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

Palteng versus the Justices of the Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Dionisio Palteng and his co-defendants against the Justices of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to set aside two resolutions of the Court of Appeals: one dismissing their appeal in two ejectment cases for their failure to pay the docketing fees, and the other denying their motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it fixes a practical rule every litigator must know — who is the counsel of record on appeal, and upon whom may the court validly serve its notices and orders.

Procedural History

The petitioners were the defendants in two separate ejectment cases first filed before the Justice of the Peace Court of Gamu, Isabela, by Florentina Respicio and Rosa Mallabo. After an unfavorable verdict, the defendants, through their attorney Pacifico Capuchino, appealed to the Court of First Instance of Isabela, where the two cases were jointly tried de novo. On the thirty-first of May 1962, the trial court again ruled against the defendants, ordering them to vacate the lands, to pay damages, and to pay attorneys' fees.

The defendants then notified the trial court of their intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Through a new attorney, Teodulo Mirasol, they filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, all of which were approved, and the records were transmitted to the appellate court. On the twentieth of July 1965, the Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the two cases for failure of the defendants to pay the docketing fees despite the Court's requirement. When Attorney Mirasol learned of the dismissal, he inquired and discovered that the notice to pay the fees had been sent to Attorney Capuchino, the defendants' counsel of record in the trial court. The defendants moved for reconsideration, and upon its denial, they filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

The petitioners lost before the Justice of the Peace Court of Gamu, Isabela, in two ejectment cases brought by Florentina Respicio and Rosa Mallabo. Represented by Attorney Pacifico Capuchino, they appealed to the Court of First Instance of Isabela, where the cases were jointly tried de novo and docketed as two civil cases. On the thirty-first of May 1962, judgment was rendered once more against them, ordering them to vacate the lands, with Dionisio Palteng to pay damages for the produce of the land the plaintiffs failed to receive since 1957, and all of them to pay attorneys' fees.

The defendants decided to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals. This time, the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the record on appeal were submitted for them by Attorney Teodulo Mirasol, and these were approved on the twenty-fifth of August 1962. The records were then transmitted to the appellate court.

On the twentieth of July 1965, the Court of Appeals dismissed the two cases because the defendants failed to pay the necessary docketing fees, notwithstanding the Court's requirement. It turned out that the notice to pay the fees had been sent to Attorney Capuchino, the counsel of record in the trial court, and not to Attorney Mirasol, who had handled the appeal papers. The defendants moved for reconsideration, and when that was denied, they came to the Supreme Court, insisting that service on Attorney Capuchino was ineffective and not binding on them.

Issues

• Whether or not the service of the notice to pay the docketing fees upon Attorney Capuchino, the counsel of record in the trial court, was effective and binding on the petitioners, considering that Attorney Mirasol had filed the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for failure to pay the docketing fees.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This provision makes the trial attorney the attorney on appeal unless another is validly appointed and notice is given, which is the very point the petitioners failed to satisfy.

Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This provision supplies the manner by which a change or substitution of counsel is effected, and the petitioners never complied with it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no merit in the petitioners' argument. It was not denied that Attorney Capuchino was their counsel of record in the trial court, and while it was true that Attorney Mirasol filed the notice of appeal, the appeal bond, and the record on appeal, it was equally a fact that there had been no formal relief of Attorney Capuchino as counsel and no formal substitution by Attorney Mirasol. On record, therefore, the defendants stood represented by two lawyers who, absent notification to the contrary, are considered their attorneys on appeal under Section 2 of Rule 46. The Court laid down the rule that where a party is represented by two attorneys, service of notice or pleading on either of them is sufficient to bind such party. Hence, there was proper and adequate notice to pay the docketing fees.

On the second issue, the Court held that failure to pay the docket fee is a ground for dismissal of an appeal. Since the petitioners failed to observe the requirement after proper notice, the Court of Appeals clearly acted correctly in issuing the questioned resolutions, and committed no abuse of discretion. The Court added that if Attorney Mirasol had been engaged to replace Attorney Capuchino, the provisions of Section 2 of Rule 46 and Section 26 of Rule 138 should have been complied with, which they were not.

Doctrine

First, the attorney of record in the court below is considered the attorney of the same party in the Court of Appeals, unless another is appointed and notice thereof is served on the adverse party and filed with the court. Second, where a party is represented by two attorneys, service of a notice or pleading on either of them is sufficient to bind the party. Third, a change or substitution of counsel is not effective unless done in the manner prescribed by Section 26 of Rule 138, that is, by written consent of the client filed in court, by leave of court upon notice and hearing, or by entering the new attorney's name on the docket and giving written notice of the change to the adverse party. Fourth, failure to pay the docket fee, after due notice, is a ground for dismissal of an appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court found no error in the resolutions of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the petitions, with costs against the petitioners, without prejudice to whatever action may lie against the attorneys.

Remember This

Memorize this line: where a party is represented by two attorneys, service of notice on either of them binds the party. Examiners use this case to test the rules on counsel of record on appeal and the consequences of failing to pay docket fees.