G.R. No. L-10823; May 28, 1957
JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and HERACLEO R. MONTALBAN, as Acting Director of Fisheries, petitioners, vs. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao and FELIPE DELUAO, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from Special Civil Case No. 63 in the Court of First Instance of Davao, where respondent Felipe Deluao sought to modify an award by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in an administrative contest over fishponds. The Secretary had approved Felipe Deluao’s application for Lot No. 3907 and Supremo Deluao’s application for Lot No. 3162. Felipe Deluao claimed both lots. After trial, the respondent judge rendered judgment in favor of Felipe Deluao, declaring him the rightful applicant and possessor of both lots.
Notice and a copy of the decision were sent to Atty. Marfori of the Solicitor General’s Office, who had represented the petitioners (the Secretary and the Director of Fisheries) by filing an answer and attending the trial in September and October 1955. Atty. Marfori received this notice on March 27, 1956. Additionally, the Clerk of Court served notice of the decision on the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Davao on April 11, 1956, as the Fiscal had also appeared for the petitioners in November 1955. On April 12, 1956, the Fiscal filed a notice of appeal. Felipe Deluao objected, arguing the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period, which should be counted from Atty. Marfori’s receipt of notice on March 27, 1956. The court found the appeal untimely and disallowed it.
The petitioners contended that Atty. Marfori had withdrawn as counsel, and the Provincial Fiscal had become their sole counsel, so the appeal period should be reckoned from the Fiscal’s receipt of notice on April 11, 1956. They based this on two incidents: (1) On October 25, 1955, Atty. Marfori manifested in open court that due to exhausted travel funds, he might not be able to attend future hearings and requested the court to order the submission of records to the Clerk of Court; and (2) On November 5, 1955, the Provincial Fiscal received a communication requesting representation of the petitioners in the case. However, no formal substitution of attorneys occurred, and the Assistant Fiscal never claimed such substitution in the lower court, only asserting that the Fiscal’s Office had appeared as counsel and was entitled to notice.

ISSUE

Whether the notice of appeal filed by the petitioners on April 12, 1956, was timely, considering the receipt of notice of the decision by Atty. Marfori on March 27, 1956, and by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal on April 11, 1956.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus, holding that the appeal was filed out of time. The Court ruled that under Section 2, Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, where a party has two attorneys, notice to one is notice to the party. Since Atty. Marfori was still counsel of record and no formal substitution had taken place, the notice served on him on March 27, 1956, was valid notice to the petitioners. The reglementary period for appeal under Rule 41, Section 17, was fifteen days from that date, making the deadline April 11, 1956. The notice of appeal filed on April 12, 1956, was one day late, which is sufficient to bar an appeal.
The Court distinguished this case from exceptions where the rule was relaxed, such as when notice was given to an attorney appearing provisionally in the absence of the attorney of record, or where the principal attorney was recognized as such by the adverse party and the court. Here, no similar circumstances justified relaxation. The Court noted that if any attorney appeared provisionally or in collaboration, it was likely the Assistant Fiscal, as the Solicitor General’s Office remains the primary legal counsel for national officials. Additionally, the party most directly affected by the decision, Supremo Deluao, did not appeal. The petition was denied, with no costs awarded.