G.R. No. L-56627 August 17, 1981
Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc., petitioner, vs. The Honorable Judge Jose R. Ramolete of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Multifarms Agro-Industrial Development Corporation, Assistant Clerk of Court Nicolas F. Jomuad, The Provincial Sheriff of Cebu and/or Her Lawful Deputy Sheriff Felipe V. Belandres, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Multifarms filed a complaint for consignation against petitioner Cebu Stevedoring in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After the parties submitted affidavits and documentary evidence on a pure question of law, the court rendered judgment in favor of Multifarms on October 27, 1980. On December 10, 1980, well within the 30-day reglementary period, petitioner, through Atty. Francisco M. Malilong, Jr., filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and paid the appeal bond, thereby perfecting the appeal. Atty. Malilong filed his formal written notice of appearance as collaborating counsel only on December 19, 1980.
Subsequently, respondent Multifarms moved for execution, alleging the judgment had become final because the appeal was not perfected by the counsel of record. The respondent judge denied the appeal and ordered execution, ruling that the pleadings filed by Atty. Malilong before his formal appearance were of no force and effect. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the lack of a prior formal written notice of appearance by a collaborating counsel invalidates the appeal timely perfected by that counsel.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, set aside the respondent judge’s order, and directed the court to give due course to the appeal. The Court clarified that the requirement for a formal written entry of appearance under Section 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is primarily for the purpose of enabling the court and opposing parties to effectively serve subsequent processes upon the attorney of record. The lack of such formal notice does not nullify pleadings, such as a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond, which were otherwise timely and properly filed.
The legal logic is that the perfection of an appeal is a substantive act that vests jurisdiction in the appellate court. This act was completed within the reglementary period. The formal notice of appearance is a procedural requirement for administrative convenience in service, not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the validity of acts performed by counsel. To rule otherwise would elevate a procedural formality over substantive rights, resulting in a denial of the right to appeal on a mere technicality. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should be liberally construed to secure a just determination of every action.