G.R. No. L-27156 June 30, 1967
ALFREDO B. GRAFIL and LRM MINING COMPANY, petitioners-appellants, vs. THE HON. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; THE HON. FERNANDO S. BUSUEGO, as Director of Mines and the MANILA MINING CORPORATION, respondent-appellees.

FACTS

Manila Mining Corporation filed a protest with the Bureau of Mines on July 9, 1959, alleging that the mining claims of Alfredo B. Grafil overlapped 26 of its 147 claims in Cabadbaran, Agusan, in violation of Section 57 of the Mining Act. Grafil denied this, countering that any overlap was due to Manila Mining moving its claims. LRM Mining Company intervened, asserting a common interest. The Bureau of Mines found no overlap and upheld Grafil and LRM’s preferential right to lease the area. On appeal, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources reversed this decision, finding that 72 of Grafil’s claims did overlap Manila Mining’s. The Secretary held Grafil’s earlier location invalid because the claims were then held by another party, while Manila Mining’s subsequent location was made after the former owner’s right had expired. Grafil and LRM failed to secure reconsideration and filed a petition for review in the Court of First Instance of Agusan. This petition was dismissed on May 8, 1965, for lack of jurisdiction. Their counsel received the dismissal order on May 28, 1965, and filed a motion for reconsideration on June 9, which was denied by the court on July 10. A copy of this July 10 order was sent by registered mail to counsel’s address in Manila. Despite three postal notices on July 27, August 9, and August 17, counsel failed to claim the mail, which was returned to the court on September 10. Counsel had moved offices and notified the court on August 30. He only claimed the mail on February 25, 1966, and filed a notice of appeal on February 28, 1966. Manila Mining moved to dismiss the appeal as late.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appeal filed by Grafil and LRM Mining from the orders of the Court of First Instance was perfected on time.

RULING

No, the appeal was not perfected on time and must be dismissed. The thirty-day period to appeal from the May 8, 1965 order began on May 29. The motion for reconsideration filed on June 9 suspended this period. Service of the July 10 order denying the motion was deemed complete on August 2, 1965, five days after the first postal notice on July 27, pursuant to Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The appellants then had only eighteen remaining days, making the last day to appeal August 20, 1965. Their appeal filed on February 28, 1966, was therefore late, and the orders had become final. The claim of non-receipt of postal notices is untenable against the positive certification from postal officials and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The transfer of counsel’s office in late August did not excuse the failure to claim the mail, as the last notice was sent on August 17. The appeal is dismissed.