Almirante: Notice to party and substitute counsel

On Nov. 3, 2018, respondent Luzvilla B. Dagpin filed a Motion for Approval of Computation and Issuance of Writ of Execution with the Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA). When the motion was heard on Dec. 16, 2008, respondent’s counsel Atty. Lawrence Carin failed to appear as he was attending on some personal matters and that he had “suspended” himself from law practice because of his failure to comply with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements. Complying with the instructions of Atty. Carin, respondent engaged the services of Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal who entered his appearance to represent her.

By order dated Feb. 19, 2009, the ELA denied respondent’s motion. The order of denial addressed to “L. Dagpin c/o Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal” was directly delivered to respondent on March 19, 2009. Since Atty. Rosal was attending a convention in Bacolod City, she was able to give the order to him only on March 30, 2009. Atty. Rosal filed the appeal from the order on April 13, 2009.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the service of the Feb. 19, 2009 order on respondent herself, instead of her counsel, was not the legal service contemplated by law. The NLRC, therefore, gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the appeal for non-perfection although there was no proper service of said order.

Thus, the appeal filed on April 13, 2009 was filed within the reglementary period.

Did the CA err?

Ruling: No.

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.

Here, respondent’s counsel of record, Atty. Carin merely instructed respondent to refer the case to Atty. Rosal at the tail end of the proceedings before the labor arbiter since he could not then continue practicing law because he failed to comply with the MCLE requirements and he was then attending an IBP Convention in Bacolod City. There is no showing though that he filed a notice of withdrawal or that respondent herself declared that she was terminating Atty. Carin’s services. Notices, decision and resolutions should have, therefore, been sent to Atty. Carin as respondent’s counsel of record. But even assuming that Atty. Carin had indeed withdrawn his representation, notices, decisions and resolutions should have at least been served on Atty. Rosal for the latter had also entered his appearance as respondent’s counsel. The fact that copy of the ELA Order dated Feb.19, 2009 was addressed to “L/ Dagpin c/o Atty. Kenneth P. Rosal” clearly indicated that the NLRC acknowledged Atty. Rosal as respondent’s new counsel.

As it was, however, copy of the ELA Order dated Feb. 19, 2009 was served not on Atty. Rosal but directly on respondent herself who received it on March 19, 2009. This is not the proper service contemplated by law. Consequently, the reglementary period for appeal was not deemed to have commenced from respondent’s receipt of the ELA Order.

Even then, Atty. Rosal was deemed to have acknowledged it when, on the basis thereof, he computed the 10-day period from March 30, 2009 to April 9, 2009 for purposes of filing respondent’s memorandum of appeal. Since April 9, 2009 fell on a holiday (Day of Valor and Maundy Thursday) and April 10, 11 and 12, 2009 were also holidays (Good Friday, Black Saturday and Easter Sunday, respectively), the filing of respondent’s memorandum of appeal on April 13, 2009 was within the reglementary period, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals. Surely, respondent cannot be said to have been deprived of due process inasmuch as Atty. Rosal actually received the ELA Order and, accordingly, filed respondent’s appeal memorandum to establish the merits of respondent’s case. (Casilda D. Tan and/or C&L Lending Investor vs. Luzvilla B. Dagpin, G.R. 212111, Jan. 15, 2020).

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph