Facts:

The case involves the Heirs of the Deceased Telesforo Soriano, represented by their attorneys-in-fact Mamerto Soriano, Francisco Pirante, and Vicente Soriano, as petitioners against the Republic of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, with Atty. Francisco A. Astilla, Sr. as the respondent. The events leading to this case began when the Court of Appeals issued a resolution on March 21, 1972, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners due to their failure to file a brief. The petitioners contended that they had not received any notice to file the brief, which was supposedly sent to Atty. Astilla. The notice was reportedly received by a certain Teresita Acuin, who was instructed to forward it to Atty. Astilla's address in Makati, Rizal. However, the petitioners argued that the registered letter was never sent to him. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor-General, commented on the case, emphasizing that Atty. Astilla had indeed received the notice in Taclo...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Heirs of the deceased Telesforo Soriano, represented by their attorneys-in-fact (Mamerto Soriano, Francisco Pirante, and Vicente Soriano).
   • Respondents: Republic of the Philippines, the Court of Appeals, and Atty. Francisco A. Astilla, Sr.

2. Procedural Background:

   • The petitioners sought to set aside a resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 21, 1972, which dismissed their appeal for failure to file their brief.
   • The petitioners alleged that their counsel, Atty. Francisco A. Astilla, Sr., did not receive the notice to file the brief.

3. Contradiction in Statements:

   • Atty. Astilla, in his petition to the Supreme Court, claimed that no notice to file the brief was ever served on him.
   • However, in a prior petition for extension filed with the Court of Appeals, Atty. Astilla admitted that he had received the notice during a visit to Tacloban City.

4. Postal Service Issue:

   • The notice was allegedly received by one Teresita Acuin, who returned it to the Tacloban City post office with instructions to forward it to Atty. Astilla’s address in Makati.
   • The petitioners claimed the notice was never sent to Atty. Astilla.

5. Republic’s Comment:

   • The Solicitor-General emphasized Atty. Astilla’s admission of receipt of the notice in Tacloban City.
   • The Republic argued that the decision had already become final and that the petition lacked sufficient form and substance.

6. Motion for Reconsideration:

   • The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that technicalities should not prevail over substantial justice.
   • They also accused the Court of Appeals of being "unjust" and "arbitrary or despotic" but failed to substantiate these claims.

7. Atty. Astilla’s Explanation:

   • Atty. Astilla attempted to explain the contradiction in his statements but failed to provide a satisfactory justification.
   • He denied receiving the notice and accused Teresita Acuin of falsifying the receipt of the registered letter.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Technicalities vs. Substantial Justice:

   • While the Court is sympathetic to the plea for substantial justice, the petitioners failed to provide sufficient legal grounds to justify the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ resolution.
   • The Court emphasized that technicalities should not be disregarded when they are used to mask a lack of merit in the case.

2. Duty of Counsel:

   • Atty. Astilla, as counsel, had a duty to ensure that he received all judicial notices promptly. His failure to adopt a system to receive notices during his absence from his address of record was a breach of this duty.
   • The Court cited Enrique V. Bautista (79 Phil. 220), which held that attorneys must adopt measures to ensure they receive judicial notices promptly.

3. Contradiction in Statements:

   • Atty. Astilla’s contradictory statements regarding the receipt of the notice undermined his credibility.
   • The Court found that his explanation was insufficient to exculpate him from responsibility, but considering his age and long service in the legal profession, an admonition was deemed appropriate.

4. Finality of Judgment:

   • The Court upheld the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision, noting that the petitioners failed to show any injustice or arbitrariness in the dismissal of their appeal.