1970 / Feb

G.R. No. L-23065 - FEBRUARY 1970 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-23065 February 16, 1970 Pedro Babala vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-23514 February 17, 1970 The People of the Philippines vs. Avelino Manansala, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-24857 February 17, 1970 In Re: Francisco Sy vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21064 February 18, 1970 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo Concurring & Dissenting OpinionJustice Teehankee G.R. No. L-25499 February 18, 1970 Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-25602 February 18, 1970 Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-26292 February 18, 1970 Santiago Virginia Tobacco Planters Asso., Inc. vs. Philippines Virginia Tobacco Administration, et al. G.R. No. L-26557 February 18, 1970 American Wire & Cable Company vs. Director of Patents, et al. G.R. No. L-27514 February 18, 1970 Fausto D. Laquian vs. Jose L. Baltazar, et al. G.R. No. L-27587 February 18, 1970 Amado Carumba vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970 In Re: Raul Almacen. Antonio Calero vs. Virginia Y. Yaptinchay G.R. No. L-28780 February 18, 1970 Rosalinda E. Meris, et al. vs. Domingo Cuesta, et al G.R. No. L-29374 February 18, 1970 Faustino Razalan, et al. vs. Alfonso D. Concepcion, et al. G.R. No. L-30098 February 18, 1970 Commissioner of Public Highways, et al. vs. Lourdes P. San Diego, et al. G.R. No. L-30773 February 18, 1970 Felixberto C. Sta. Maria vs. Salvador P. Lopez, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Castro Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo G.R. No. L-31218 February 18, 1970 Juan Vera, et al. vs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-31566 February 18, 1970 Rogelio O. Tiglao vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-31687 February 26, 1970 Navarro vs. Antonio J. Villegas G.R. No. L-23079 February 27, 1970 Ruben Austria, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-23614 February 27, 1970 Pedro M. Bermejo vs. Isidro Barrios, et al. G.R. No. L-25926 February 27, 1970 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Cirilo D. Constantino, et al. G.R. No. L-26336 February 27, 1970 Lino G. David, et al. vs. Arturo B. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-26719 February 27, 1970 Philippine American Life Insurance Company vs. Honorato R. Santamaria, et al. G.R. No. L-26900 February 27, 1970 R.C. Ledesma vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-27828 February 27, 1970 San Miguel Corporation vs. Macario Cruz, et al. G.R. Nos. L-27680-81 February 27, 1970 People of the Philippines vs. Openiano Pajenado The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Pedro Babala vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The People of the Philippines vs. Avelino Manansala, Jr., et al. In Re: Francisco Sy vs. Republic of the Philippines J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo Concurring & Dissenting OpinionJustice Teehankee Villa Rey Transit, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Republic Flour Mills, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. Santiago Virginia Tobacco Planters Asso., Inc. vs. Philippines Virginia Tobacco Administration, et al. American Wire & Cable Company vs. Director of Patents, et al. Fausto D. Laquian vs. Jose L. Baltazar, et al. Amado Carumba vs. Court of Appeals, et al. In Re: Raul Almacen. Antonio Calero vs. Virginia Y. Yaptinchay Rosalinda E. Meris, et al. vs. Domingo Cuesta, et al Faustino Razalan, et al. vs. Alfonso D. Concepcion, et al. Commissioner of Public Highways, et al. vs. Lourdes P. San Diego, et al. Felixberto C. Sta. Maria vs. Salvador P. Lopez, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Castro Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo Juan Vera, et al. vs. People of the Philippines, et al. Rogelio O. Tiglao vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Navarro vs. Antonio J. Villegas Ruben Austria, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Pedro M. Bermejo vs. Isidro Barrios, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Cirilo D. Constantino, et al. Lino G. David, et al. vs. Arturo B. Santos, et al. Philippine American Life Insurance Company vs. Honorato R. Santamaria, et al. R.C. Ledesma vs. Public Service Commission, et al. San Miguel Corporation vs. Macario Cruz, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Openiano Pajenado The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23065 February 16, 1970

PEDRO BABALA,petitioner,
vs.
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.

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 vs. 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, 1964, 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 forcertiorarito overturn the Court of Appeals' resolutions of April 8, May 6 and May 26, 1964, andmandamusto compel reinstatement of the appeal.ℒαwρhi৷

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."1Controlling here isEnriquez vs. 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 note worthy 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."

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.

Footnotes

1Baring vs. Cabahug, L-23229, July 20, 1967, 20, SCRA 696, 699; Colcol vs. Philippine Bank of Commerce, L-21137, November 17, 1967, 21 SCRA 890, 892.