G.R. No. 109493. July 2, 1999.
SPOUSES SERAFIN AQUINO and RUMELIA AQUINO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET. AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Serafin and Rumelia Aquino filed Civil Case No. 38-M-89 against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, for specific performance, damages, and annulment. The RTC dismissed the complaint on March 27, 1989, for failure to state a cause of action. The petitioners filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal on July 25, 1991, for failure to file an appellant’s brief within the reglementary period, which expired on May 29, 1991. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion to recall the entry of judgment and reinstate the appeal on September 1, 1992, and denied their motion for reconsideration on March 15, 1993, noting that the dismissal order had become final and executory on August 19, 1991, with an Entry of Judgment issued on November 4, 1991. The petitioners filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that they were not properly notified of the dismissal because their counsel of record, Atty. Mala, had died, and that another attorney, Atty. Barican, had withdrawn. They contended the Court of Appeals should have served notices directly to them and that substantial justice warranted allowing their appeal. The respondents argued that Atty. Barican remained the counsel of record as no formal withdrawal was approved, service upon him was valid, and the dismissal was final.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for failure to file an appellant’s brief, considering the petitioners’ claim of improper service of the dismissal resolution due to the death of one counsel and the alleged withdrawal of another.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It ruled that there was proper service of the Court of Appeals’ July 25, 1991 Resolution dismissing the appeal. Citing Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Court held that unless the formal procedure for withdrawal and substitution of attorneys is complied with—requiring a written application, the client’s written consent, and the written consent of the attorney to be substituted, or at least proof of notice to that attorney—the attorney of record remains the counsel who must be served with all court processes. The petitioners admitted Atty. Barican represented them in the RTC but claimed Atty. Mala substituted him on appeal. However, they presented no proof of compliance with the procedural requirements for substitution. Atty. Mala never formally entered his appearance, and Atty. Barican’s certification of withdrawal, without court approval, was insufficient. Therefore, Atty. Barican remained the counsel of record, and service of the dismissal resolution upon him was effective service upon the petitioners. The dismissal of the appeal for failure to file a brief became final and executory after fifteen days from such receipt. The Court also found the petitioners not guilty of forum shopping, as the rule applies only when two or more cases are pending, and here only the instant petition was pending. Given the finality of the dismissal, the Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the issue of res judicata.