Celestial vs. People [GR No. 214865] Case Digest

 

Celestial vs. People

GR No. 214865

 

Facts:

Petitioner Rosvee Celestial was employed by Glory Philippines as its "Accounting-in-Charge." She was terminated in 2006 when it was discovered that she made anomalous withdrawals from the company's dollar account. An information for the six counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents were charged against the petitioner in the RTC Cavite.

RTC found the accused guilty for the crime charged; hence elavated the case to CA via notice of appeal. On November 28, 2013, petitioner received a copy of the CA Notice dated November 20, 2013, directing her to file an appellant's brief within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. On December 27, 2013, petitioner's former counsel, Atty. Bernard Paredes, moved for a thirty-day extension, or until January 26, 2014, within which to comply. Counsel would later on inform petitioner that he prayed for another extension of until February 26, 014 to file the appellant's brief.

Allegedly unknown to petitioner, the CA, on April 28, 2014, issued a Resolution, which considered petitioner's appeal abandoned and dismissed for failure to file her appellant's brief. Petioner filed a Omnibus Motion, moving for (1) reconsideration of the July 17, 2014 Resolution, and (2) leave of court for the attached appellant's brief to be admitted. Petitioner averred that she never personally received a copy of the April 28, 2014 Resolution that considered her appeal abandoned and dismissed; that her former counsel, Atty. Paredes, was grossly and inexcusably negligent in handling her case. CA dismissed the motion.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the case for petitioner's failure to file her appellant's brief.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:

SEC. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. - The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de officio.

As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner's claim that she was not personally informed of the dismissal of the appeal deserves scant consideration. Fundamental is the rule that notice to counsel is notice to the client. When a party is represented by a counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds, including motions and pleadings of all parties and all orders of the court must be served on his counsel.