G.R. No. 169420 ; September 22, 2006
ATTY. ERLANDO A. ABRENICA, petitioner, vs. LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA, TUNGOL AND TIBAYAN, DANILO N. TUNGOL AND ABELARDO M. TIBAYAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Erlando Abrenica was a partner in the law firm with respondents. The firm sued him before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for accounting and return of partnership funds, including profits from a land sale and retainer fees. The cases were transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799 . The RTC rendered a Consolidated Decision on November 23, 2004, ordering petitioner to account for and remit specific sums with interest. Petitioner received the decision on December 17, 2004, and on December 21, 2004, he filed a notice of appeal under Rule 41 and paid the appeal fees.
Respondents moved for execution, citing A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC, which provides that decisions in intra-corporate disputes are immediately executory. They also opposed the notice of appeal, arguing that A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, effective October 15, 2004, mandates that appeals from such RTC decisions must be via a petition for review under Rule 43. The RTC issued an order requiring petitioner to show cause why his notice of appeal should be given due course. Instead of complying, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Admit a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals on June 10, 2005.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Admit his Petition for Review under Rule 43.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed that the proper and exclusive mode of appeal from the RTC decision in these intra-corporate cases was a petition for review under Rule 43, as expressly mandated by A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC. This rule was already in full force and effect when the RTC rendered its decision and when petitioner filed his erroneous notice of appeal under Rule 41. The filing of a notice of appeal was a wrong mode of appeal and did not toll the reglementary period for filing a Rule 43 petition. Petitioner had only until January 3, 2005, to file his Rule 43 petition, counting from his receipt of the RTC decision on December 17, 2004. His filing on June 10, 2005, was grossly out of time. The Court rejected petitioner’s claim of excusable negligence, emphasizing that counsel is duty-bound to keep abreast of procedural rules. The RTC’s show-cause order did not suspend the running of the appeal period. Consequently, the RTC decision had become final and executory, and the Court of Appeals committed no error in dismissing the appeal.