Taningco vs. Fernandez

Notice to counsel of record is notice to the client, and a decision validly received by counsel that lapses without appeal or motion for reconsideration within the fifteen-day reglementary period becomes final, executory, and immutable, even if counsel claims non-receipt or attributes the lapse to the neglect of household members at his address on record.

The case stems from Civil Case No. 1674, a complaint for quieting of title and/or recovery of possession and ownership over 263 square meters of Lot 191-A at G. Ramos St., Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan, filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kalibo, Aklan. The original defendants were Jose Taningco, Harry Taningco, and Jose Taningco, Jr., along with their father Jose P. Taningco, Sr., who died during the pendency of the case. Petitioners Lilia M. Taningco, Dennis M. Taningco, and Andrew M. Taningco are the wife and sons, respectively, of the deceased Jose Sr., and were substituted as defendants in the MTC proceedings. Atty. Dennis M. Taningco, one of the petitioners, also served as their counsel of record. The respondents are the prevailing parties in the underlying civil case, who sought execution of the final judgment in their favor.

Civil Case No. 1674, a complaint for quieting of title and/or recovery of possession and ownership, was filed before the MTC of Kalibo, Aklan, involving 263 square meters of Lot 191-A at G. Ramos St., Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan. The MTC rendered a decision in favor of the respondents, ordering the defendants—Jose Taningco, Harry Taningco, Jose Taningco, Jr., and their privies and successors-in-interest—to vacate and turn over the subject property to the respondents. During the pendency of the case, defendant Jose P. Taningco, Sr. died. The MTC, upon being informed of his death through a Notice of Death and Substitution dated November 21, 2001 filed by their counsel, Atty. Fidencio Raz, issued an Order on February 6, 2002 directing the substitution of Jose Sr. by his wife and children, including herein petitioners Lilia M. Taningco, Dennis M. Taningco, and Andrew M. Taningco.

Petitioners' appeal from the MTC Decision was denied by the RTC and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, whose March 29, 2006 Decision became final and executory per the October 8, 2006 Entry of Judgment. Respondents then moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, which the MTC granted. In a bid to stop the implementation of the writ, Jose Taningco, Jr. filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the RTC, which was dismissed. His appeal to the CA was likewise denied in its January 23, 2009 Decision, and his Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court was dismissed in the March 8, 2010 Resolution.

Meanwhile, petitioners—the mother and brothers of Jose Jr.—filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution before the MTC, claiming it was invalidly issued because they were not furnished a copy of the order of substitution and that there was no valid substitution of the deceased Jose Sr. The MTC denied the motion, holding that it was a collateral attack against the already final and immutable CA Decision and that it was the MTC's ministerial duty to grant the writ pursuant to Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The MTC also ruled that Jose Sr. was properly substituted, as it had directed the substitution after being informed of his death, and that the absence of proper substitution would not nullify the court's jurisdiction absent a clear showing of a violation of due process, which was not present. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO before the RTC, Branch 7 of Kalibo, Aklan. The RTC denied the prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO and dismissed the Petition for Certiorari in its January 5, 2010 Order. Petitioners' motion for inhibition of the RTC presiding judge was likewise denied, and their subsequent Motions for Reconsideration were denied in the RTC's February 18, 2010 Order. Petitioners elevated the matter to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion and that the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over them due to invalid substitution.

The CA, in its February 28, 2013 Decision, dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being a wrong remedy and found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The CA noted that Jose Sr. was formally substituted as shown in the MTC's February 6, 2002 Order, and that even if substitution were lacking, it would not invalidate the proceedings absent a violation of due process. The CA Decision became final and executory on May 7, 2013, as declared in the CA's November 25, 2013 Resolution. Petitioners moved to set aside this Resolution, claiming they did not receive a copy of the February 28, 2013 Decision. The CA denied the motion in its May 13, 2014 Resolution, finding that petitioners' counsel, Atty. Dennis M. Taningco—who was also one of the petitioners—received a copy of the CA Decision as evidenced by Registry Return Card No. 1873. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in the CA's October 27, 2014 Resolution, which noted that the registry return card showed a certain Mrs. Taningco received the notice of decision, reiterated the rule that notice to counsel is notice to client, and observed that the motion was a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.

• Non-Receipt of CA Decision: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in not furnishing them with a copy of the February 28, 2013 Decision, and that their failure to file a motion for reconsideration was due to such non-receipt. They insisted that their counsel, Atty. Dennis M. Taningco, did not receive a copy of the CA Decision, noting that his home and office addresses are one and the same, and that neither his wife nor his son received the decision on his behalf.
• Invalid Substitution and Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioners averred that there was no valid substitution of the deceased defendant Jose P. Taningco, Sr., that the MTC of Kalibo was bereft of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, and that the MTC Decision and its writ of execution and demolition were void ab initio.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion by Lower Courts: Petitioners argued that the RTC judge gravely abused his discretion in denying their Motion for Inhibition, prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO, dismissing the Petition for Certiorari, and denying their Motions for Reconsideration. They also contended that the impugned orders of the RTC judge were all invalid for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, without or in excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of law.
• Judicial Bias: Petitioners insinuated that the MTC Decision was not decided on its merits but because of the MTC judge's alleged blood relationship with magistrates from the RTC and CA, noting that the MTC judge was the daughter of the retired RTC Executive Judge of Kalibo and the niece of the CA Presiding Justice.

• Notice to Counsel: Whether the CA erred in declaring that petitioners validly received its February 28, 2013 Decision through their counsel of record, thereby rendering the Decision final and executory.
• Validity of Lower Court Proceedings: Whether the CA erred in not declaring the impugned RTC orders invalid for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, without or in excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of law.
• Substitution and Jurisdiction: Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in not ruling that there was no valid substitution of the deceased defendant in MTC Civil Case No. 1674, that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, and that the MTC Decision and its writ of execution and demolition were void ab initio.

• Notice to Counsel: No. The CA did not err; petitioners' counsel of record was validly served with the CA Decision through Mrs. Taningco at his address on record, as evidenced by Registry Return Card No. 1873. Notice to counsel is notice to parties, and the Decision became final and immutable after the fifteen-day reglementary period lapsed without a motion for reconsideration.
• Validity of Lower Court Proceedings: No. The CA correctly found that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed orders, as the denial of petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO was grounded on insufficiency of evidence and there was no basis for the mandatory disqualification of the RTC judge.
• Substitution and Jurisdiction: No. Jose Sr. was formally substituted as shown in the MTC's February 6, 2002 Order, and in any event, the lack of proper substitution would not invalidate the proceedings absent a violation of due process, which was not present in Civil Case No. 1674.

• Notice to Counsel: The Court applied the established rule that when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney, and notice sent to counsel binds the client. Atty. Taningco, who was both petitioners' counsel of record and one of the petitioners, was served with a copy of the CA Decision on April 8, 2013 at his office address on record—which was also his home address—as evidenced by Registry Return Card No. 1873. The copy was received by Mrs. Taningco, who was presumed authorized to receive mail on behalf of Atty. Taningco at his address on record. Petitioners failed to present even a scintilla of evidence beyond bare assertions of non-receipt and a mere photocopy of identification cards. In the absence of competent evidence to the contrary, the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty with respect to service of notice stands. Because petitioners received the CA Decision on April 8, 2013 but failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the fifteen-day reglementary period, the Decision became final and executory on May 7, 2013. Under the doctrine of immutability of judgment, a decision that has attained finality can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The only exceptions—correction of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries causing no prejudice, and void judgments—were not applicable.

• Validity of Lower Court Proceedings: The CA found that the RTC's denial of petitioners' prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO was grounded on insufficiency of evidence, compounded by petitioners' failure to attend the hearing for the reception of their additional evidence. The allegations of prejudgment, bias, prejudice, and partiality against the RTC judge were without basis, and there was no ground for the mandatory disqualification of the judge from the case. The CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in affirming these rulings.

• Substitution and Jurisdiction: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that Jose Sr. was formally substituted, as shown in the MTC's February 6, 2002 Order, which was issued after the MTC was informed of Jose Sr.'s death through counsel's Notice of Death and Substitution dated November 21, 2001. Even assuming arguendo that substitution was lacking, the Court reiterated that the absence of proper substitution will not nullify the trial court's jurisdiction unless there is a clear showing of a violation of due process, which was not availing in Civil Case No. 1674. The MTC correctly held that petitioners' Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution constituted a collateral attack against the already final and immutable CA Decision, and that it was the MTC's ministerial duty to grant the writ pursuant to Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

• Notice to Counsel is Notice to Parties — When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney. Notice sent to counsel of record binds the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform the client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of the right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that service of the CA Decision upon Mrs. Taningco at Atty. Taningco's address on record constituted valid service upon counsel, which in turn constituted notice to petitioners.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — A decision or order that has attained finality can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land. The doctrine is grounded on public policy and sound practice, adhered to by courts to end litigations albeit the presence of errors. The only exceptions are: (1) correction of clerical errors, (2) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the CA Decision became final and executory on May 7, 2013, after petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration within fifteen days from receipt on April 8, 2013, and could no longer be assailed.

• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duty — In the absence of competent evidence to prove otherwise, the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty with respect to service of notice stands. The Court applied this presumption to the service of the CA Decision through the registry return card, which petitioners failed to rebut with more than bare assertions of non-receipt.

• Effect of Lack of Substitution on Jurisdiction — The absence of proper substitution of a deceased party will not nullify the trial court's jurisdiction unless there is a clear showing of a violation of due process. The Court applied this principle by holding that even if substitution were deficient, the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1674 remained valid because no due process violation was shown.

• Lawyer's Duty of Respect to Courts — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers, and shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or with no materiality to the case. This duty is enshrined in the Lawyer's Oath and in Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court found that Atty. Taningco's unfounded insinuations of judicial bias based on alleged family relationships among members of the bench constituted a violation of this duty, undermined public confidence in the judiciary, and warranted referral to the Office of the Bar Confidant.

• "Notice sent to counsel of record binds the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment, valid and regular on its face." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on notice to counsel that determined the finality of the CA Decision and the dismissal of the petition.

• "A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law." — This passage, quoted from Mocorro, Jr. vs. Ramirez, states the canonical formulation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment applied to bar petitioners from relitigating the final CA Decision.

• "The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments." — This passage enumerates the exhaustive exceptions to the immutability doctrine, none of which were found applicable in the case.

• "[T]he use of disrespectful, intemperate, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements by an attorney in his pleading or motion is not only a violation of the lawyer's oath and a transgression of the canons of professional ethics, but also constitutes direct contempt of court for which a lawyer may be disciplined." — This passage, quoted from Aparicio vs. Andal, defines the standard of professional conduct that Atty. Taningco was found to have violated, leading to the referral to the Office of the Bar Confidant.

• Cervantes vs. City Service Corporation, 784 Phil. 694 (2016) — Cited for the rule that when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney.
• GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. vs. Hon. Principe, 511 Phil. 176 (2005) — Cited for the rule that notice sent to counsel of record binds the client and that counsel's neglect causing loss of appeal rights is not a ground to set aside a valid judgment.
• Scenarios, Inc. vs. Vinluan, 587 Phil. 351 (2008) — Cited for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty with respect to service of notice.
• Heirs of Bihag vs. Heirs of Bathan, 734 Phil. 191 (2014) — Cited for the rule on when a decision or order becomes final and executory.
• National Housing Authority vs. Court of Appeals, 731 Phil. 400 (2014) — Cited for the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and its grounding in public policy and sound practice.
• Mocorro, Jr. vs. Ramirez, 582 Phil. 357 (2008) — Cited extensively for the principle of finality of judgment, the quality of immutability, and the exhaustive enumeration of exceptions to the immutability rule.
• Alpajora vs. Calayan, 823 Phil. 93 (2018) — Cited for the lawyer's duty to observe and maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers.
• Aparicio vs. Andal, 256 Phil. 1005 (1989) — Cited for the standard that disrespectful, intemperate, and manifestly baseless statements by an attorney in a pleading constitute a violation of the lawyer's oath and may warrant disciplinary action.

• Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court — Governs execution of judgments and was applied by the MTC in holding that it was its ministerial duty to grant the writ of execution upon the finality of the CA Decision.
• Section 4, Rule 45, Rules of Court — Provides for the deletion of lower court judges as party-respondents in petitions for review on certiorari; Judges Virgilio Luna Paman and Alicia Cruz-Barrios were deleted as party-respondents pursuant to this provision.
• Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others; Atty. Taningco was found to have violated this canon.
• Rule 11.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or with no materiality to the case; Atty. Taningco's insinuations of judicial bias based on alleged family relationships were found to violate this rule.

Leonen (Chairperson), Inting, M. Lopez, and Rosario, JJ., concurred.