Domingo de Lopez v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Pedro A. Aquino filed a money claim against the intestate estate of the deceased Luis C. Domingo, Sr. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan approved the claim, ordering the administratrix to pay P20,000.00 with 12% interest per annum from June 10, 1954. Procedural History: Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, on January 20, 1967, affirmed the lower court's judgment with modifications, ordering the payment of P20,000.00 with compound interest at 12% per annum from July 27, 1953, plus P500.00 as attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioner, the new judicial administratrix Consuelo Domingo de Lopez, claimed that the estate's counsel of record in the appellate court, Atty. Jose A. Unson, did not receive the notice and copy of the judgment. After being verbally informed, petitioner filed a motion for substitution and to be served with a copy of the judgment on March 9, 1967. The appellate court denied this motion on April 27, 1967. Almost five months later, on September 23, 1967, after respondent filed a motion for execution, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari, alleging that the appellate court acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of the CA decision upon the counsel of record (Atty. Unson) was valid and binding on the estate despite his withdrawal from the lower court and the removal of the administrator who hired him. Whether the CA decision attained finality, precluding further review or reconsideration. Whether the petitioner's counsel should be sanctioned for filing an unmeritorious petition and misrepresenting the facts of the case.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and petitioner's counsel is ordered to pay treble costs. The writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved, and respondent may proceed with the execution of the Court of Appeals' judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that service upon Atty. Jose A. Unson was valid because he remained the counsel of record in the Court of Appeals (CA). Although he withdrew from the Intestate Court (CFI) upon assuming a public office, he never filed a formal withdrawal in the CA as required by Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that a lawyer represents the estate itself, not the person of the administrator; thus, the removal of Luis Domingo, Jr. did not automatically terminate Atty. Unson's authority to represent the estate. Until a formal substitution of counsel is filed and the court is notified of a change in party-representation, the existing counsel of record continues to have the authority and duty to receive notices. Consequently, service to Atty. Unson's address of record was the correct procedural step for the CA. On Issue 2: The CA decision became final and executory because service was legally completed under the rules. Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 8, service by registered mail is deemed complete upon the addressee's failure to claim the mail within five days from the date of the first notice from the postmaster. Since the Manila Postmaster certified that Atty. Unson failed to claim the letter, the 15-day period to move for reconsideration or appeal began to run shortly after the notice period expired. The petitioner's attempt to file a motion for substitution and ask for a fresh start of the appeal period on March 9, 1967, was too late, as the judgment had already attained finality. The Court will not disturb a final judgment unless there is a clear showing of lack of jurisdiction, which was not present here. On Issue 3: The Court found the petition to be 'utterly untenable and without legal justification,' noting that it was filed as a dilatory tactic to delay the execution of a valid money claim. The petitioner's counsel misrepresented that the CA granted 'new' relief, when in fact the compound interest and attorney's fees were specifically prayed for by the respondent in his own appeal and were based on the stipulations of the promissory note. The SC reminded counsel of their duty under Rule 7, Section 5, where a signature certifies that there is good ground to support the pleading and that it is not for delay. For willful violation of this rule and for clogging the court's dockets with unmeritorious cases, the Court imposed treble costs against the counsel and ordered the decision to be noted in their personal records.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari challenging a judgment of the Court of Appeals will be dismissed if the judgment has become final and executory due to the petitioner's failure to file a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal, particularly when notice of the judgment was duly served upon the counsel of record who failed to claim the registered mail.