Missed Deadline Understanding Counsel OF Record IN Philippine Courts AND Valid Service OF Court Decisions

The Supreme Court recently reminded litigants and lawyers alike that the clock on appeal deadlines starts ticking the moment the counsel of record receives a copy of the decision — even if the client has already privately engaged a new lawyer. In Jimmy T. Go v. Hon. Zeus C. Abrogar and International Exchange Bank (G.R. No. 145213, March 28, 2006), the Court denied the petitioner's appeal, affirming that a counsel's receipt of a decision binds the client until a formal withdrawal or termination is filed in court.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a collection suit filed by International Exchange Bank against Jimmy T. Go and Alberto T. Looyuko for a P98 million credit line obligation. Go was represented by Atty. Ronald E. Javier from the start of the proceedings until the case was submitted for decision.

On October 7, 1999, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati rendered a decision holding Go and Looyuko jointly and severally liable for P96 million plus interest and costs. Atty. Javier received a copy of the decision on October 20, 1999.

Unknown to the court, the lawyer-client relationship had already soured. Atty. Javier had written to Go on September 30, 1999, informing him of his intent to withdraw. However, Go formally terminated Atty. Javier's services only on October 29, 1999, through a Notice of Termination. Go's new counsel, Atty. Gregorio D. Caneda Jr., filed his Entry of Appearance with the RTC on November 5, 1999.

On that same day, November 5, 1999, Go filed a Motion for Reconsideration. When the RTC denied it, Go filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied the appeal, ruling that the reglementary period had expired on November 4, 1999 — one day before the appeal was filed — because the 15-day period began running from Atty. Javier's receipt of the decision on October 20, 1999.

The Issue: When Does Counsel's Receipt Bind the Client?

The central question was whether Go should be bound by Atty. Javier's receipt of the decision even though the lawyer had already privately communicated his withdrawal and Go had engaged new counsel.

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The Court held that Atty. Javier was still the counsel of record when he received the decision on October 20, 1999. His receipt of the decision was therefore the starting point for counting the 15-day reglementary period to file an appeal or motion for reconsideration.

The Rule on Withdrawal of Counsel

Under Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney may withdraw his representation only by written consent of the client filed in court, or, absent such consent, after notice and hearing on the withdrawal. A private letter from counsel to the client does not effect a valid withdrawal.

In this case, Atty. Javier's September 30, 1999 letter was insufficient. Go himself admitted that the termination of Atty. Javier's services took effect only on October 29, 1999 — nine days after Atty. Javier received the decision. The Court noted that this admission confirmed that Atty. Javier was still Go's counsel when the decision was served.

The Court's Observations on Baseless Attacks Against Judges

The Court also took the opportunity to admonish Go and his counsel for making unfounded accusations against the RTC judge and others involved in the case. Go alleged a grand conspiracy against him, claiming that the judge, opposing counsel, and his former lawyer were "in cahoots" to make him lose his case.

The Court found these allegations baseless and disrespectful. Under Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers, and shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the records or evidence. The Court strictly warned Go and Atty. Caneda against making disrespectful statements without basis.

Practical Takeaways

• The counsel of record matters. A client is bound by the receipt of court decisions by the lawyer of record, even if the client has privately engaged a new lawyer.
• Formal withdrawal is required. A lawyer's private letter of withdrawal does not terminate the attorney-client relationship. The client must file a written consent in court, or the lawyer must undergo notice and hearing.
• Deadlines are unforgiving. The 15-day period to appeal or move for reconsideration runs from receipt by counsel of record. Missing it by even one day can cause a decision to become final and executory.
• Act promptly when changing lawyers. If the relationship with counsel sours, formally terminate the engagement in court immediately to avoid being bound by the old counsel's receipt of decisions.
• Respect the bench. Baseless accusations against judges can result in sanctions and erode public confidence in the judicial system.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.