G.R. No. 74697 . November 29, 1991. LINO ALABANZAS and NELLY ALABANZAS, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL BRANCH XLII, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ALICIA PALMA and ADORACION PALMA, respondents.
FACTS

Alicia Palma filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against spouses Lino and Nelly Alabanzas. The trial court rendered judgment on June 18, 1971, dismissing Palma’s complaint and ordering her to execute a deed of transfer over a portion of land to the Alabanzas spouses upon their payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price. Palma appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). However, she failed to file her appellant’s brief within the reglementary period, even after a granted extension. Consequently, the IAC dismissed her appeal in a resolution dated June 14, 1977, which became final and executory on July 25, 1977. The case was remanded to the trial court, which ordered execution. The Clerk of Court executed the deed of sale on August 20, 1975.
More than three years after the dismissal became final, upon motion of Palma’s counsel, the IAC, in a resolution dated September 23, 1976, recalled the records, reinstated the appeal, and granted another extension to file the brief. The motion cited the appellant’s alleged lack of knowledge of the dismissal, her counsel’s gross misconduct for failing to file the brief despite being paid, and the purported injustice of the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, on July 29, 1983, the IAC rendered a new decision reversing the trial court and ordering the Alabanzas spouses to vacate the property.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court had jurisdiction to reconsider its final and executory resolution dismissing the appeal and to subsequently render a new decision on the merits.

RULING

No, the Intermediate Appellate Court had lost jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the IAC’s 1976 resolution and 1983 decision, and reinstating the 1971 trial court judgment. The legal logic is firmly anchored on the doctrine of finality of judgment. Once a decision or order becomes final and executory, it is removed from the jurisdiction of the court that rendered it to amend or revoke. This principle is fundamental to public policy and sound judicial practice, ensuring litigations are settled with certainty and conclusiveness. The IAC’s dismissal of Palma’s appeal for failure to file a brief attained finality in July 1977. Its act of reinstating the appeal years later was a grave abuse of discretion, as it no longer possessed any authority to alter that final dismissal order.
Furthermore, the negligence of counsel is generally binding on the client. The rule is that clients are bound by the mistakes and omissions of their counsel in the conduct of a case. Relief is granted only in cases of gross or palpable negligence, which Palma failed to substantiate. Her counsel’s failure to file the brief, while negligent, did not reach the level required to exempt her from the consequences of that negligence and to disturb the finality of the judgment. Therefore, the IAC’s subsequent actions were null and void for lack of jurisdiction.