GR L 25739 25886; (January, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-25739 & L-25886. January 31, 1969.
DIONISIO PALTENG, DIONISIO VALDEZ, ANDRES CALIGUIRAN, REGIDOR BASILIO, ERNESTO BRITOS, and SIMPLICIO CADIENTE, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (Special Fourth Division), FLORENTINA RESPICIO and ROSA MALLABO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were defendants in two separate ejectment cases filed by respondents Florentina Respicio and Rosa Mallabo in the Justice of the Peace Court of Gamu, Isabela. After an unfavorable verdict, defendants, through Attorney Pacifico Capuchino, appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Isabela, where the cases were docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 1174 and 1204 and jointly tried de novo. On May 31, 1962, the CFI rendered judgment against the defendants, ordering them to vacate the lands, pay damages, and pay attorneys’ fees. Defendants, through Atty. Teodulo E. Mirasol, filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, which were approved on August 25, 1962, and the records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals. On July 20, 1965, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals for failure of defendants to pay the necessary docketing fees, despite the court’s requirement. The notice to pay the fees had been sent to Atty. Pacifico Capuchino, the defendants’ counsel of record in the trial court. Atty. Mirasol, who allegedly was not notified, later discovered the dismissal. Defendants moved for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeals for failure to pay docket fees, based on service of the notice to pay on Atty. Capuchino instead of Atty. Mirasol.
RULING
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Atty. Capuchino remained the counsel of record for petitioners in the trial court, and there was no formal relief or substitution by Atty. Mirasol as required by Section 2 of Revised Rule 46 and Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Since a party represented by two attorneys is bound by service of notice on either, the service on Atty. Capuchino was proper and binding on petitioners. Failure to pay the docket fee is a valid ground for dismissal of an appeal. The petitions were dismissed, with costs against petitioners, without prejudice to any action that may lie against the attorneys.