G.R. No. L-32547 May 9, 1978 CONCHITA CORTEZ, ELENA CORTEZ, ROSENDO CORTEZ, J DINA CORTEZ a!

" #ERNANDO CORTEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. CO RT O# A$$EALS, HON. J DGE #ELI% R. DOMINGO o& '(a!)* %+, Co,(- o& #.(/I!/-a!)0 o& Ma!.1a, THE SHERI##, C.-y o& Ma!.1a, S$ECIAL SHERI## RE2NALDO JA+IER, 3 2 G AM 3A2, LTD. a!" MACARIO S $AN 2 MERCADO, respondents. Garcia & Garcia for petitioners. Kallos Law Office for private respondents. Gregorio A. Ejercito, Arturo A. De Guia and Jonathan . !iteng for respondent "he heriff, #it$ of %anila.

A4 INO, J5 This case is about the propriety of the service of a decision of the Court of Appeals upon appellants' lawyer, who that he had ceased to be their counsel but who was not authorized to withdraw from the case. The question is whether, after the had been remanded to the trial court and after a writ of execution had been issued, the Court of Appeals could still set aside that decision on the theory that it did not become final because it had not been properly served upon the appellants. 1. n Au!ust 1", 1#$%, &ud!e '. (oriano of the Court of )irst *nstance of +anila rendered a decision orderin! defendants ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. and +acario (upan to pay solidarily the sum of four thousand pesos as dama!es to the plaintiffs, the heirs of (everino Cortez /Civil Case 0o. 12%#"3. The court found that, due to the driver's ne!li!ence, a truc4 owned by ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. and driven by +acario (upan on Au!ust "%, 1#56, hit and 4illed (everino Cortez in +isericordia (treet, (ta. Cruz, +anila. ". 7efendants ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. and (upan appealed to the Court of Appeals /CA8-.9. 0o. ":2%%893. 7urin! the pendency of that appeal &ud!e .uis ;. 9eyes of the Court of )irst *nstance of +anila in his decision dated &une 1", 1#$1 in Case 0o. 2152# acquitted (upan of homicide throu!h rec4less imprudence. 1. ;ecause of that acquittal ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. and (upan filed petition in the Court of Appeals dated &uly 12, 1#$1 and +arch "$, 1#$$ to re8open Civil Case 0o. 12%#" so that the <ud!ment of acquittal could be presented in evidence. The latter petition was denied on &une 15, 1#$$. 2. n 0ovember 16, 1#$# the Court of Appeals rendered a decision the <ud!ment of the lower court in Civil Case 0o. 12%#" with the modification that the amount of dama!es was increased to =1",%%%. A copy of that decision was served on 0ovember "1, 1#$# on Atty. &oaquin C. >useco, the defendants8appellants' counsel of record. ?owever, Atty. >useco returned that copy and informed the Court by letter that he had ceased to be the lawyer for defendants8appellants (upan and ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. The Court of Appeals in its resolution of &anuary 11, 1#6% noted >useco's letter and made the observation that >useco had @not filed any formal motion for the withdrawal of his appearance@ in that case. The Court of Appeals then sent copies of the decision

to the defendant8appellants themselves by re!istered mail but the copies were not delivered because they were unclaimed. 5. Thereafter, there was an entry of <ud!ment indicatin! that the decision of the Court of Appeals became final and executory on 7ecember :, 1#$#. The record was remanded and was received in the lower court on +arch "5, 1#6%. 0otices to that effect were sent to Attys. =acifica -arcia and >useco, the parties' counsels of record. $. n +ay 1%, 1#6% a writ of execution was issued by the lower court. The (heriff levied upon five frei!ht truc4s and an addin! machine owned by ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. ?e scheduled the auction sale on &une "$, 1#6%. *nstead of !uardin! the truc4s and addin! machine, the sheriff allowed the mana!er of the firm to have custody thereof so that they could be used in the firms business. n &une "$, two truc4s and the addin! machine were turned over to the plaintiffs. The other three truc4s were sequestered away by the mana!er of defendant firm. 6. n &une "1, 1#6% defendant firm, throu!h a new lawyer, filed in the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration and suspension of execution. *t alle!ed that there was no valid service of the decision upon itA that the decision is contrary to the rulin! in #orpus vs. &aje, .8"$616, &uly 11, 1#$#, ": (C9A 1%$" /that the acquittal of the accused of the crime of homicide throu!h rec4less imprudence is a bar to the civil liability3, and that the increase of the dama!es from =2,%%% to =1",%%% was unwarranted since the plaintiffs did not appeal :. The Court of Appeals in its resolution of &uly 1, 1#6% set aside the entry of <ud!ment, ordered the lower court to elevate the record of the case and required plaintiffs Cortez to comment on the motion for reconsideration. The a opposed the motion. The record was re8elevated to the Court of Appeals. #. n Au!ust 1:, 1#6% the Court of Appeals issued a resolution settin! aside its decision of 0ovember 16, 1#$# and dama!in! the complaint on the basis of the said rulin! in #orpus vs. &aje, supra. =laintiffs' motion for the reconsideration of that decision was denied. 1%. n (eptember "1, 1#6%, the plaintiffs filed the petition for certiorari the Court of ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. /which had been succeeded by (even8 8(even Truc4in! Co., *nc.3 and +acario (upan /who alle!edly died in 1#$", pp. 15% and 1$2 of 9ollo3. The petition is really an appeal from the resolution of Au!ust 1:, 1#6%. After the petitioners had posted a bond in the sum of =5%%, this Court issued a writ of preliminary in<unction dated (eptember 1%, 1#6% to restrain the enforcement of that resolution. ;ecause of that in<unction, the petitioners retained the possession of the addin! machine and the two truc4s /p. "%1, 9ollo3. The petition is meritorious. Be hold that the Court of Appeals had no <urisdiction to set aside on Au!ust 1:, 1#6% its decision of 0ovember 16, 1#$# which had become final and was in the process of bein! executed in the lower court to which the record was remanded after entry of <ud!ment had been made in the Court of Appeals. The 1#$# decision became final and executory as to defendant8appellant ,uy -uam ,ay, .td. because its lawyer of record, Atty. >useco, was duly served with a copy of that decision. *t is true that Atty. >useco returned that copy to the Court with the note that he was no lon!er appellants' counsel but that return did not nullify the effectiveness of the service upon him since he did not retire from the case with his client's consent or with the Court's authorization /(ec. ", 9ule 11 and (ec. "$, 9ule 11:, 9ules of CourtA 7on .ino -utierrez C (ons, *nc. vs. Court of Appeals and Alvendia, .81#1"2, 0ovember 15, 1#62, $1 (C9A :6, #1A +a!payo vs. Court of Appeals and =eople, .815#$$, 0ovember 1#, 1#62, $1 (C9A 115A ;aquiran vs. Court of Appeals, 11" =hil. 6$2A -uanzon vs. Ara!on, 1%6 =hil. 115, 1"%3.

Bhen a party is represented by an attorney, service of orders and notices must be made upon the latter, and notice to the client and not to his lawyer of record is not a notice in law /Chairman vs. Tancinco, #% =hil. :$"3. Thus, it was held that, unless the procedure prescribed in section "$ of 9ule 11: is complied with, the attorney of record is re!arded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the <ud!ments, orders and pleadin!s and who should be held responsible for the conduct of the case /)o<as vs. 0avarro, .8"$1$5, April 1%, 1#6%, 1" (C9A 26$, 2:53. @*n order that there may be substitution of attorneys in a !iven case, there must be /13 written application for substitutionA /"3 a written consent of the client, and /13 a written consent of the attorney to be substituted. And in case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must at least be proof that notice of the motion for substitution has been served upon him in the manner prescribed by our rules.@ Bhere the procedure for substitution of attorney is not followed, the attorney who appears to be on record before the filin! of the application for substitution should be re!arded as the attorney entitled to be served with all notices and pleadin!s and the client is answerable for the shortcomin!s of this counsel of record. /9amos vs. =otenciano, 11: =hil. 12153. The counsel of record is obli!ated to protect his clients interest until he is released from his professional relationship with his client. )or its part, the court could reco!nize no other representation on behalf of the client except such counsel of record until a formal substitution of attorney is effected. /Bac4 Bac4 -olf and Country Club, *nc. vs. Court of Appeals, 1%$ =hil. 5%1, 5%23. *t is noteworthy that in the instant case even after Atty. >useco had returned to the Court the copy of the decision served upon him, the Appellate Court and the lower court continued to serve copies of orders and resolutions upon him as defendants' counsel of record without any ob<ection on his part. ?e was responsible for the conduct of the case since he had not been properly relieved as counsel of record of the appellants /(ee D. (. vs. ;orromeo, "% =hil. 1:#A livares and Cole!io de (an &ose vs. .eola, #6 =hil. "$1, "563. B?'9') 9', the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated Au!ust 1:, 1#6% is reversed and set aside with costs a!ainst respondent firm. ( 97'9'7.