GR 23065; (February, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23065 February 16, 1970
PEDRO BABALA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PATRICIO CANELA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pedro Babala appealed a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. The Court of Appeals sent a notice by registered mail to his counsel, Atty. Edmundo A. Narra, requiring payment of the docket fee within 15 days and filing of the printed record on appeal within 60 days. The registry notices were addressed to counsel’s office at the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. The first notice was received by a bookkeeper, Nicolas Lamadrid, on February 13, 1964, and the second by an assistant manager, Rebecca B. Abilgos, on February 24, 1964. Both times, counsel was out of the office, and the registered mail was not claimed from the post office. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on April 8, 1964, for failure to pay the docketing fee. Motions for reconsideration were denied on May 6 and May 26, 1964. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to overturn the dismissal and compel reinstatement of the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal due to counsel’s failure to pay the docket fee, allegedly because he did not receive the registry notices.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, holding that no grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Court reiterated the established rule that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system ensuring efficient receipt of all court notices. Citing Enriquez vs. Bautista, the Court emphasized that counsel’s failure to receive notices due to absence from his address of record is inexcusable. Here, counsel admitted he had no regular clerk in his office and claimed to be a “small practitioner,” but the Court found this unacceptable, especially since the notices were received by responsible bank employees at his office address. Counsel’s negligence was inexcusable. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal and the denial of reconsideration were proper. The petition was denied, with no costs.