G.R. No. 155010; August 16, 2004
JONATHAN LANDOIL INTERNATIONAL CO., INC., petitioner, vs. Spouses SUHARTO MANGUDADATU and MIRIAM SANGKI MANGUDADATU, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent spouses filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Jonathan Landoil International Co., Inc. (JLI) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After filing its Answer, JLI failed to appear at the pretrial conference on August 8, 2000. Consequently, the trial court declared JLI in default and proceeded to render judgment in favor of the respondents. JLI received a copy of the adverse decision on July 3, 2001, and subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion for New Trial and Change of Venue. This motion was denied by the RTC in an Order dated September 12, 2001. JLI, however, claimed its former counsels did not receive a copy of this denial order. Upon receiving a Writ of Execution, JLI filed a Motion to Quash it, arguing the judgment was not yet final. To support its claim of non-receipt, JLI took the depositions of its former lawyers. The RTC denied the Motion to Quash, and the Court of Appeals dismissed JLI’s subsequent petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing JLI’s petition and upholding the execution of the judgment, despite JLI’s claim that it did not receive the order denying its motion for new trial, thereby preventing the judgment from becoming final.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the principle that a client is bound by the negligence of its counsel. JLI’s failure to attend the pretrial was a fatal procedural lapse. The Court emphasized that the rules on pretrial are mandatory, and a party who fails to appear may be declared non-suited or considered to have waived its right to present evidence. The subsequent claim of non-receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial was unavailing. Notice to counsel is notice to the client. The certifications from the postmaster presented by the respondents indicated that JLI’s former counsels had received the order. The depositions taken by JLI to refute this were improperly obtained, as the rules on deposition-taking are intended for use before or during trial, not after judgment has been rendered, to prove a fact that should have been established through a motion for reconsideration or a timely appeal. JLI’s inaction and reliance on the alleged negligence of its former lawyers led to the finality of the judgment. The Court found no compelling reason to set aside the procedural rules, as the negligence of counsel binds the client. Thus, the execution of the final and executory judgment was proper.