G.R. No. 78050 October 23, 1989
CAESAR U. SOMOSO and ANITA B. SOMOSO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONPINCO MARKETING CO., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the spouses Somoso, purchased from private respondent Conpinco Marketing Company a National VHS and a National Cinema Vision unit under contracts of sale with reservation of title. They made substantial down payments upon and after the delivery of the units. Subsequently, at petitioners’ request, Sony brand units were delivered for a one-day demonstration for comparison purposes. Petitioners later demanded that Conpinco pull out the National VHS, claiming it was not the unit requested for demonstration, and threatened to consign it with the court. Conpinco instead sent collection letters. The spouses then filed a complaint for consignation. The trial court dismissed their complaint and ordered them to pay the outstanding balances, attorney’s fees, and liquidated damages.
Their counsel received a copy of the adverse decision on August 15, 1985, but failed to notify petitioners or file a timely appeal. Petitioners learned of the judgment only on September 27, 1985, upon receiving a letter from their counsel. They subsequently engaged new counsel and filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging their former counsel’s failure to inform them constituted excusable negligence that prevented an appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the dismissal of the petition for relief from judgment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the strict requirements for a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. For such a petition to be granted, it must be filed within sixty (60) days from the time the petitioner learned of the judgment, and not more than six (6) months from its entry. Here, petitioners’ counsel received the decision on August 15, 1985. The negligence of counsel in failing to notify his clients or perfect an appeal is generally binding on the client. The period for filing the petition for relief is counted from the counsel’s knowledge, not the client’s later discovery. Therefore, the petition filed on October 17, 1985, was filed beyond the 60-day period from August 15. The Court emphasized that clients are bound by the actions, or inactions, of their counsel in the conduct of litigation. Furthermore, on the merits of the main case, the Court found the evidence, including signed documents of sale and receipts for down payments, conclusive in establishing a perfected contract of sale. Petitioners’ acts before and after delivery negated their claim that the units were delivered for demonstration only, showing a clear meeting of the minds on the subject matter and price.