G.R. No. L-32547 May 9, 1978
CONCHITA CORTEZ, ELENA CORTEZ, ROSENDO CORTEZ, JUDINA CORTEZ and FERNANDO CORTEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JUDGE FELIX R. DOMINGO of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Manila, THE SHERIFF, City of Manila, SPECIAL SHERIFF REYNALDO JAVIER, KUY GUAM KAY, LTD. and MACARIO SUPAN Y MERCADO, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of Severino Cortez, obtained a favorable judgment for damages from the Court of First Instance of Manila against Kuy Guam Kay, Ltd. and its driver, Macario Supan, arising from a vehicular accident. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on November 17, 1969, affirmed the trial court’s decision but increased the damages awarded. A copy of this decision was served on November 21, 1969, upon Atty. Joaquin C. Yuseco, the counsel of record for the defendants-appellants. Atty. Yuseco returned the copy, informing the court he had ceased to be their lawyer. The Court of Appeals noted he had not filed a formal motion to withdraw. Subsequent attempts to serve the defendants directly by registered mail failed as the copies were unclaimed. An entry of judgment was made, the record was remanded to the trial court, and a writ of execution was issued, leading to a levy on the defendant firm’s properties.
Thereafter, the defendants, through new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals, arguing there was no valid service of the decision. On August 18, 1970, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution setting aside its 1969 decision and dismissing the complaint, citing a doctrinal ruling on the effect of an acquittal in a related criminal case. The petitioners then filed this certiorari proceeding, challenging the appellate court’s jurisdiction to reverse its final decision.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals retain jurisdiction to set aside its November 17, 1969 decision after it had become final and executory?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ resolution, holding it had no jurisdiction to set aside its 1969 decision, which had already attained finality. The legal logic centers on the validity of service upon the counsel of record. Service of the decision upon Atty. Yuseco on November 21, 1969, constituted valid and effective service. His unilateral act of returning the copy and claiming he was no longer counsel did not nullify the service because he remained the counsel of record. Under the Rules of Court, a lawyer’s withdrawal requires a formal application, client consent, and court approval. None of these steps were taken; thus, Atty. Yuseco was still obligated to receive notices and represent his clients. Notice to the counsel of record is notice to the client. Consequently, the period to appeal or move for reconsideration began to run from that valid service, and the decision became final and executory. The subsequent entry of judgment and remand of the record confirmed this finality. Once a decision is final and executory, the court that rendered it loses jurisdiction to alter or reopen it, except for clerical errors or for the execution of its terms. Therefore, the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction in issuing its August 18, 1970 resolution. The Supreme Court reinstated the final and executory 1969 decision.