Cortez v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action filed by the heirs of Severino Cortez against Kuy Guam Kay, Ltd. and its driver, Macario Supan, for damages. The trial court found the defendants liable for the death of Severino Cortez due to the driver's negligence and ordered them to pay P4,000 in damages. The defendants appealed this decision. 2. Procedural History: The Court of Appeals initially modified the trial court's decision, increasing the damages to P12,000. A copy of this decision was served on the defendants' counsel of record, Atty. Joaquin C. Yuseco. Although Atty. Yuseco returned the copy, stating he had ceased to represent the defendants, he had not formally withdrawn his appearance. The Court of Appeals noted this and sent copies to the defendants directly, which were unclaimed. An entry of judgment was made, and the case record was remanded to the trial court, which issued a writ of execution. Subsequently, the defendants, through new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration and suspension of execution, arguing improper service and citing a Supreme Court ruling that acquittal in a criminal case bars civil liability. The Court of Appeals granted this motion, setting aside its earlier decision and dismissing the complaint. 3. The Petition: The plaintiffs, heirs of Severino Cortez, filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' resolution that set aside its final and executory decision. They argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to do so after the record had been remanded and execution was underway. The petition contended that service on the counsel of record, even if he later disclaimed representation without formal withdrawal, constituted valid service, making the Court of Appeals' decision final and unassailable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to set aside its decision which had become final and executory. Whether service of the Court of Appeals' decision upon the defendants' counsel of record, who had not formally withdrawn his appearance, was valid and effective. Whether the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case for homicide through reckless imprudence barred the civil action for damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to set aside its decision of November 17, 1969, which had become final and was in the process of execution. The resolution of August 18, 1970, setting aside the decision, is reversed and set aside. The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to set aside its final decision: The Court held that the Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction to set aside its decision dated November 17, 1969, because it had become final and executory. This finality was established by the entry of judgment on December 8, 1969, and the subsequent remand of the record to the trial court for execution. The Court emphasized that once a judgment becomes final, the court that rendered it can no longer alter or modify it, except for clerical errors or to correct a void judgment, neither of which applied here. The subsequent actions of the Court of Appeals in setting aside its own decision and dismissing the complaint were therefore without legal basis and constituted a grave abuse of discretion. On the validity of service of the decision upon the counsel of record: The Court affirmed that the 1969 decision became final and executory as to the defendant-appellant Kuy Guam Kay, Ltd. because its lawyer of record, Atty. Yuseco, was duly served with a copy of that decision. The Court clarified that Atty. Yuseco's act of returning the copy with a note that he had ceased to be counsel did not nullify the effectiveness of the service. This is because Atty. Yuseco had not filed a formal motion for withdrawal of his appearance, nor had he obtained his client's consent or the Court's authorization to do so, as required by the Rules of Court. Therefore, he remained the counsel of record, and service upon him was legally valid. The Court reiterated the principle that when a party is represented by an attorney, service must be made upon the latter, and notice to the client instead of the lawyer of record is not legally effective. On the effect of acquittal in the criminal case on the civil liability: While the Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside its decision due to lack of jurisdiction, it also addressed the substantive issue raised by the defendants regarding the acquittal in the criminal case. The Court noted that the defendants' motion for reconsideration was based on the ruling in Corpus vs. Paje, which held that acquittal of homicide through reckless imprudence bars civil liability. However, the Supreme Court's primary basis for reversing the Court of Appeals' resolution was the latter's lack of jurisdiction to set aside a final judgment. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether the acquittal in Corpus vs. Paje would have applied had the Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction, but its reversal implies that the original decision, which increased damages, was not necessarily invalidated by the acquittal in the manner the Court of Appeals concluded.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer of record is considered the counsel for service of notices and pleadings until a formal substitution of attorney is effected, and service upon such counsel is valid even if the lawyer claims to have ceased representing the client, provided no formal withdrawal was authorized by the court.