GR 41862; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-41862 February 7, 1992
B. R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc., petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Eulogio B. Reyes, Nicanor G. Salaysay, in his capacity as Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, and Antonio Marinas, in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. was held liable for damages in a decision by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. It timely appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court required the filing of an Appellant’s Brief within 45 days from February 19, 1974. Petitioner’s counsel of record, the law firm of Baizas, Alberto and Associates, failed to file the brief. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution on July 9, 1974, requiring counsel to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Counsel received this but did not comply. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on September 9, 1974.
Petitioner, through the Baizas Law Office, filed a motion for reconsideration, citing the death of senior partner Atty. Crispin Baizas and the departure of the handling lawyer as reasons for the failure. The Court of Appeals denied this motion on October 9, 1974. After the dismissal became final and the trial court issued a writ of execution, petitioner filed a motion to reinstate the appeal on November 6, 1975. This was denied by the Court of Appeals on November 10, 1975, prompting the petition to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reinstate the dismissed appeal.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the negligence of counsel binds the client. The law firm representing petitioner received the notice to file the brief and the subsequent show-cause resolution after the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas. The firm was not dissolved and remained responsible for handling the case. Its failure to file the brief or show cause constituted inexcusable negligence.
The Court rejected the claim that the death of a partner constituted a good and sufficient cause for reinstatement. Law firms are expected to have systems to ensure continuity and prevent disruption from a member’s death. The subsequent negligence of the Baizas Law Office in failing to take further action after the denial of its first motion for reconsideration compounded the error. Furthermore, petitioner itself was negligent for failing to inquire about its case, especially given the president’s claimed close friendship with the deceased lawyer. The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised diligently. The dismissal was a consequence of procedural lapses, not a denial of due process.