was only on February 25, 1966 that the mail containing a copy of the order of July 10, 1965 was finally claimed by Atty. Montilla who personally went to Butuan City. On February 28 he appealed the orders of May 8 and July 10, 1965.

Manila Mining asked for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the appeal was late and that the orders sought to be appealed had become final, but the court denied the motion and instead directed the clerk to forward the records to this Court.

Manila Mining now reiterates its motion to dismiss the appeal.

The motion is well taken. The thirty-day period²for appealing from the order of May 8, 1965 began to run on May 29, a day after Grafil and LRM Mining received through counsel a copy of the order. The filing of a motion for reconsideration on June 9 suspended the running of the period until August 2 (i.e., five days after the first notice sent by the post office on July 27) when, pursuant to section 8 of Rule 13,³Grafil and LRM Mining must be deemed to have been served a copy of the July 10, 1965 order denying their motion for reconsideration. Since the parties had only eighteen more days left, the period of appeal, expired on August 20. The result is that on February 28, 1966, when Grafil and LRM Mining tried to perfect their appeal, the order from which they were appealing had already become final.

The claim that Atty. Montilla did not receive any of the notices sent to him on July 27, August 9 and August 17, 1965 does not inspire belief. We cannot see how he could have missed any of the three notices which, according to the Chief of the Registry Division of the Manila Post Office, had been sent to him. Between the denial of a party and the assertion of an official whose, duty it is to send notices, the choice should not be difficult to make. As this Court said in disposing of a similar contention:⁴

The claim should be rejected for being unworthy of belief, let alone for being contrary to the statement of postal officials who have in their favor the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. Indeed, the rule in section 8 of Rule 13 is a rule of convenience. Nothing much would be left of this rule if, even in the face of official certification to the contrary, parties were permitted to deny the central idea around which it is built, namely, receipt of the postmaster's notice.

Nor may the transfer of counsel's office be used as excuse for failing to claim the mail, considering that the transfer, by counsel's own admission, did not take place until the last week of August, 1965 whereas the third and last notice was sent to him on August 17.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes