THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227946. March 21, 2018.]
PABLO TAPALES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227946 (Pablo Tapales, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.) — The petitioner was found guilty as charged of acts of lasciviousness committed in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 by the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City (RTC), 1 to wit:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Pablo Tapales, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to R.A. No. 7610 and as such, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty (20) years and one (1) day of reclusion perpetua as maximum, with all the accessory penalties of the law. He is also ordered to pay in moral damages in the sum of twenty thousand (P20,000) pesos separately each to the private complainant, and to her parents as well.
SO ORDERED.
After the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, 2 he appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On June 23, 2015, 3 the CA issued a notice to the parties to file their respective briefs. On July 6, 2015, the petitioner's counsel received the notice to file the appellant's brief, but he did not comply, per the records of the Judicial Records Division of the CA. Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal for his failure to file the appellant's brief. 4
The petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration with leave of court to submit appellant's brief, proffering the excuse that his lone staff had neglected to turn over the notice to file the appellant's brief due to the series of transactions in his office. 5
Finding the proffered excuse wanting in merit, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner. 6
Hence, the petitioner appeals to reverse the dismissal of the appeal and the denial of the motion for reconsideration, claiming that the CA thereby acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. He insists that the CA's resolutions denied to him due process and opportunity to seek the review of the decision of the RTC.
Ruling of the Court
We deny the petition for review on certiorari.
The CA correctly ruled that lawyers could not be excused for the alleged negligence of their office personnel, secretary or staff. This is because the duty rests on every counsel to see to it that a system is adopted and strictly maintained to efficiently take into account all court notices sent to him.
The established rule is that a client is bound by the counsel's acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client. As such, any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself. 7
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the dismissal of the appeal for failure of the petitioner to file the appellant's brief within the period granted to him; and ORDERS him to pay the cost of suit. (Leonen, J., on wellness leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 72-78; penned by Judge Leopoldo V. Cañete.
2.Id. at 47.
3.Id. at 51.
4.Id. at 51-52.
5.Id. at 53-56.
6.Id. at 6-7.
7.People v. Bitanga, G.R. No. 159222, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 623, 632.