Cebu Stevedoring vs. Ramolete

An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent a party in any cause in which the attorney appears, and a formal written entry of appearance filed only after the attorney has filed pleadings does not nullify the validity of those pleadings. The entry of appearance under Section 21 of Rule 138 is intended solely to enable court officers to effectively serve processes on the attorney of record; thus, pleadings filed by a new collaborating counsel before the formal entry of appearance are not rendered of no legal effect.

Multifarms Agro-Industrial Development Corporation filed a complaint for consignation against Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, presided by respondent Judge Jose R. Ramolete. Only a question of law was involved — the proper interpretation of Customs Administrative Order No. 8, series 1974 — and the trial court required the parties to submit affidavits, counter-affidavits, and documentary evidence. Judgment was rendered in favor of Multifarms.

Nature of the Action: Private respondent Multifarms Agro-Industrial Development Corporation filed a complaint for consignation against petitioner Cebu Stevedoring Company, Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Only a question of law was involved — the proper interpretation of Customs Administrative Order No. 8, series 1974 — and the trial court required the parties to submit affidavits, counter-affidavits, and documentary evidence.

The Judgment: Judgment was rendered in favor of Multifarms, declaring Cebu Stevedoring liable in the sum of P9,783.33; cancelling Cebu Stevedoring's Invoice No. 4917 dated July 14, 1978; declaring P4,743.33 as validly consignated with the Clerk of Court, to be added to an advance payment of P5,000.00; ordering Cebu Stevedoring to pay attorney's fees of P1,000.00; and dismissing Cebu Stevedoring's counterclaim.

Perfection of the Appeal: On December 10, 1980, well within the 30-day reglementary period (five days before its expiration), petitioner, through Atty. Francisco M. Malilong, Jr., filed a notice of appeal stating its intention to elevate the case to the Supreme Court on questions of law. On the same date, Atty. Malilong also filed the record on appeal and paid the appeal bond, thereby seasonably perfecting the appeal.

Respondent's Challenge to the Appeal: On December 13, 1980, Multifarms filed an opposition to the appeal, alleging that the notice of appeal and record on appeal were not signed by Atty. Valentin Zozobrado, the counsel of record, and that there was no showing the appeal bond had been paid. To prove timely payment, petitioner filed on December 19, 1980 a notice of filing cash appeal bond with the confirmatory receipt dated December 10, 1980 issued by the Clerk of Court. On the same day, Atty. Malilong filed a formal notice of appearance as collaborating counsel for petitioner in collaboration with Atty. Zozobrado.

Motion for Execution: More than two months later, on February 26, 1981, Multifarms filed a motion for execution, alleging the judgment had become final and executory because no valid notice and record on appeal had been filed within the reglementary period. Petitioner opposed on March 3, 1981, asserting the appeal had been timely perfected on December 10, 1980.

The Trial Court's Denial of the Appeal: On March 16, 1981, respondent judge issued the challenged order denying the appeal and ordering issuance of a writ of execution. The sole ground stated was that "while indeed the notice of appeal and the record on appeal were filed on time and the appeal bond was also paid on time, the same were of no force and effect since the lawyer who signed the same was not the attorney of record."

Proof of Authority: At the reconsideration hearing, petitioner indubitably proved that Atty. Malilong had been duly employed as petitioner's legal counsel since February 16, 1980 at a salary of P2,500.00 per month.

• Validity of the Appeal: Petitioner maintained that the appeal was timely perfected on December 10, 1980 — five days before the lapse of the 30-day reglementary period — through the filing of the notice of appeal, record on appeal, and payment of the appeal bond by Atty. Malilong, and that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the appeal on the hyper-technical ground that no formal entry of appearance had yet been filed.

• Presumption of Authority: Petitioner argued that under Section 21 of Rule 138, an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which the attorney appears, and that petitioner had duly employed Atty. Malilong as legal counsel since February 16, 1980, as proved at the reconsideration hearing.

• Lack of Authority of Collaborating Counsel: Respondent Multifarms contended that the notice of appeal and record on appeal filed on December 10, 1980 were legally ineffective because they were signed not by Atty. Zozobrado (the counsel of record) but by Atty. Malilong, who had not yet entered his formal appearance. Respondent thus argued that no valid appeal was perfected within the reglementary period, rendering the judgment final and executory.

• Validity of Appeal Perfected by Collaborating Counsel: Whether the absence of a formal written entry of appearance by a collaborating lawyer at the time he filed pleadings perfecting an appeal renders the appeal of no legal effect, despite the appeal being filed well within the reglementary period.

• Validity of Appeal Perfected by Collaborating Counsel: The lack of a formal written entry of appearance by the collaborating counsel at the time he filed the pleadings perfecting the appeal did not nullify the appeal. Under Section 2 of Rule 113, the requirement that an appearance be in writing and served upon the parties serves the purpose of enabling court officers to effectively serve processes on the attorney of record. The failure to file such formal entry before filing pleadings amounts, at most, to an excusable imperfection of form that the trial court may remedy by ordering the attorney to file the written appearance. The ruling in Ong Ching v. Ramolete was categorical: while the filing of a formal written appearance is desirable for orderly proceedings, the mere circumstance that it was not done does not warrant the conclusion that the pleading filed has no legal effect. Furthermore, Section 21 of Rule 138 establishes that an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which the attorney appears; no written power of attorney is required. The corresponding presumption is that the lawyer has conferred with and is authorized by the client before filing responsive pleadings. If respondent judge entertained any doubt about Atty. Malilong's authority — even after the latter formally entered his appearance nine days after perfection of the appeal — the judge should have required the attorney to produce or prove his authority under the Rule, rather than nullifying the timely perfected appeal. Respondent judge manifestly erred and acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal, ignoring the established principle that excusable imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure should be overlooked in the interest of fair play and justice when no prejudice has been caused to the adverse party and the court has not been deprived of jurisdiction or authority.

• Purpose of Formal Entry of Appearance — The requirement under Section 2 of Rule 113 that an attorney's appearance be in writing and served upon the parties serves a specific, limited purpose: to enable court officers to effectively serve processes on the attorney of record. The absence of a formal written entry of appearance does not render pleadings filed by a new collaborating counsel of no legal effect. At most, the trial court may compel the attorney to file the formal notice.

• Presumption of Attorney's Authority — Section 21 of Rule 138 codifies the presumption that an attorney is properly authorized to represent any cause in which the attorney appears. No written power of attorney is required. A logical corollary is the presumption that the lawyer is authorized by, and has conferred with, the client before filing important responsive pleadings for and on behalf of the client. Should any doubt arise, the prescribed remedy is for the court, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds, to require the attorney to produce or prove the authority under which the attorney appears.

• Substantial Justice Over Technicality — Excusable imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, or lapses in the literal or rigid observance of a procedural rule or non-jurisdictional deadline, should be overlooked and brushed aside as trivial and indecisive in the interest of fair play and justice, when public policy is not involved, no prejudice has been caused to the adverse party, and the court has not been deprived of its authority or jurisdiction.

• "The entry of appearance of an attorney under section 21 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is merely to enable the officers concerned to effectively serve processes on the attorney of record. The lack of such formal notice or entry of appearance does not render pleadings filed by a new collaborating counsel to be of no legal effect."

• "While it may be desirable in the interest of an orderly conduct of judicial proceedings that a counsel for a party should file with the court his formal written appearance in the case, before filing a pleading therein, or mention in said pleading that he is submitting the same in collaboration with the counsel of record, the mere circumstance that such acts were not done does not warrant the conclusion that the pleading filed by such counsel has no legal effect whatsoever." — citing Ong Ching v. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-35356, May 18, 1973.

• "A rigid adherence to the technical rules of procedure disregards the fundamental aim of procedure to serve as an aid to justice, not as a means for its frustration, and the objective of the Rules of Court to afford litigants just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their controversy." — citing Maqui v. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 368, 374.

• Ong Ching v. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-35356, May 18, 1973 — Followed and applied. The case categorically ruled that the absence of a formal written entry of appearance by counsel before filing a pleading does not render the pleading of no legal effect.

• Luzon Rubber & Manufacturing Co. v. Estaris, L-31339, August 31, 1973 — Cited for the principle that the written appearance requirement under the Rules is to enable effective service of processes on the attorney of record.

• Maqui v. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 368, 374 — Cited for the principle that excusable imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure should be overlooked in the interest of fair play and justice when no prejudice is caused and jurisdiction is not affected.

• Section 2, Rule 113, Rules of Court (now Section 4, Rule 13) — The provision requiring every written notice of appearance to be filed with the court and served upon the parties affected thereby. The Court interpreted this provision as serving the limited purpose of enabling effective service of processes on the attorney of record, not as a jurisdictional prerequisite for the validity of pleadings.

• Section 21, Rule 138, Rules of Court — The provision establishing the presumption that an attorney is properly authorized to represent any cause in which the attorney appears, and that no written power of attorney is required. The Court held that the logical corollary is the presumption that the lawyer has conferred with and is authorized by the client before filing responsive pleadings. The provision also prescribes the remedy: the presiding judge may, on motion and on reasonable grounds, require the attorney to produce or prove authority.

• Republic Act No. 5440 — The statute governing direct appeals from the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court on questions of law, which since September 9, 1968 has required the filing of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 rather than a record on appeal. The Court noted the common error of filing a record on appeal in such cases and directed petitioner instead to file a petition for review on certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.

Justices Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro (designated to sit in the First Division vice Justice Ramon C. Fernandez, who was on official leave), and Melencio-Herrera concurred.

N/A — The decision was unanimous.