GR L 6156; (June, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6156 June 30, 1955
PRIMO OLIVARES, plaintiff-appellee, and COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE, intervenor-appellee, vs. MACARIO LEOLA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS
Primo Olivares filed an action for specific performance to compel Macario Leola to deliver two parcels of land. Leola had a contract to purchase the land from Colegio de San Jose, which later intervened. Leola subsequently sold his rights to Olivares. The trial court rendered a decision on August 6, 1951, in favor of Olivares, ordering Leola to deliver the land. Copy of the decision was sent to Atty. Maximiano San Diego, counsel of record for defendants-appellants, who received it on or about August 18, 1951, but he failed to notify his clients. Earlier, on July 12, 1951, Atty. Eusebio V. Navarro filed an appearance as counsel for the defendants, but his filing did not state it was in substitution of Atty. San Diego, and the records showed San Diego remained as counsel of record. Defendants-appellants claimed they only learned of the decision on December 7, 1951, and filed a motion for new trial, later amended to a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, on December 10, 1951. The trial court denied the petition for relief on March 28, 1952, on the ground that it was filed out of time.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for relief under Rule 38, on the ground that it was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period from notice of judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the petition for relief. The Court held that the notification of the decision to Atty. San Diego on August 18, 1951, constituted valid notification to the defendants-appellants. Atty. San Diego remained the counsel of record because there was no valid substitution of counsel. The requisites for substitution of attorneys, as established in U.S. vs. Borromeo, were not complied with: there was no written application for substitution, written consent of the client, written consent of the attorney substituted, or, in its absence, proof of service of notice to the attorney to be substituted. Consequently, the petition for relief filed in December 1951 was filed more than 60 days after the petitioners had been notified of the decision. Additionally, the petition was not accompanied by affidavits showing the facts constituting petitioners’ good and substantial defense. Therefore, the trial court committed no error in denying the petition.