G.R. No. L-39124 November 15, 1974
DON LINO GUTIERREZ & SONS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JESUS ALVENDIA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a 1963 compromise judgment rendered by the Manila City Court in favor of Don Lino Gutierrez & Sons, Inc. against Jesus Alvendia. In 1968, the corporation sued to revive this judgment. The City Court ruled for the corporation, and Alvendia appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. The CFI, after a trial de novo, affirmed the judgment with modifications on June 5, 1973. Throughout these proceedings, Atty. Escolastico Viola was Alvendia’s counsel of record, with the law firm of Baizas, Alberto & Associates, through Atty. Rodolfo A. Espiritu, collaborating. Alvendia, through Viola, appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court notified Viola on February 28, 1974, to pay docket fees and file printed records within specified periods. Alvendia failed to comply, leading the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal on May 3, 1974.
On June 26, 1974, forty-nine days after service of the dismissal order on Viola, Alvendia, through Atty. Espiritu, moved for reconsideration. He argued that Viola had ceased to be his counsel since September 1973, replaced by Atty. Crispin D. Baizas, who died in January 1974, causing the oversight. The motion was verified by Alvendia and Viola, with Viola admitting he received the notice but “did not give any importance to it.” The petitioner corporation opposed, contending Viola remained counsel of record, no formal substitution was filed, and the dismissal had become final. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and reinstated the appeal on July 15, 1974, prompting the corporation to file this petition for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating Alvendia’s appeal after its dismissal for failure to comply with procedural requirements.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on strict adherence to procedural rules governing appeals. Under Rules 46 and 50 of the Rules of Court, failure to pay docket fees and file required printed records within reglementary periods is a ground for dismissal. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal motu proprio for such failure. The negligence of Atty. Viola, as counsel of record, is binding upon Alvendia. In the absence of a formal withdrawal or substitution of counsel filed with the court, Viola remained the counsel of record entitled to receive notices, and his neglect imputed to the client. His claim that he assumed the Baizas firm was also notified is flimsy and does not excuse non-compliance. Furthermore, the death of Atty. Baizas did not justify the failure, as Atty. Espiritu, who was collaborating, could have attended to the appeal but did not enter a formal appearance. The Court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with procedural periods to prevent evasion through manufactured excuses. Relaxing the rules under these circumstances would render time limits inutile. Thus, the reinstatement constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the reinstatement resolution and affirmed the dismissal of Alvendia’s appeal.