DIONISIO PALTENG, DIONISIO VALDEZ, ANDRES CALIGUIRAN, REGIDOR BASILIO, ERNESTO BRITOS, AND SIMPLICIO CADIENTE, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (S…

Petitions for review of the resolutions of the Court of Appeals,
dismissing the undocketed cases Nos. 1174 and 1204, CFI, Isabela, entitled “Florentina Respicio vs. Dionisio Palteng, et al.”,
for failure of therein defendants to pay the docket fees, and denying said
defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the appellate court’s dismissal
order.

It may be gathered from the pleadings herein submitted that
petitioners, Dionisio Palteng,
et al., were the defendants in two separate ejectment
cases originally filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Gamu, Isabela, by Floren­tina Respicio and Rosa Mallabo.
Receiving an unfavorable verdict, defendants (through attorney Pacifico Capuchino) appealed to
the Court of First Instance of Isabela where the two
cases, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 1174 and 1204, were jointly tried de
novo.

On 31 May 1962, judgment was rendered on the two cases, ordering
the defendants once more (1) to vacate the lands subject of the actions; (2)
defend­ant Dionisio Palteng
to pay damages to the plaintiffs for the produce of the land that the latter
failed to receive since 1957; and (3) all of them to pay attorneys’ fees.

Defendants in due time
notified the trial court of their intention to appeal the decision to the Court
of Appeals.  And, on 25
August 1962, the
notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal, submitted for the de­fendants
by Atty. Teodulo E. Mirasol,
were approved.  Accordingly, the records
of the cases were transmitted to the appellate court.

On 20 July 1965,
however, the Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the two cases for failure of defendants to pay the necessary
docketing fees, notwithstanding the Court’s requirement therefor.  When sometime later the dismissal order came
to the knowledge of Atty. Mirasol, who allegedly was
not notified thereof, the latter made inquiries, and it was found out that the
Court of Appeals’ notice to pay the fees had been sent to Atty. Pacifico T. Capuchino, who was
defendants’ counsel of record in the trial court.  Thereupon, defendants moved
for reconsideration of the resolution of dismissal of the Court of Appeals,
and, upon its denial, the present petition was filed.

In claiming that the dismissal of their appeal constituted a
grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals, petitioners contend that the
service of notice to pay the docket fees on Atty. Capuchino
(who must have failed to inform the defendants of the requirement) was
ineffective and not binding on them, because such notice should have been
served upon Atty. Mirasol, who signed and submitted
the notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal.  In other words, it is the contention of
petitioners that, for purposes of the appeal, it is Atty. Mirasol
who should have been considered the counsel of record and upon whom notices and
processes should have been served.

There is no merit to this argument. For it is not denied that
Atty. Capuchino was petitioners’ counsel of record in
the trial court; and that while it is true that it was Atty. Mirasol who filed the notice of appeal, appeal bond and the
record on appeal, it is equally a fact that there had been no formal relief of
Atty. Capu­chino as counsel for the defendants
(petitioners) and no formal substitution by Atty. Mirasol.  The situation is that, on record, defendants-appellants
stood re­presented by two lawyers who, in view of the absence of notification
to the con­trary, are considered their attorneys in the appeal (Section 2,
Revised Rule 46).  Considering that,
where a party is represented by two attorneys, service of notice or pleading on
either of them is sufficient to bind such party,^[1] there was no abuse of discretion in
the Court of Appeals’ ruling that there had been proper and adequate notice to
defendants (petitioners) to pay the docket fees, a requirement that they failed
to observe.  And as failure to pay the
docket fee is a ground for dismissal of an appeal,^[2] the Court of Appeals clearly acted
correctly in issuing the resolutions in question.

If Atty. Mirasol had been engaged to
replace Atty. Capuchino, the provisions of Section 2,
Rule 46, and of Section 26, Rule 138, should have been complied with:

“SEC. 2.  Attorneys and guardians.  – Attorneys and guardians ad litem of the respective parties in the court below
shall be considered as the attorneys and guardians of the same parties
respectively in the Court of Appeals.  When
others are appointed notice thereof shall be served immediately on the adverse
party and filed with the court.”

x x
x x x                                 x x x x x                       x
x x x
x

“SEC. 26.  Change of attorneys.  – An attorney may retire at any time from any
action or special pro­ceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in
court.  He may also retire at any time
from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should
the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that
he ought to be allowed to retire.  In
case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered
on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the
change shall be given to the adverse party.

“A client may at any time dismiss his attorney or substitute
another in his place, but if the contract between client and attorney has been
reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without justifiable
cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation
stipulated in the contract.  However, the
attorney may, in the discretion of the court,
intervene in the case to protect his rights.  For the payment of his compensation the
attorney shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had
been retained by the client.”

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the disputed
resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and without
prejudice to whatever action may lie against the attorneys, these petitions are
dismissed, with costs against the petitioners.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Dujon vs. Villarosa,
92 Phil. 400; Ortega vs. Pacho, 98 Phil. 618;
Rodriguez vs. Fernandez, 101 Phil. 612; Damaso
vs. Arieta, L-18879, 31 January 1963.

^[2]
Dorego, et
al. vs. Perez, et al., L-24922, 2 January 1968,
22 SCRA 8.