GR 36373; (April, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36373. April 7, 1976. DIONISIO SORIA, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Dionisio Soria was convicted of homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction with modification in a decision promulgated on September 6, 1969. Petitioner, through Attys. De Grano & Tobia, timely filed a motion for reconsideration. The court required the Solicitor General to comment. However, the entire rollo of the case, including the filed motion and the copy furnished the Solicitor General, was subsequently lost. No investigation into the loss was conducted.
On November 24, 1972, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution directing petitioner to submit six copies of his lost motion within ten days. This resolution was sent by registered mail to Atty. Arnulfo F. Soller, the original counsel of record. There was no compliance. Consequently, on January 15, 1973, the appellate court declared the motion for reconsideration deemed withdrawn. Attys. De Grano & Tobia then filed an urgent motion, explaining their copy was also lost and seeking thirty days to file a new motion. The Court of Appeals denied this, holding that Atty. Soller remained the counsel of record due to an absence of a formal substitution, and service upon him was valid.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner’s motion for reconsideration withdrawn and denying his subsequent plea for reconstitution based on a technical lack of substitution of counsel.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The appellate court’s stance was unduly technical and ignored practical realities, effectively making petitioner’s fate hinge on procedural omissions of his lawyers. The Court held that mere annotation of a resolution being “sent” by registered mail is not conclusive proof of its receipt by counsel. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals had previously recognized Attys. De Grano & Tobia’s appearance by acting on their original motion for reconsideration. To later deny relief on the ground of improper substitution was unfair and prejudicial.
The Supreme Court emphasized that no prejudice would result from allowing reconstitution. By analogy, Section 6 of Act 3110, which allows for the filing of new briefs when records are lost, supported the proposal to file a new motion for reconsideration. The Court ordered the Court of Appeals to allow petitioner to file a new motion and to resolve it on the merits. However, Attys. De Grano & Tobia were warned against negligence in failing to observe rules on substitution and in losing their copy.