Case Summary (G.R. No. 202466)
Procedural Background
The petitioner elevated his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which issued a series of notices requiring him to file his appellant's brief. The first notice was sent to his counsel, Atty. Nicanor Lapuz, on September 17, 1971, at the address provided in the pleadings. This notice was returned unclaimed. A subsequent notice was sent directly to the petitioner on October 16, 1971, and similarly returned unclaimed. Finally, a notice was dispatched to his bondsman, the Philippine Motor Assurance Corporation, which also returned unclaimed. Due to these failures to file the necessary brief, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution on December 9, 1971, requiring the petitioner to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. The appeal was subsequently dismissed on February 1, 1972, and this order became final on March 4, 1972.
Petitioner’s Attempt to Reinstatement
The petitioner resurfaced on August 21, 1972, filing an urgent ex parte motion to reinstate the appeal, claiming he had not received the requisite notices and arguing that this constituted a denial of due process. His motion was denied.
Argument on Non-receipt of Notices
The petitioner contends that the notices regarding the filing of his brief were never received due to various reasons such as the retirement of his lawyer and issues with postal delivery stemming from his address being in a squatter area. He asserts that under Rule 13, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, service by registered mail requires actual receipt, thereby rendering the notices ineffective.
Court's Interpretation of Notice and Service
The court refuted the petitioner’s interpretation of the service rule by explaining that valid notice was duly sent to the correct address provided in the court records. The court noted that even though the notices were unclaimed, they were still valid service. The rule states that service on the lawyer suffices as service on the client, and if the lawyer fails to inform the court of a change of address, the service remains valid. This reasoning emphasizes the responsibility of the attorney and the client in ensuring communication and diligence in prosecuting their appeal.
Discussion on Diligence and Bad Faith
The petitioner exhibited a lack of diligence regarding his appeal, failing to follow up with his lawyer or check the court status after his lawyer's retirement. The court observed that the petitioner's actions suggested a deliberate attempt to avoid the proceedings, especially as he reappeared only after the execution order was issued. This lack of participation and awareness indicates a lack of genuine interest in prosecuting his appeal and suggests bad faith.
Due Process Considerations
The court addressed the petitioner's claim regarding due process, indicating that he had indeed been given opportunities to be
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 202466)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition by Israel Antonio challenging the validity of the Court of Appeals' order dismissing his appeal due to failure to file an appellant's brief on time.
- Antonio was convicted of qualified theft by the Court of First Instance of Quezon City on February 26, 1968, and subsequently elevated his conviction to the Court of Appeals.
Procedural History
- On September 17, 1971, the Court of Appeals sent a notice to file a brief to Antonio's counsel, Atty. Nicanor Lapuz, which was returned unclaimed.
- A subsequent notice was sent on October 16, 1971, directly to Antonio, which also went unclaimed.
- A third notice was dispatched on November 18, 1971, to Antonio's bondsman, the Philippine Motor Assurance Corporation, which similarly was returned unclaimed.
- The Court of Appeals issued a resolution on December 9, 1971, requiring Antonio to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed.
- On February 1, 1972, the Court of Appeals declared the appeal dismissed, as the requisite notices had gone unclaimed.
Emergence of the Petitioner
- After the dismissal became final on March 4, 1972, an execution order was issued on August 11, 197