Case Digest (G.R. No. 188051)
Facts:
Asia United Bank v. Goodland Company, Inc., G.R. No. 188051, November 22, 2010, the Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Asia United Bank (AUB) seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution that set aside the Regional Trial Court's orders denying due course to respondent Goodland Company, Inc. (GOODLAND)'s Notice of Appeal for invalid substitution of counsel; the CA case is CA‑G.R. SP No. 103304.AUB filed an Ex-Parte Application/Petition for the Issuance of Writ of Possession over a 5,801‑square‑meter lot in Makati originally covered by TCT No. 192674 in the name of GOODLAND. GOODLAND allegedly executed a Third Party Real Estate Mortgage in favor of AUB to secure a P202 million credit to Radiomarine Network (Smartnet) Inc.; Radiomarine defaulted, AUB foreclosed extrajudicially, was declared highest bidder at the December 4, 2006 auction, and secured consolidation of ownership and TCT No. 223120 in its name on December 8, 2006.
GOODLAND, through counsel Atty. Antonio Bautista, opposed the writ, denying execution of the mortgage and alleging forgery; nevertheless, on March 1, 2007 the RTC, Branch 150, Makati City issued the writ of possession, finding AUB's title conclusive. GOODLAND's motions for reconsideration were denied in an April 25, 2007 Order received June 15, 2007.
GOODLAND then filed a Notice of Appeal through Atty. Lito Mondragon, but the RTC on August 23, 2007 denied due course to the notice for failure properly to effect substitution of counsel; the RTC denied reconsideration on February 15, 2008. GOODLAND petitioned the Court of Appeals by special civil action for certiorari; on February 16, 2009 the CA granted the petition and directed the RTC to give due course to the Notice of Appeal, and denied AUB's motion for reconsideration in a May 18, 2009 Resolution.
AUB filed this petition for review on certio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did GOODLAND's filing of the Notice of Appeal through Atty. Mondragon effect a valid substitution of counsel under Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court?
- If substitution was invalid, should the Court nevertheless relax the rule and allow the Notice of Appeal on the ground of substantial justice given AUB's consolidated title and issua...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)