GR 134888; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134888; December 1, 2000
RAM’S STUDIO AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. CASTRO JOSE RIVERA and GINA CYNTHIA HERNAL RIVERA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ram’s Studio was contracted to provide video coverage for the wedding of private respondents on January 27, 1995. The photographers arrived late, delaying the ceremony, and the delivered videotape was damaged, showing only a dark screen. Despite an offer to retake the footage, respondents filed a complaint for damages. Petitioner, through its counsel Atty. Orlando Alcaraz, failed to file an answer within the extended periods and was declared in default. The trial court rendered a judgment by default, awarding substantial damages to respondents. Atty. Alcaraz received the decision on April 10, 1996, but petitioner itself received a copy on April 11, 1996. A new counsel, Atty. Amadeo Balon, filed a motion for new trial by registered mail on April 26, 1996.
ISSUE
Whether the motion for new trial was filed within the reglementary period, thereby preventing the judgment from becoming final and executory.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The reglementary period to appeal or file a motion for new trial is fifteen days from notice of judgment. Notice to counsel is notice to the client. Since petitioner’s counsel of record, Atty. Alcaraz, received the decision on April 10, 1996, the period began to run from that date. The motion filed on April 26, 1996, was therefore one day late. The Court rejected the argument that the period should be reckoned from petitioner’s own receipt on April 11, emphasizing that service upon counsel is binding on the client. Consequently, the judgment became final and executory upon the lapse of the appeal period. A final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable. The Court, while noting petitioner’s arguments regarding the excessiveness of damages and the alleged negligence of its former counsel, could no longer review the merits of the case due to the finality of the judgment. The rules on finality of judgments must be strictly applied to end litigation.