Ramos v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action for recovery of possession of real property with damages, filed by respondents Spouses Antonio and Suspene Lim against petitioners Rene Ramos, et al. The dispute centered on a piece of land and structures thereon. Procedural History: The case proceeded to trial at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cotabato City. After the respondents rested their case, the petitioners' counsel failed to appear for a scheduled hearing, leading the RTC to deny a resetting and submit the case for decision. Despite subsequent attempts to file motions and enter appearances by different counsels for the petitioners, the RTC issued a decision on January 31, 1996, ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises and demolish their houses. The RTC denied petitioners' Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which found that the petitioners' counsel, Atty. Estaniel, had effective notice of the decision on April 1, 1996, and failed to file the appeal within the reglementary period. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that their Notice of Appeal filed on May 29, 1996, was timely because their counsel, Atty. Estaniel, only obtained a copy of the trial court's January 31, 1996 decision on May 24, 1996. They contend that the appellate court erred in considering April 1, 1996, as the date from which the appeal period should be reckoned, despite Atty. Estaniel not being officially furnished a copy of the decision on that date.
Issue(s)
Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by petitioners, through Atty. Estaniel, was timely filed within the reglementary period for appeal.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by petitioners, through Atty. Estaniel, was timely filed within the reglementary period for appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Notice of Appeal was indeed filed out of time. While affirming the Court of Appeals' conclusion, the Supreme Court adopted the appellate court's reasoning that Atty. Estaniel was the petitioners' counsel of record at the time the trial court's decision was issued and thereafter, and his entry of appearance did not require court approval for its validity. The Court emphasized that service of judgments must be made upon counsel, and notice to counsel is effective notice to the client. Crucially, the Court concurred with the Court of Appeals' finding that Atty. Estaniel was put on "effective official notice" of the trial court's January 31, 1996 decision on April 1, 1996, the date he received Atty. Datukon's "MANIFESTATION." This manifestation clearly referenced a motion for execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 580, providing Atty. Estaniel with sufficient information to be alerted to the existence of the decision. The Court stated that Atty. Estaniel, as a prudent counsel, had the duty under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to serve his client with competence and diligence, which required him to immediately inquire about the status of the case or obtain a copy of the decision upon receiving such an alerting document. His failure to do so until May 24, 1996, constituted lack of due diligence. Consequently, the reglementary period for appeal commenced on April 1, 1996, rendering the Notice of Appeal filed on May 29, 1996, belated. The Court cited Arambulo vs. Court of Appeals (226 SCRA 589 [1993]) to support the dismissal of an appeal due to a new counsel's neglect in inquiring about the case status, reiterating that a client is bound by the conduct, negligence, or mistakes of their counsel.
Main Doctrine
A client is bound by the negligence or mistakes of his counsel. The period to appeal is reckoned from the date counsel is deemed to have effective notice of the trial court's decision, even if not officially served a copy, especially when a pleading filed in the case provides such notice.