G.R. No. L-68458 August 7, 1985
LORENZO BOLAÑOS and PABLO RABAT, petitioners, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and N.S. MARKETING, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent N.S. Marketing, Inc. filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Lorenzo Bolaños and Pablo Rabat. After a summary judgment was rendered against Bolaños, the case was set for multiple hearings on the determination of damages. Numerous postponements occurred. Notice for a hearing on April 12, 1982, was sent to private respondent’s counsel of record, Atty. Antonio Fernandez, at his new Makati address after a prior notice to his Davao address was returned unserved. Counsel did not appear. The trial court then issued an order setting the case for July 9, 1982, with a warning against further postponements, and sent this order to the Makati address. Again, neither private respondent nor its counsel appeared on July 9. The trial court, upon petitioners’ motion, dismissed the case on July 14, 1982. A copy of this dismissal order was sent to Atty. Fernandez at the Makati address but was returned with the notation that the addressee had moved and left no forwarding address.
Private respondent, through a new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, which the trial court granted. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which initially granted the petition and annulled the trial court’s orders reinstating the case. A copy of this IAC decision was served on May 5, 1983, on R.D. Bagatsing and Associates, who had earlier entered an appearance as collaborating counsel for private respondent. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed by private respondent’s original counsel of record, Atty. Fernandez. However, on January 23, 1984, R.D. Bagatsing and Associates filed a motion for reconsideration of the IAC decision. The IAC granted this motion, setting aside its own final decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for reconsideration filed by collaborating counsel after its decision had already become final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the IAC committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the rules on notice. The IAC decision of November 24, 1983, became final and executory fifteen days after service of notice. Service of the decision was effectively made on May 5, 1983, upon R.D. Bagatsing and Associates, the collaborating counsel of record. Under the Rules of Court, when a party is represented by multiple attorneys, notice to one attorney is considered notice to all and to the client. The period for filing an appeal or a motion for reconsideration begins from the earliest receipt of notice by any counsel of record. Consequently, the reglementary period started from May 5, 1983. Private respondent failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal through its original counsel of record within the 15-day period. The judgment thus attained finality. The IAC lost jurisdiction over the case. The subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration by the collaborating counsel in January 1984 could not revive jurisdiction or disturb the final and executory judgment. The Court emphasized that the assumptions regarding service on other counsel could not negate the legal effect of the valid service made on the collaborating counsel. Therefore, the IAC’s resolution granting the motion for reconsideration was set aside, and its original decision dismissing the case was reinstated.