G.R. No. 131287; December 9, 2004
PROSPERO BALGAMI, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO APLOMINA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, co-heirs of Victoriano Velarde, filed a complaint for partition, accounting, and damages against respondent Francisco Aplomina and Edilberto dela Vega over Lot No. 1827. They alleged that the respondent, one of the heirs, had the entire lot resurveyed and a new tax declaration issued under his name, and later sold a portion to dela Vega, depriving them of their shares. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on June 14, 1993, ordering the partition of the property. A copy of the decision was served by registered mail on July 1, 1993, upon the respondent’s counsel of record, J.T. Barrera & Associates.
The respondent did not file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period. Upon the petitioners’ motion, the trial court issued a writ of execution on December 3, 1993. The respondent, acting on his own, filed a notice of appeal only on December 21, 1993, alleging he learned of the decision late because his counsel, Atty. Joelito Barrera, had been suspended from the practice of law for one year during the period. The trial court initially denied the appeal as out of time but later granted reconsideration and gave it due course. The Court of Appeals affirmed this order, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondent’s belated appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The fifteen-day period to appeal, prescribed by Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and the Rules of Court, commenced upon service of the trial court’s decision to the counsel of record on July 1, 1993. The respondent’s appeal filed on December 21, 1993, was indisputably late.
The suspension of Atty. Barrera did not justify the delay. The law firm of J.T. Barrera & Associates remained the counsel of record, and the respondent failed to prove that the firm or its other associates were unable to receive the notice or file a timely appeal on his behalf. The negligence of counsel binds the client. Public policy demands that judgments become final and executory at a definite date to ensure the orderly administration of justice. Consequently, the trial court’s decision had already attained finality and the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court directed the dismissal of the respondent’s appeal.