GR 154019; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154019 August 10, 2006
JULIAN ELBIÑA, Petitioner, vs. FELISA, CELESTINO, CRISTITUTA, SALUD and EXALTACION, all surnamed CENIZA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Julian Elbiña was a defendant in a quieting of title case before the RTC of Mandaue City, which ruled against him. His counsel of record, Atty. Ervin Estandarte, filed a motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, Atty. Mario Cugtas filed a “Formal Notice of Appearance as Collaborating Counsel.” The motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Estandarte received the denial order on July 23, 1997, while Atty. Cugtas received his copy on August 7, 1997. Atty. Cugtas filed a notice of appeal on August 7. The trial court dismissed the appeal as late, reckoning the 15-day reglementary period from Atty. Estandarte’s receipt on July 23. Petitioner argued the appeal was timely, contending Atty. Estandarte’s services had been terminated upon Atty. Cugtas’s appearance, making the period run from Atty. Cugtas’s receipt on August 7.
ISSUE
Whether the notice of appeal filed on August 7, 1997, was filed within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, the appeal was timely. The Supreme Court clarified two legal principles. First, on the reckoning date for the appeal period: Atty. Estandarte remained the counsel of record. His representation is presumed to continue until a formal withdrawal is filed with the court. The entry of a collaborating counsel does not constitute a substitution or terminate the original counsel’s authority. Since no formal withdrawal was filed before the denial order was issued, valid service was effected upon Atty. Estandarte on July 23, 1997. Second, applying the doctrine in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, a party has a fresh period of 15 days to appeal from receipt of an order denying a motion for reconsideration. Counting 15 days from July 23, 1997, the last day to appeal fell on August 7, 1997, the exact date Atty. Cugtas filed the notice of appeal. Therefore, the appeal was perfected on time. The Court granted the petition and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.