GR L 3576; (November, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3576 December 5, 1950
ANGELES CASON VDA. DE CARRETERO, petitioner, vs. GREGORIO TARCA, RODOLFO TARCA, CASTRO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on September 15, 1949, in favor of petitioner Angeles Cason Vda. de Carretero. Notice was sent by registered mail to the respondents’ attorneys of record, the law firm Fernandez, Unson and Patajo, and was received on September 21, 1949, by Atty. Ramon Fernandez. No motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period, so final judgment was entered on October 7, 1949, and the decision was executed. Later, respondents, through a new attorney, filed a petition to set aside the final judgment, claiming their former attorneys never received the notice and that the signature on the return card was falsified. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, setting aside the final judgment. Petitioner now seeks certiorari and prohibition to annul that resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the entry of final judgment on the ground of lack of notice to the respondents’ counsel of record.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the Court of Appeals’ resolution null and void and reinstating the finality of its September 15, 1949 decision. Notice sent to the attorneys of record is binding upon the client. Here, the law firm Fernandez, Unson and Patajo was the counsel of record. Although the firm had dissolved and a new firm (Fernandez, Unson, Angeles and Fernandez) was formed, the notice addressed to the former firm was validly received by Atty. Ramon Fernandez, a member of the new firm which included the senior members of the old firm. This constituted valid service. The respondents’ claim of non-receipt by their specific attorney was attributable to simple negligence on the part of counsel, which does not justify setting aside a final judgment. The Court of Appeals therefore acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the respondents’ petition.
AI Generated by Armztrong.