Facts:

The case revolves around the petitioners, Prospero Balgami, Flora Balaos, Lorenza Balaos Dador, Anacleto Balaos, Adelfa Balaos Elerio, Pablito Aplomina, Florita Elerio, Arsenio, Lilia Elerio Gutierrez, and Hali Andres, who filed a complaint on December 10, 1984, against Edilberto dela Vega and Francisco Aplomina in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 31. The complaint sought partition, accounting, and damages regarding a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 1827, covering an area of 102,692 square meters. The petitioners argued that the land belonged to their ancestor, Victoriano Velarde, who passed away intestate in 1937. The heirs of Velarde, including Donesia Velarde Aplomina, Felicidad Velarde Balgami, and Jovita Velarde Balaos, were discussed in intricate detail concerning their respective descendants, emphasizing the ownership lineage. A significant event occurred in 1975 when the petitioners discovered their share of Lot No. 1827 had been unjustly manage

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners, all heirs of Victoriano Velarde who died intestate in 1937, filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City for partition, accounting, and damages over Lot No. 1827.
• The property in dispute measured 102,692 square meters and was subject to conflicting surveys and tax declarations.
• The lineage of the heirs was detailed as follows:
• Donesia Velarde, married to Domingo Aplomina, was survived by Federico (with son Pablito) and Sotera (with daughters Florita, Lilia, and Melba, the latter succeeded by her sole heir, Andres).
• Felicidad Velarde, who married Donesio Balgami, was survived by Prospero and Angelina (with Angelina’s son being Edilberto dela Vega).
• Jovita Velarde, married to Mateo Balaos Dador, left behind children Anacleto and Adelfa.
• A dispute arose when unknown to the heirs, respondent Francisco Aplomina had the entire lot resurveyed and a new Tax Declaration issued under his name, and later sold a portion to his nephew, Edilberto dela Vega.

Proceedings in the Lower Court

• Petitioners demanded a partition of the property, annulment of a simulated and fraudulent sale executed by Aplomina and Dela Vega, and an accounting of their inherited shares.
• In their answer with counterclaim, the respondent and Dela Vega claimed that the deceased ancestor actually left Lot No. 2772, not Lot No. 1827, and argued that Lot No. 1827 was solely owned by Aplomina.
• During the trial:
• The respondent was represented by the law firm J.T. Barrera & Associates.
• Atty. Joelito Barrera, part of the representing team, was under a one-year suspension from the practice of law (effective January 1 to December 31, 1993), which was not disclosed to the trial court or the petitioners.
• On June 14, 1993, after a full-blown trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners ordering the partition of Lot No. 1827 into three equal parts among the heirs with specific instructions regarding the contested sale.
• The trial court’s decision was served via registered mail on July 1, 1993, to the respondent’s counsel at J.T. Barrera & Associates.

Post-Trial Developments and Appeal

• Unaware of the trial court’s decision, the respondent filed a motion on June 28, 1993, urging the court to render the decision quickly.
• Subsequently, the RTC issued a writ of execution on December 3, 1993.
• On December 21, 1993, the respondent, acting on his own initiative, filed a notice of appeal alleging ignorance of the trial court’s decision due to his counsel’s suspension and his efforts in seeking new legal representation.
• The RTC initially denied the notice of appeal, deeming it filed out of time, on August 3, 1994.
• Through a motion for reconsideration, the respondent eventually obtained relief when on September 14, 1995, the RTC reversed the earlier denial and granted due course to his appeal.
• The RTC’s reconsideration was premised on the finding that Atty. Barrera, though suspended, did not personally receive the decision; instead, it was received by his subordinate, Susan de los Santos.
• The court emphasized that any member of the law firm could act for the respondent given the nature of the attorney-client relationship within a law firm.
• The appeal was docketed in the Court of Appeals (CA) as CA-G.R. CV No. 56891.
• Petitioners then moved to strike the appeal in the CA on January 8, 1997, arguing that the appeal was improperly perfected and filed out of time.
• On July 3, 1997, the CA Resolution denied the petitioners’ motion to strike off the appeal, thereby accepting and giving due course to the appeal.
• After a denial of the petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration, the petition for certiorari and prohibition was eventually filed in the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s acceptance of the late appeal.

Issue:

Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal

• Whether the notice of appeal filed by the respondent was perfected within the statutory reglementary period.
• Whether the failure to personally deliver the trial court’s decision to the suspended counsel (Atty. Barrera) justified the delayed filing of the appeal.

Impact of Counsel’s Suspension and Negligence

• Whether the suspension of Atty. Barrera from the practice of law invalidated the correspondence and filings done by his law firm associates in his place.
• Whether the negligence of the law firm in failing to properly deliver judicial communications could be excused and serve as a basis for accepting a late appeal.

Jurisdictional Requirement for Perfecting an Appeal

• Whether the failure to perfect an appeal in accordance with the procedural rules automatically renders a judgment final and executory.
• Whether the CA had jurisdiction to review a judgment that had become immutable for being appealed out of time.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)