JESSIE BONGATO, PETITIONER, VS. JACD CREDIT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions September 26, 2014 SPECIAL FORMER TWENTY-FIRST DIVISION
Download PDF


BORJA, J.,:[*]


On September 26, 2014, the Court issued a Minute Resolution[1] requiring the parties to notify the Court of the date of receipt of its September 26, 2014 Resolution which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.[2]

Respondent filed its compliance of the said Resolution.[3] Petitioner through its counsel, Atty. Rodrigo T. Tongo, also filed a “Belated Compliance [of the Court’s September 26, 2014 Resolution] with a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel”. Atty. Tongo manifested that he received this Court’s September 26, 2014 Resolution on October 13, 2014 and prayed for the Court to grant his motion to withdraw as counsel for petitioner.[4]

Atty. Tongo’s motion to withdraw as counsel was without the consent of petitioner. Rule 138, section 26 of the Rules of Court outlines the procedure in case of withdrawal of counsel.  It states:

Sec. 26.  Change of attorneys. – An attorney may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in court.  He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client, should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be allowed to retire.  In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse party.

[Italics added]

Based on the foregoing, Atty. Tongo is still the counsel for petitioner.  It is axiomatic that when a client is represented by counsel, notice to counsel is notice to client.  In the absence of a notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel, the Court will rightly assume that the counsel of record continues to represent his client and receipt of notice by the former is the reckoning point of the reglementary period.[5]

Petitioner had until October 28, 2014 within which to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. Based on the Court of Appeals-Case Management Information System, petitioner has not filed any appeal, hence the July 30, 2013 Decision of the Court has already attained finality.[6]

ACCORDINGLY, this Court hereby ORDERS the Division Clerk of Court, Twenty-First Division, to enter Judgment and issue notice thereof.

SO ORDERED.

[**] Camello, and Badelles, JJ., concur.

[*] New Ponente vice J.Francisco per raffle dated May 28, 2014.

[**] 3rd Member per raffle dated May 28, 2014.

[1] Rollo, p. 134.

[2] Rollo, pp. 135-136.

[3] Rollo, p. 137.

[4] Rollo, pp. 139-140.

[5] Citibank v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 159302, August 22, 2008.

[6] Rollo, pp. 139-140.

More in Decisions / Signed Resolutions