GR L 35434; (November, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35434 November 9, 1988
ISRAEL ANTONIO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Israel Antonio was convicted of qualified theft. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court sent multiple notices to file his appellant’s brief: first to his counsel of record at the address in the pleadings, then directly to Antonio at his given address, and finally through his bondsman. All notices were returned unclaimed. The Court of Appeals subsequently issued a resolution requiring Antonio to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed, which was also returned unclaimed. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal. The dismissal became final, and the trial court ordered execution of the judgment.
Only after the execution order did Antonio appear through new counsel, filing a motion to reinstate the appeal. He claimed non-receipt of all notices, arguing his former counsel had retired and his squatter-area address was inaccessible to the postman. He invoked Rule 13, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, contending that service by registered mail is complete only upon actual receipt, which never occurred.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Antonio’s appeal for failure to file his brief, despite his claim of non-receipt of the notices.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was correct. The Supreme Court rejected Antonio’s interpretation of Rule 13, Section 8. The rule on service by registered mail requiring actual receipt presupposes notice is sent to the correct address on record. Service at the counsel’s recorded address remains valid even if the counsel has moved without informing the court, as service on the lawyer is service on the client. The Court distinguished the case of Santos v. Tuazon, which requires proof of receipt, noting it applies only where good faith is presumed.
Here, Antonio exhibited a patent lack of interest and bad faith. He and his counsel vanished, only resurfacing after execution was ordered, suggesting the appeal was filed for delay. His subsequent conduct before the Supreme Court, including losing contact with his new counsel, confirmed his disinterest. The Court found his claims of denied due process unmeritorious, as his own conduct forfeited his right to appeal. The appeal was correctly dismissed for failure to prosecute.