G.R. No. L-34369 September 30, 1974
ANTONIO VILLASIS, MATERNIDAD V. VILLASIS and SANTIAGO ORENDAIN, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ELEUTERIO VILLASIS and LAURA S. VILLASIS, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action for quieting of title with recovery of possession and damages decided in favor of the respondents by the Antique court of first instance. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. On June 25, 1970, their then-counsel, Atty. Benjamin Valente, received notice to file the appellants’ brief within 45 days, expiring on August 9, 1970. On August 10, 1970, Atty. Valente filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, citing his new employment, and prayed that the petitioners’ newly engaged counsel, Atty. Esdras Tayco, be given sufficient time to file the brief. Atty. Tayco entered his appearance on August 18, 1970.
On August 27, 1970, the appellate court received a motion from the respondents to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the brief. The court, on September 12, 1970, required both of petitioners’ counsels to comment on the motion. Atty. Valente filed a manifestation, while Atty. Tayco filed none. The court granted Atty. Valente’s withdrawal on October 9, 1970, but took no immediate action on the dismissal motion. For nearly eleven months thereafter, no appellants’ brief was filed. On June 25, 1971, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file the appellants’ brief within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals committed no error. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no valid justification for the petitioners’ failure to file the required brief. The legal logic is clear: the notice to file brief served upon the original counsel, Atty. Valente, was binding upon his successor, Atty. Tayco. A new counsel entering a case is presumed and obliged to acquaint himself with all prior proceedings, including pending deadlines. Atty. Tayco’s claim of not receiving a separate notice was deemed frivolous, as he was aware of the procedural context through his predecessor’s motions which explicitly requested time for him to file.
The appellate court exhibited considerable leniency by not dismissing the appeal immediately upon the motion filed in August 1970. Instead, it provided the petitioners an extended opportunity—nearly eleven months—to file their brief. Despite this, and despite the court’s September 1970 resolution requiring comment (which itself served as a constructive notice), Atty. Tayco took no action to file the brief. The petitioners demonstrated gross indifference and laches. Their failure to ensure their counsel prosecuted the appeal was fatal. The cited case of Alonso vs. Rosario was distinguished, as there the appellants had promptly filed their brief shortly after dismissal, whereas here, the petitioners never filed a brief at all, even in their subsequent motions for reconsideration or in their petition to the Supreme Court. The dismissal was therefore a proper consequence of their inaction.