G.R. No. 105818 September 17, 1993
ELOISA, CARLOS, JR., ARCHIMEDES, CAROLINE, and MA. CARLOTA, all surnamed ARAMBULO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ENGR. DANILO G. FERRERAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners (the Arambulo spouses) and private respondent Danilo G. Ferreras were parties to a construction contract. Ferreras filed a case (Civil Case No. 5301) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City to claim unpaid balances and additional costs. Initially represented by Atty. Romeo P. Pineda, petitioners later designated Atty. Jose Jimenez, Jr. through a special power of attorney, who then actively handled the case, including appearances and pleadings. The RTC ruled in favor of Ferreras on January 30, 1991. On February 7, 1991, petitioners, through Atty. Jimenez, filed a notice of appeal. On February 12, 1991, Atty. Jimenez filed a “Withdrawal of Appearance” with petitioners’ consent, and Atty. Pineda filed an “Appearance” as new counsel. The RTC records were elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), where the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 32348. On June 19, 1991, the CA’s Judicial Records Division sent a notice to pay docket fees to Atty. Jimenez only, not to Atty. Pineda. Atty. Jimenez received the notice on July 9, 1991, but no payment was made. On November 11, 1991, the CA dismissed the appeal for failure to pay docket fees. Copies of this resolution and subsequent entry of judgment were sent only to Atty. Jimenez. Upon remand to the RTC, Ferreras moved for execution. Petitioners, through Atty. Pineda, filed a motion with the CA to reconsider, reinstate the appeal, and accept the docket fee (which they paid on March 12, 1992). The CA denied the motion on June 8, 1992, citing finality of the dismissal and remand of records. Petitioners filed this petition, arguing denial of due process due to defective service of notices.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for failure to pay docket fees, considering that the notice to pay was sent only to Atty. Jimenez, who had already withdrawn as counsel, and not to Atty. Pineda, the counsel of record.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition partly meritorious. It ruled that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal solely for non-payment of docket fees because the notice was not served on the counsel of record, Atty. Pineda. Under the Rules of Court, when a party is represented by counsel, all notices must be sent to the counsel, and notice to counsel is notice to the client. Atty. Jimenez’s withdrawal, filed with the trial court with petitioners’ consent, was effective without need for court approval under Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, Atty. Pineda became the counsel of record, and service of the notice to pay docket fees on Atty. Jimenez was invalid and did not bind petitioners. However, the Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, concurring with the dismissal of the appeal for another reason implied in the decision (though not explicitly detailed in the provided text, the Court indicated that concurrence in the result was inevitable based on the circumstances). The petition was DENIED. No costs.