Go v. Abrogar
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent International Exchange Bank filed a collection case against petitioner Jimmy T. Go and Alberto T. Looyuko for P98,000,000.00, representing unpaid debts incurred under a credit line. Petitioner had executed a Surety Agreement, binding himself solidarily liable for all debts under the credit line, which were evidenced by eight promissory notes co-signed by both defendants. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both defendants jointly and severally liable for P96,000,000.00, plus interests and costs. 2. Procedural History: The RTC decision, rendered on October 7, 1999, was received by petitioner's counsel of record, Atty. Ronald E. Javier, on October 20, 1999. Despite Atty. Javier's prior withdrawal letter dated September 30, 1999, petitioner formally terminated his services on October 29, 1999. Petitioner, through new counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 5, 1999, which was denied. Subsequently, a Notice of Appeal was filed on the same date. The RTC denied the Notice of Appeal, deeming it filed late as the reglementary period expired on November 4, 1999, based on Atty. Javier's receipt of the decision. The RTC then ordered the issuance of a Writ of Execution. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing these orders. The CA denied the petition, upholding the RTC's ruling that the appeal period began to run from Atty. Javier's receipt of the decision. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that the CA erred in denying his petition for certiorari. He contends that he should not be bound by Atty. Javier's receipt of the decision as Javier was no longer his counsel at that time, and that Javier was grossly negligent. Petitioner also claims a meritorious defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The Court held that Atty. Javier remained counsel of record until petitioner's formal termination of his services, making the appeal late. Furthermore, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines had previously absolved Atty. Javier of negligence, and the Court found no substantial reason to disturb the RTC's factual assessment of petitioner's liability.
Issue(s)
Whether the Notice of Appeal should be given due course despite being filed late. Whether petitioner should be bound by the receipt of the decision by Atty. Javier, who petitioner claims was no longer his counsel at the time of receipt. Whether petitioner should be granted a new trial due to alleged gross negligence of his former counsel.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Notice of Appeal: The Court affirmed the RTC's denial of the Notice of Appeal. The reglementary period for appeal is counted from the date the counsel of record receives the decision. In this case, Atty. Javier was still the counsel of record when he received the decision on October 20, 1999. Therefore, the 15-day reglementary period expired on November 4, 1999. The Notice of Appeal, filed on November 5, 1999, was indeed filed out of time. The Court emphasized that a lawyer's withdrawal of services is only effective upon formal filing with the court, or with the written consent of the client and notice to the adverse party, or upon notice and hearing. Until then, the lawyer of record remains responsible for receiving notices. On whether petitioner should be bound by Atty. Javier's receipt: The Court held that petitioner was bound by Atty. Javier's receipt of the decision. Atty. Javier was the counsel of record until petitioner formally terminated his services on October 29, 1999, through a Notice of Termination filed on November 5, 1999. The Court noted that petitioner's own letter of termination indicated that the termination was effective only from October 29, 1999, which was after Atty. Javier received the decision. This implied that, in petitioner's own view at the time, Atty. Javier was still his counsel when the decision was received. On the alleged gross negligence of former counsel and the grant of a new trial: The Court dismissed the claim of gross negligence against Atty. Javier. It was noted that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) had already investigated the complaint filed by petitioner against Atty. Javier and absolved him of all negligence. Since Atty. Javier was found not negligent, petitioner's argument that he should not suffer the consequences of his counsel's negligence had no basis. Furthermore, the Court found no error in the CA's denial of the petition for certiorari, as there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in its rulings.
Main Doctrine
The reglementary period for filing an appeal commences from the date the counsel of record receives the decision, even if the client has already terminated the counsel's services, provided the withdrawal of services has not been formally filed with the court. Furthermore, allegations of gross negligence against counsel must be substantiated and are subject to investigation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.