FLORENTINO BLANCO AND MARIANO BLANCO AS HEIRS OF TEODORICO P. BLANCO, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. EUSEBIO DULATAS, JR. AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, APPLICANTS-APPELLANTS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE P…

Blanco versus Republic

The Case

This is the case of Blanco versus Republic, a motion for reconsideration brought by Florentino Blanco and Mariano Blanco, as heirs of Teodico P. Blanco, against the Republic of the Philippines. The appellants ask the Supreme Court to set aside its earlier resolution dismissing their appeal for their failure to file the appellants' brief. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on two things every practitioner must know: the strictness of the reglementary period for a motion for reconsideration, and the rule that a lawyer answers for the neglect of his own staff.

Procedural History

The appeal of the Blanco heirs was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated August 29, 2014, on the ground that they failed to file their appellants' brief. The appellants then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that resolution. They explained that the resolution was not received by a certain Jennifer A. Dipalac, as stated in the reply of Joselito Serrano, the letter carrier of the Bulacan Post Office, to the tracer sent by the Judicial Records Division, but by Jessica D. Puyot, a staff member of their counsel, Atty. Eusebio Dulatas, Jr. They alleged that Puyot resigned from her job and that Atty. Dulatas instructed her to turn over to him all pleadings and orders, but the August 29, 2014 Resolution was not forwarded to him. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment opposing the motion, arguing that the reason cited does not excuse the non-filing of the appellants' brief. The matter thus came before the Supreme Court for resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

Facts

The records show that Atty. Dulatas received a copy of the August 29, 2014 Resolution on September 8, 2014. Counting from that date, the last day to file a motion for reconsideration was September 23, 2014.

The appellants sent their Motion for Reconsideration by private courier, and the court received it on September 24, 2014, one day late.

On the merits, the appellants blamed a staff member who had resigned and who allegedly failed to turn over the resolution to their counsel. The Office of the Solicitor General countered that this did not excuse the failure to file the brief on time.

Issues

• Whether or not the Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the failure of a member of the staff of a lawyer to turn over pleadings or orders received by her justifies the failure of the appellants to file the appellants' brief on time.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific codal provision; it applies the Rules of Court on the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration and the rule on the filing of the appellants' brief. The Court cites its own jurisprudence in Asian Spirit Airlines, Airline Employees Cooperative versus Bautista, which states:

Blaming its counsel's unidentified secretary for its abject failure to file its brief is a common practice for negligent lawyers to cover up for their own negligence, incompetence, indolence and ineptitude. Such excuse is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court. It bears stressing that it is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that insures that all pleadings should be filed and duly served within the period therefor and, if he fails to do so, the negligence of his secretary or clerk to file such pleading is imputable to the said counsel.

This passage bears directly on the second issue, because it fixes the negligence of a lawyer's staff on the lawyer himself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed one day late. Atty. Dulatas received the Resolution on September 8, 2014, so the last day to file was September 23, 2014, but the motion was received by the court on September 24, 2014. On that ground alone, the Court said, the motion must be denied.

On the second issue, the Court held that even on its merits the motion must be denied. The failure of a member of the staff of a lawyer to turn over pleadings or orders received by her does not justify the failure of the appellants to file the appellants' brief on time. It is the duty of a lawyer to adopt and maintain a system that ensures the timely filing of pleadings. The Court applied its ruling in Asian Spirit Airlines, quoted above, that the negligence of a secretary or clerk in filing a pleading is imputable to the counsel.

Doctrine

A motion for reconsideration must be filed within the reglementary period counted from receipt of the resolution by counsel; a filing even one day late is fatal and is a ground by itself for denial.

The failure of a member of the staff of a lawyer to turn over pleadings or orders received by her does not justify the client's failure to file a pleading on time. It is the duty of counsel to adopt and strictly maintain a system that insures that all pleadings are filed and duly served within the period, and the negligence of his secretary or clerk is imputable to the counsel. Blaming an unidentified or resigned staff member is the most hackneyed and habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to observe the procedural requirements of the Rules of Court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit, so the dismissal of the appellants' appeal stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the negligence of a lawyer's secretary or clerk in filing a pleading is imputable to the counsel, and that a motion for reconsideration filed even one day late must be denied. Examiners use this case on procedural law and legal ethics, particularly on the duty of counsel to maintain a system for the timely filing of pleadings and on the excuse of staff negligence.