GR 36088; (May, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36088. May 16, 1973. CORAZON ORTALIS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Corazon Ortalis was convicted of estafa by the City Court of Silay. She appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed her appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief, having sent the notice to file said brief to her counsel, Atty. Ramon H. Garaygay, at “Arroyo Bldg., Lacson St., Iloilo City.” The registered notice was returned unclaimed because the correct address of record for her counsel was in Bacolod City, not Iloilo City.
Atty. Garaygay insisted he never received the notice, as his law office is in Bacolod. The Court of Appeals refused to reconsider the dismissal. Ortalis then filed this petition with the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, commenting on the petition, concurred with the petitioner, finding no basis for the dismissal since the notice was sent to an incorrect address not appearing in the record.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief when the notice to file said brief was sent to counsel’s incorrect address.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the dismissal, and reinstated the appeal. The legal logic is anchored on fundamental due process and the proper administration of justice. A party’s right to appeal is a statutory right that cannot be forfeited due to mere technicalities, especially when the lapse is not attributable to the party or counsel. The record contained no indication that Atty. Garaygay’s address was Iloilo City; his correct address of record, as confirmed by the trial court clerk, was Bacolod City.
The dismissal, based on a notice sent to a wrong address due to the appellate court’s clerical error, constituted a denial of the petitioner’s right to be heard. The Court emphasized that the negligence or error was committed by the Court of Appeals’ own personnel. The appellate court’s refusal to verify the correct address and reconsider its resolution, despite counsel’s plea, was an inept and obstinate act that caused undue delay and unnecessary expense. Consequently, the dismissal was invalid for violating procedural due process. The Court also ordered an investigation into the gross negligence of the concerned court personnel.