Aquino v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioners, Spouses Serafin and Rumelia Aquino, initiated a civil case against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) seeking specific performance, damages, and annulment, with a prayer for preliminary injunction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, dismissed this complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action against the GSIS. 2. Procedural History: Following the RTC's dismissal, the petitioners appealed the decision. However, their appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 25, 1991, for failure to file an appellant's brief within the reglementary period. The petitioners' subsequent motions to recall the entry of judgment and reinstate their appeal, as well as their motion for reconsideration, were denied by the CA. The CA reasoned that the dismissal had become final and executory and that it was beyond their power to modify it. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the CA's resolutions through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the CA erred in not serving resolutions directly upon them, especially after their counsel of record, Atty. Mala, had died and another counsel, Atty. Barican, had allegedly withdrawn. They argue that service should have been made upon them as they were effectively unrepresented. The petitioners also claim that substantial justice requires their appeal to be heard on the merits, asserting that procedural lapses were attributable to the CA and their former counsel, and that their appeal brief was appended to their motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals properly served its Resolution of dismissal upon the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in serving copies of resolutions upon the petitioners' former counsel de parte. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the admission of the appellant's brief appended to the motion for reconsideration. Whether there are compelling reasons for the Court of Appeals to resolve the issues on the merits. Whether the petitioners are guilty of forum shopping. Whether the issue of res judicata is applicable.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petitioners' appeal is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the proper service of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court ruled that there was proper service of the Resolution dated July 25, 1991, upon the petitioners. The Court emphasized that Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure for the withdrawal of a lawyer as counsel, requiring written application, written consent of the client, and written consent of the attorney to be substituted, or proof of notice to the attorney if consent cannot be obtained. The petitioners failed to present proof of compliance with these requirements for the withdrawal of Atty. Barican and the substitution of Atty. Mala. Therefore, Atty. Barican remained the counsel of record, and service upon him was effective. It was irrelevant that Atty. Mala did not receive the copy of the resolution as he was not the counsel of record and had never entered his appearance as such. On the alleged error of serving resolutions upon former counsel de parte: The Court found no error in serving resolutions upon Atty. Barican, as he was still considered the counsel of record due to the petitioners' failure to comply with the procedural requirements for his withdrawal and substitution. The certification of Atty. Barican regarding his withdrawal was not controlling in the absence of proper court compliance. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly considered Atty. Barican as the petitioners' counsel of record for purposes of service. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper because the resolution dismissing the appeal had become final and executory. Since service was effectively made upon the counsel of record, Atty. Barican, the fifteen-day period for appeal lapsed without the brief being filed, rendering the dismissal final. The Court of Appeals correctly held that it was beyond its power to modify a dismissal order that had become final and executory. On the denial of admission of the appellant's brief: The Court found no error in denying the admission of the appellant's brief appended to the motion for reconsideration. As the dismissal of the appeal had already become final and executory, there was no pending appeal to which the brief could be admitted. The procedural lapse of failing to file the brief within the reglementary period, after proper service, precluded further proceedings on the merits of the appeal. On compelling reasons to resolve the issues on the merits: The Court found no compelling reasons to deviate from the established rules of procedure. The failure to file the appellant's brief was a procedural defect that led to the finality of the dismissal. The argument for substantial justice was unavailing when there was a clear failure to comply with the rules regarding counsel and the filing of briefs, especially after the dismissal had become final and executory. On forum shopping: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners that they were not guilty of forum shopping. The Court clarified that forum shopping occurs when a party seeks a favorable opinion in another forum due to an adverse opinion in one, and it applies when two or more cases are still pending. In this instance, only the present Petition for Review on Certiorari was pending between the parties. On res judicata: In view of the conclusions reached regarding the finality of the dismissal of the appeal, the Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the issue of res judicata.
Main Doctrine
Service of resolutions and notices upon the counsel of record is proper and effective, even if the client claims ignorance of the proceedings, unless there has been a proper and formal withdrawal of counsel in accordance with the Rules of Court. Failure to file an appellant's brief within the reglementary period, after proper service on the counsel of record, renders the dismissal of the appeal final and executory.