Facts:

The case involves Pedro Babala as the petitioner and the Hon. Court of Appeals and Patricio Canela as the respondents. The events leading to this case began with a civil suit filed by Patricio Canela against Pedro Babala in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, designated as Civil Case No. 317. Following the judgment in this case, Babala sought to appeal the decision. On February 13, 1964, the Court of Appeals sent a notice via registered mail to Babala's counsel, Attorney Edmundo A. Narra, instructing him to pay the docket fee within 15 days and to file the printed record on appeal within 60 days. This notice was received by Nicolas Lamadrid, a bookkeeper at the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc., where Narra had his office. A second notice was sent on February 24, 1964, which was received by Rebecca B. Abilgos, an assistant manager at the same bank, while Narra was again out of the office. Neither notice was retrieved from the post office by Narra. Consequently, on Apri...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves Pedro Babala (petitioner) and the Hon. Court of Appeals together with Patricio Canela (respondents).
• The dispute originated from Civil Case No. 317 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, titled “Patricio Canela, Plaintiff vs. Pedro Babala, Defendant.”

Procedural History and Notices

• The Court of Appeals, upon defendant’s appeal from the lower court ruling, issued a notice by registered mail instructing the defendant to pay the docket fee within 15 days and to file the printed record on appeal within 60 days from receipt of notice.
• The registered mail notices were sent to the address of the defendant’s counsel, Attorney Edmundo A. Narra, at his office in the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc.
• The first notice was received on February 13, 1964 by Nicolas Lamadrid, the bank’s bookkeeper, and the second on February 24, 1964 by Rebecca B. Abilgos, the bank’s assistant manager.
• In both instances, the registered notices were not forwarded to counsel because he was out of the office and the letters were not retrieved from the post office.

Dismissal and Subsequent Motions

• On April 8, 1964, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal “for failure to pay the docketing fee.”
• A motion for reconsideration, filed on May 6, 1964, was denied by the appellate court.
• A second motion for reconsideration filed on May 26, 1964 was also overruled.

Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus

• Pedro Babala subsequently petitioned this Court for certiorari to overturn the appellate decisions and to issue mandamus compelling the reinstatement of the appeal.
• The petition brought into focus the procedural duties of counsel regarding receipt and processing of court notices.

Counsel’s Negligence and Related Precedents

• The case emphasizes a long-established rule that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and maintain a system to ensure prompt receipt of all judicial notices.
• The controlling case, Enriquez vs. Bautista, reinforces that an attorney cannot excuse his negligence by claiming issues such as absence or locational changes.
• Attorney Edmundo A. Narra admitted to not maintaining a provision for a regular clerk, justifying his office’s infrastructural limitations by stating he was “a small practitioner.”
• However, the Court critiqued this excuse, indicating that holding an office in the Rural Bank of Daet, Inc. and having responsible bank personnel handle mail does not absolve one from his professional duty.

Issue:

Whether the dismissal of the appeal for failure to pay the docket fee was proper given that the registered mail notices were received by third parties in defendant’s counsel’s office.

• Did the negligence of counsel in not instituting an effective system for receiving court notices justify the dismissal?
• Was the procedural requirement to pay the docket fee binding on the counsel despite his absence from the office?

Whether the excuse provided by Attorney Narra, claiming limited resources as “a small practitioner,” is acceptable under the standards governing the attorney’s duty to his client.

• Does the attorney’s failure to deploy adequate administrative measures constitute a breach of his professional responsibilities?
• Is such negligence sufficient to deny the appellant’s appeal as per established rules?

• Whether there was any grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals’ rulings dismissing the appeal and rejecting subsequent motions for reconsideration.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)