G.R. No. L-19436. November 29, 1963. CELESTINA B. RAMOS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. LAUREANO POTENCIANO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS

On June 18, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment ordering defendants Celestina Ramos, et al., to vacate a parcel of land and return possession to plaintiffs Laureano Potenciano, et al., and the Land Tenure Administration. The defendants received a copy of this decision on June 28, 1960, and subsequently filed a motion for new trial on July 25, 1960. On March 1, 1961, a new set of lawyers, “Attys. Endaya, Cabasal & Holgado,” entered their appearance as counsel for the defendants, purportedly substituting the original attorneys of record, Attys. Deogracias G. Trinidad and Prospero A. Crescini. Later, on October 24, 1961, the trial court issued an order denying the motion for new trial. Copies of this order were served on the original attorneys, Trinidad and Crescini, on October 31 and November 4, 1961, respectively.
Thereafter, on November 22, 1961, the plaintiffs filed a second motion for execution, asserting the 1960 decision had become final. Another new counsel, Atty. S.O. Villareal, entered his appearance for the defendants on November 28, 1961, opposing the motion. The trial court granted the motion for execution on December 8, 1961. The defendants then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion, arguing the decision was not yet final because they, through their new counsel, were never properly served the order denying their motion for new trial.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution, considering the petitioners’ claim that the denial of their motion for new trial was not properly served upon their current counsel of record.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the proper rules for substitution of attorneys. The Court held that the purported substitutions of counsel by “Attys. Endaya, Cabasal & Holgado” and later by Atty. Villareal were ineffective for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure established in United States v. Borromeo. This rule requires: (1) a written application; (2) the client’s written consent; (3) the substituted attorney’s written consent; or, if such consent cannot be obtained, proof of service of the substitution motion upon the attorney to be substituted.
Since these formalities were not observed, Attys. Trinidad and Crescini remained the duly recorded attorneys of the petitioners. Consequently, service of the court’s October 24, 1961 order upon them was valid and effective service upon the petitioners themselves. The period for appeal or finality of the judgment began to run from such service. The Court noted that the address given by the original and the substituting attorneys was the same, and the petitioners offered no reason why the notices were not forwarded if a proper substitution had indeed occurred. The principle that a client is bound by the acts and omissions of his counsel applies. Therefore, the 1960 decision had become final and executory when the execution was ordered, and the trial court acted correctly. The ancillary issue regarding a pending administrative case was also dismissed as it involved a different subject and had already been decided.