Olivares v. Leola
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Primo Olivares filed an action for specific performance against defendants Macario Leola and others, seeking delivery of two parcels of land. Macario Leola had a contract to purchase these lands from "Colegio de San Jose" (intervenor-appellee). Subsequently, Macario Leola sold his rights and interests in the lands to Primo Olivares. Olivares then executed a deed of sale with mortgage in favor of the "Colegio." When Olivares attempted to take possession, the defendants, particularly Angela Leola, prevented him from doing so. Despite demands, possession was not surrendered. The "Colegio" intervened to protect its ownership rights. Procedural History: The defendants attempted to prove that Macario Leola was deceived into signing the deed of sale with mortgage (Exhibit B). However, the defense counsel himself offered Exhibit B as his own exhibit without qualification, which the trial court interpreted as renouncing the claim of deceit. The court found the evidence favored the plaintiff, declaring the contract valid and ordering the defendants to deliver possession of the lands to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was denied damages for failure to present evidence. The Petition: A copy of the decision was received by Atty. Maximiano San Diego, counsel of record for the defendants-appellants, on August 18, 1951. Although Atty. Eusebio V. Navarro filed an appearance for the defendants on July 12, 1951, he did not state that his appearance was a substitution for Atty. San Diego, nor did Atty. San Diego withdraw his appearance. The defendants claimed they learned of the decision on December 7, 1951, and filed a motion for new trial, later amended to a petition for relief under Rule 38, on December 10, 1951. The trial court denied this petition on March 28, 1952, finding it filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for relief from judgment. Whether the notification of the decision to Atty. Maximiano San Diego constituted valid notice to the defendants-appellants. Whether there was a valid substitution of counsel that would render Atty. Navarro as the sole counsel of record.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying the petition for relief from judgment. The Court held that the petition was filed out of time, as the notification to the counsel of record, Atty. Maximiano San Diego, was valid. The Court found no valid substitution of counsel, and thus Atty. San Diego remained the counsel of record, making the notification to him binding on the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the petition for relief: The Court reiterated that a petition for relief under Rule 38 must be filed within sixty (60) days after the party learns of the judgment, order, or proceeding sought to be set aside. In this case, the defendants-appellants learned of the decision through their counsel of record, Atty. Maximiano San Diego, on August 18, 1951. Their petition for relief was filed in December 1951, which was more than sixty (60) days after they received notice through their counsel. Therefore, the petition was indeed filed out of time. On the validity of the notification to Atty. San Diego: The Court emphasized that notification to the counsel of record is considered notification to the client. Atty. Maximiano San Diego was the counsel of record for the defendants-appellants. The record did not show that his services were terminated, that he had withdrawn his appearance, or that Atty. Navarro had validly substituted him. Consequently, the notice of the decision served upon Atty. San Diego on August 18, 1951, was a valid notification to the defendants-appellants. On the substitution of counsel: The Court applied the requisites for substitution of attorneys as laid down in U.S. v. Borromeo and Ulanday v. Manila Railroad Co. These requisites include a written application for substitution, written consent of the client, written consent of the attorney substituted (or proof of service of notice if consent cannot be obtained). The filing of Atty. Navarro's appearance did not meet these formalities. It did not state it was a substitution, nor was there any indication that Atty. San Diego was informed or had consented to the substitution. Therefore, Atty. San Diego remained the counsel of record, and the filing of Atty. Navarro's appearance did not divest Atty. San Diego of his status as counsel for the defendants-appellants.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules of Court, and notification to the counsel of record constitutes notice to the client. Failure to comply with the formalities for substitution of counsel renders the prior counsel as the continuing counsel of record.