G.R. No. L-36003. June 21, 1988.
NEGROS STEVEDORING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND DELGADO STEVEDORING CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Negros Stevedoring Co., Inc. (NESCO) filed a collection suit against private respondent Delgado Stevedoring Co., Inc. (DELGADO) in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which ruled in NESCO’s favor. DELGADO appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court’s Clerk of Court sent a Notice to File Brief to DELGADO, received on May 18, 1972. DELGADO failed to file its appellant’s brief within the reglementary period. Consequently, the Court of Appeals, motu proprio, dismissed the appeal in a Resolution dated September 28, 1972.
DELGADO filed a Motion for Reconsideration, attributing the failure to file the brief to inadvertence within its counsel’s law firm. The notice was allegedly received by a clerk and mistakenly referred to an associate lawyer, Atty. Melquiades Parades, instead of the handling lawyer, Atty. Samson S. Alcantara. Atty. Parades took no action, believing Atty. Alcantara was already advised. Atty. Alcantara claimed he only learned of the notice upon receiving the order of dismissal. The Court of Appeals granted the motion, reinstated the appeal, and admitted the brief in a Resolution dated October 30, 1972. NESCO’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in reinstating DELGADO’s appeal and admitting its appellant’s brief despite failure to file on time.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion. The power to reinstate a dismissed appeal must be exercised only upon a showing of good and sufficient cause. The excuse proffered by DELGADO’s counsel—inadvertent misrouting of the notice within the law firm and inaction by the mistakenly notified associate—does not constitute such cause. The negligence was not excusable. The Court emphasized that law firms must adopt efficient systems to ensure pleadings and notices promptly reach the handling lawyers. The negligence of clerks and associates within a firm is binding upon the client. The associate who received the notice exhibited grave irresponsibility by not informing the handling lawyer, especially since he possessed the notice copy and had no basis to presume prior notification. Furthermore, the handling lawyer demonstrated complacency by merely waiting for the notice without proactive inquiry into its status, despite having a draft brief prepared. This conduct fell short of the diligence and devotion required of legal practitioners. The failure to file the brief was due to unjustifiable negligence, not a good and sufficient cause warranting reinstatement. The reinstatement order was thus a grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court made permanent the temporary restraining order, ordered the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal, and directed the remand of the case to the trial court for execution.