September 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES
202 Phil. 912:
202 Phil. 912:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-58623. September 30, 1982.]
NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (NAMAWU-MIF), Petitioner, v. HONORABLE JUDGE DOMINGO CORONEL REYES of the Court of First Instance of Albay; the PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ALBAY AND JOSE MILLETE, Respondents.
Robert A. Padilla for Petitioner.
Domingo Coronel Reyes in his own behalf.
SYNOPSIS
After respondent court’s judgment in favor of private respondent became final, execution was ordered. Petitioner sought reconsideration thereof because it had not received any copy of said decision but the motion was denied on the ground that there had been a valid notice of the decision to petitioner through its counsel on record, Atty. Sisenando Villaluz, Sr. It appears that during the trial of the case, Atty. Roberto Padilla entered his appearance in collaboration with Atty. Villaluz, as counsel for petitioner and gave their address as Suite 202-210 Isabel Bldg., España, Manila; that before said decision was rendered, Atty. Villaluz, without informing the court, ceased to be petitioner’s counsel and that copy of the decision was sent to Atty. Villaluz’ former office address at Suite 306 Trade Center Bldg., corner P. Faura-A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila, which was returned unclaimed. Thus, petitioner filed the instant petition praying that respondent court’s order for execution and the order denying its motion for reconsideration be declared null and void.
The Supreme Court held that respondent court was negligent, and committed a grase abuse of discretion in not re-sending the copy of the decision to the given address of either lawyer at Isabel Blg. which address is a matter of record; and that both lawyers are likewise negligent in not notifying the court of the withdrawal made by Atty. Villaluz as one of the counsels of the petitioner.
Petition granted and petitioner was granted thirty days from notice of this decision within which to file a notice of appeal of the respondent court’s decision if it so desired.
The Supreme Court held that respondent court was negligent, and committed a grase abuse of discretion in not re-sending the copy of the decision to the given address of either lawyer at Isabel Blg. which address is a matter of record; and that both lawyers are likewise negligent in not notifying the court of the withdrawal made by Atty. Villaluz as one of the counsels of the petitioner.
Petition granted and petitioner was granted thirty days from notice of this decision within which to file a notice of appeal of the respondent court’s decision if it so desired.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION; ISSUING ORDER OF EXECUTION WITHOUT SERVICE COPY OF DECISION TO LOSING PARTY’S COUNSEL. — The petition for certiorari will be granted where respondent court was negligent and committed a grase abuse of discretion in issuing the order of execution of its decision and denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration when after the said decision sent to Atty. Sisenando Villaluz with office address at Trade Center Bldg., Ermita, Manila, was returned unclaimed, it did not re-send the same to Attys. Villaluz, and Roberto Padilla with office address at Isabel Bldg. España, Manila, which address is a matter of record.
2. LEGAL ETHICS; COUNSEL OF RECORD; FAILURE TO INFORM THE COURT OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE; CASE AT BAR. — There was also negligence on the part of Atty. Villaluz when he failed to inform the part of Atty. Villaluz when he failed to inform the court that he had ceased to represent the defendant before the decision was rendered and also on the part of Atty. Padilla in not notifying the court that he had remained the sole counsel of defendant after the withdrawal of Atty. Villaluz.
2. LEGAL ETHICS; COUNSEL OF RECORD; FAILURE TO INFORM THE COURT OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE; CASE AT BAR. — There was also negligence on the part of Atty. Villaluz when he failed to inform the part of Atty. Villaluz when he failed to inform the court that he had ceased to represent the defendant before the decision was rendered and also on the part of Atty. Padilla in not notifying the court that he had remained the sole counsel of defendant after the withdrawal of Atty. Villaluz.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
A decision in Civil Case No. 5523 of the CFI, Albay, was rendered on January 23, 1981, ordering the defendant (petitioner herein) to pay sums of money to the plaintiff (private respondent herein).
On August 11, 1981, the respondent judge ordered the execution of the decision on the ground that it had become final. The defendant by motion sought reconsideration of the order on the ground that "the defendant has never received any copy of the decision sought to be executed by the plaintiff." However, the motion was denied on September 22, 1981, for lack of merit because "there has been valid notice of the Decision to the defendant through its counsel on record, Sisenando Villaluz."cralaw virtua1aw library
The petitioner prays that "judgment be rendered declaring null and void the orders dated August 11, 1981 [ordering execution of the decision] and September 22, 1981 [denying the motion for reconsideration] issued by public respondent and commanding said public respondent to furnish a copy of the decision to petitioner, through its counsel, Atty. Roberto A. Padilla . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
On November 16, 1981, We issued the following resolution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"G.R. No. 58623 (National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU-MIF) v. Hon. Domingo Coronel Reyes, Et. Al.). — Acting on the petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court Resolved without giving due course to the petition to require the respondents to COMMENT, not to file a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice. The Court further Resolved to ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, effective as of this date and continuing until otherwise ordered by the Court."cralaw virtua1aw library
A copy of the resolution was served by registered mail on private respondent on November 23, 1981, but he has not filed the required comment.
The decision of the trial court was sent by it to Atty. Sisenando Villaluz, Sr. with address at Suite 306 Trade Center Bldg. corner P. Faura — A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila, but was returned unclaimed.
It appears that Atty. Villaluz, as stated in the order of September 22, 1981, was the counsel of record of the defendant. He alone signed the motion to dismiss the complaint and the answer with counterclaim. In both pleadings he gave his address as indicated above. However, while Civil Case No. 5523 was being tried, "Atty. Roberto A. Padilla verbally entered his appearance in collaboration with Atty. Sisenando Villaluz, Sr. as counsel for defendant herein petitioner and conducted a direct examination of the latter as witness." (Petition, p. 5 of the Rollo). In some pleadings, e.g. Annex H of the petition (p. 64 of the Rollo), Atty. Villaluz gave his address as Suite 202-210 Isabel Bldg. España, Manila. In another pleading, Annex I of the petition (p. 66 of the Rollo), Attys. Padilla and Villaluz gave Suite 202-210 Isabel Bldg., España, Manila, as their address.
It appears that in May, 1979, or before the decision was rendered, Atty. Villaluz ceased to be the counsel of the defendant (petitioner). However, he did not notify the court that his representation had ceased. This explains why the decision was sent to him.
There was negligence on the part of Atty. Villaluz when he failed to inform the court that he had ceased to represent the defendant. There was also negligence on the part of Atty. Padilla in not notifying the court that he remained the sole counsel after the withdrawal of Atty. Villaluz. But the trial court was more negligent when, after the decision sent to Atty. Villaluz with address at Trade Center Building was returned, it did not re-send the decision to Attys. Villaluz and Padilla with address at Isabel Building and which address is a matter of record. The respondent judge was guilty of grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders mentioned above.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted but since the petitioner has obviously already a copy of the decision and its purpose is merely to enable it to appeal if it so decides, the petitioner may file a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days from notice hereof. No special pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
On August 11, 1981, the respondent judge ordered the execution of the decision on the ground that it had become final. The defendant by motion sought reconsideration of the order on the ground that "the defendant has never received any copy of the decision sought to be executed by the plaintiff." However, the motion was denied on September 22, 1981, for lack of merit because "there has been valid notice of the Decision to the defendant through its counsel on record, Sisenando Villaluz."cralaw virtua1aw library
The petitioner prays that "judgment be rendered declaring null and void the orders dated August 11, 1981 [ordering execution of the decision] and September 22, 1981 [denying the motion for reconsideration] issued by public respondent and commanding said public respondent to furnish a copy of the decision to petitioner, through its counsel, Atty. Roberto A. Padilla . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
On November 16, 1981, We issued the following resolution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"G.R. No. 58623 (National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU-MIF) v. Hon. Domingo Coronel Reyes, Et. Al.). — Acting on the petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court Resolved without giving due course to the petition to require the respondents to COMMENT, not to file a motion to dismiss, within ten (10) days from notice. The Court further Resolved to ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, effective as of this date and continuing until otherwise ordered by the Court."cralaw virtua1aw library
A copy of the resolution was served by registered mail on private respondent on November 23, 1981, but he has not filed the required comment.
The decision of the trial court was sent by it to Atty. Sisenando Villaluz, Sr. with address at Suite 306 Trade Center Bldg. corner P. Faura — A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila, but was returned unclaimed.
It appears that Atty. Villaluz, as stated in the order of September 22, 1981, was the counsel of record of the defendant. He alone signed the motion to dismiss the complaint and the answer with counterclaim. In both pleadings he gave his address as indicated above. However, while Civil Case No. 5523 was being tried, "Atty. Roberto A. Padilla verbally entered his appearance in collaboration with Atty. Sisenando Villaluz, Sr. as counsel for defendant herein petitioner and conducted a direct examination of the latter as witness." (Petition, p. 5 of the Rollo). In some pleadings, e.g. Annex H of the petition (p. 64 of the Rollo), Atty. Villaluz gave his address as Suite 202-210 Isabel Bldg. España, Manila. In another pleading, Annex I of the petition (p. 66 of the Rollo), Attys. Padilla and Villaluz gave Suite 202-210 Isabel Bldg., España, Manila, as their address.
It appears that in May, 1979, or before the decision was rendered, Atty. Villaluz ceased to be the counsel of the defendant (petitioner). However, he did not notify the court that his representation had ceased. This explains why the decision was sent to him.
There was negligence on the part of Atty. Villaluz when he failed to inform the court that he had ceased to represent the defendant. There was also negligence on the part of Atty. Padilla in not notifying the court that he remained the sole counsel after the withdrawal of Atty. Villaluz. But the trial court was more negligent when, after the decision sent to Atty. Villaluz with address at Trade Center Building was returned, it did not re-send the decision to Attys. Villaluz and Padilla with address at Isabel Building and which address is a matter of record. The respondent judge was guilty of grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders mentioned above.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted but since the petitioner has obviously already a copy of the decision and its purpose is merely to enable it to appeal if it so decides, the petitioner may file a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days from notice hereof. No special pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
