GR 129090; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129090. April 30, 2003
RICARDO B. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE HEIRS OF CONSOLACION C. DE GUZMAN, respondents.
FACTS
Dr. Consolacion C. de Guzman filed a complaint for damages against Dr. Ricardo B. Gonzales based on five causes of action, including her alleged demotion and the filing of various administrative and criminal cases against her. The Regional Trial Court ruled in de Guzman’s favor, awarding her substantial damages. Gonzales appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court sent a notice via registered mail to Gonzales’s counsel, Atty. Ruben Almadro, on February 21, 1996, requiring the filing of an appellant’s brief within 45 days from receipt. According to a postmaster’s certification, the notice was received at Almadro’s residence on February 26, 1996, making the deadline April 11, 1996.
Atty. Almadro filed a motion for extension of time to file the brief only on July 12, 1996, three months after the deadline had lapsed. He explained that he discovered the unopened notice only on July 11, 1996, while transferring office files, surmising it had been received by a former househelp who failed to alert him. He subsequently filed the appellant’s brief on August 10, 1996. De Guzman moved to dismiss the appeal for filing the extension motion out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief and in dismissing the appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with procedural rules, specifically Section 15, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a motion for extension of time to file a brief must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. The motion filed by petitioner’s counsel was submitted 92 days after the original deadline had expired, rendering it procedurally infirm and rightly denied.
The Court emphasized that counsel’s negligence was not excusable. A lawyer is required to adopt an efficient and orderly system for receiving and attending to judicial notices. Entrusting this duty to household help without proper supervision and failing to check on the status of an appeal for approximately a year demonstrate a lack of the vigilance expected of a legal professional. The negligence of counsel binds the client; thus, the dismissal of the appeal was a proper consequence. The appellate court’s resolution was in accordance with law and jurisprudence, and no grave abuse of discretion attended its issuance.