G.R. No. 149927 - Republic vs. Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation

Israel Antonio, the petitioner, was convicted of qualified theft on February 26, 1968, in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City.
He timely elevated his conviction to the Court of Appeals, where he was required to file his appellant’s brief.

On September 17, 1971, a notice was sent by registered mail to his counsel of record, Atty. Nicanor Lapuz, at the address indicated in the pleadings, which was returned unclaimed after three attempts.
On October 16, 1971, another notice was sent directly to the petitioner at his address in Tondo, Manila; this notice was also returned unclaimed.
On November 18, 1971, a third notice was sent through his bondsman, the Philippine Motor Assurance Corporation, at its address in Ermita, Manila; again, the notice was returned unclaimed.

On December 9, 1971, a resolution was issued, requiring the petitioner to show cause within ten (10) days why his appeal should not be dismissed, noting that the notices, though correctly addressed (first to his counsel and thereafter to his bondsman), were returned unclaimed.
A subsequent resolution on February 1, 1972, declared the appeal dismissed for failure to file his brief, as the notice requiring him to file was not claimed.
The dismissal order became final and executory on March 4, 1972, and an order for the execution of the judgment was later issued on August 11, 1972.

After a prolonged absence, the petitioner reappeared with new counsel on August 21, 1972, filing an urgent ex parte motion to reinstate the appeal and recall the records.
His justification rested on his claim that he never received the notices to file his brief due to:

His first counsel having moved without updating the court regarding his new address.
The second notice not being received because of difficulties locating his residence in a squatter area.
Alleged non-delivery of the third notice through his bonding company, for which no detailed explanation was provided.

The petitioner argued that the rules of court did not consider the notices as validly served because actual receipt was not obtained—as required under Rule 13, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
Despite his claims invoking due process, the petitioner’s inaction and lack of diligence in monitoring his appeal, including failure to follow-up on the progress of his case, were evident throughout the proceedings.

The Court noted that the rule on service presumes that official duty is regularly performed and that a letter sent to a correct, recorded address is deemed received even if the addressee does not actually claim the mail within the prescribed five-day period.
The petitioner's counsel’s failure to inform the Court of his change of address did not invalidate service on him, as service to the lawyer is considered valid service on the client.
The circumstances indicated that the petitioner himself exhibited a lack of interest and diligence in prosecuting his appeal, further contributing to the Court’s adverse disposition toward his petition.

Whether the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal for failure to file the brief on time was legally valid.
Whether the service of notices on the petitioner and his counsel, though returned unclaimed, was sufficient and proper under the existing rules.

Whether the non-receipt of the notices deprived the petitioner of his right to due process.
Whether the procedural technicality of the untimely filing should be waived in light of substantial justice and the petitioner's claim of not having received the notices.