In the Matter of Strong Peak STL Games, Inc.

March 17, 2014 SEC EN BANC CASE NO. 08-10-212 IN THE MATTER OF STRONG PEAK STL GAMES, INC. ATTY. JOEL DESCALLAR , complainant-appellee . ORDER On 19 August 2010, Julius DL Co ("Respondent-Appellant") filed his Notice of Appeal together with his Memorandum on Appeal ("Appeal") before the Commission assailing the Order of the Company Registration and Monitoring Department ("CRMD") dated 30 July 2010. The 2006 Rules of Procedure of the Securities and Exchange Commission provides for the form and contents of an Appeal before the Commission, to wit: "Sec. 11-4. Memorandum on Appeal; Form and Contents of Appeal . . . . The full names of all the parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the Memorandum on Appeal and shall include the decision, order or ruling from which the appeal is taken , and, in chronological order, copies of any such pleadings, petition, motions and all interlocutory orders as are related to the appealed decision, order or ruling and necessary for the proper understanding of the issues involved, together with such date as will show that the appeal was perfected on time. . . ." Section 11-6. Dismissal of Appeal for Non-Compliance . The appeal may be dismissed by the Commission En Banc for failure to comply with these Rules , or failure to perfect the appeal within the prescribed period." (Emphasis supplied) cCaATD A perusal of the said Appeal reveals that it is deficient as it failed to attach the assailed 30 July 2010 Order of the CRMD. Likewise, the address of the Complainant-Appellee was inadequate as attempts by the Commission to serve the Order to file a Reply Memorandum have been futile due to the absence of the Complainant-Appellee at the given address. 1 Despite the deficiency in the Appeal, the Commission afforded the Respondent-Appellant the opportunity to submit the required Order of the CRMD from which the appeal was taken. Thus, on 24 January 2014, the Commission issued an Order directing Respondent-Appellant to submit a copy of the Order appealed from, as well as to provide the Commission with a valid address of Atty. Joey Descallar ("Complainant-Appellee"). The Commission served the said Order upon the Complainant-Appellee and upon Respondent-Appellant, through his counsel, at their last known addresses reflected in the records. However, the Order returned unserved. The records show that Respondent-Appellant is represented by counsel, a certain Atty. Glen G. Abellon ("Atty. Abellon"). However, attempts by the Commission to serve the 24 January 2014 Order upon Respondent-Appellant's counsel have been unsuccessful as the results of the service reveal that Atty. Abellon has moved out from his given address 2 and has not informed the Commission of his new forwarding address. Neither was the Commission informed of any change of Respondent-Appellant's counsel's address. Well-settled is the rule that when a party is represented by counsel, notice should be made upon the counsel of record at his given address to which notices of all kinds emanating from the court should be sent in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address. 3 Thus: "In the present case, service of the assailed Decision was made on petitioner's counsels of record, Attys. Moldez and Galoz, on March 6, 2002. That copy of the Decision was, however, returned to the sender for the reason that the addressee had "move[d] out." If counsel moves to another address without informing the court of that change, such omission or neglect is inexcusable and will not stay the finality of the decision ." The court cannot be expected to take judicial notice of the new address of a lawyer who has moved or to ascertain on its own whether or not the counsel of record has been changed and who the new counsel could possibly be or where he probably resides or holds office." (Emphasis ours) TIHCcA PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Order dated 24 January 2014 addressed to Atty. Glen G. Abellon is deemed served. Moreover, for failure of the Respondent-Appellant to include the decision, order, or ruling from which the appeal is taken, despite being given an opportunity to comply, the Appeal filed by the Respondent-Appellant is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Mandaluyong City, March 17, 2014. (SGD.) TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson (SGD.) MA. JUANITA E. CUETO Commissioner (SGD.) ELADIO M. JALA Commissioner (SGD.) MANUEL HUBERTO B. GAITE Commissioner (SGD.) ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner Footnotes 1. "Moved out; No forwarding address as per S/G Bilaos," according to the Affidavit of Service of Jose B. Nepomuceno dated 27 August 2010. 2. "Addressee Move(d) out", according to the Affidavit of Service of Don M. Seludo. 3. Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Provident Insurance Corporation ; G.R. No. 154305, December 9, 2004.