G.R. No. L-49046 - Victoria vs. Inciong

On March 31, 1998, International Exchange Bank filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of money before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 150.
The complaint centered on a credit line extended by the Bank in favor of Alberto T. Looyuko, for which petitioner Jimmy T. Go executed a Surety Agreement, thereby binding himself solidarily for all debts incurred.
The case involved eight (8) promissory notes co-signed by both defendants, evidencing transactions that totaled P98,000,000.

On October 7, 1999, the RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner and Looyuko jointly and severally liable for an amount of P96,000,000, plus interests and costs.
Atty. Ronald E. Javier, who initially represented the petitioner, received the RTC decision on October 20, 1999.
Prior to the decision’s receipt, on September 30, 1999, Atty. Javier communicated his intent to withdraw his services, although the formal termination was effected only on October 29, 1999 through a Notice of Termination filed with the court.

After the decision, petitioner, now represented by Atty. Gregorio D. Caneda, Jr., filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 5, 1999.
A Notice of Appeal was also filed the same day, despite the procedural requirement tied to the receipt of the decision by counsel.
The RTC, on February 8, 2000, issued an order denying the Notice of Appeal on the grounds that the reglementary period had expired on November 4, 1999, since Atty. Javier’s receipt of the decision on October 20, 1999 triggered the 15-day deadline.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, challenging both the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration/Notice of Appeal and the issuance of a Writ of Execution.
On May 15, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the appeal period had indeed begun on October 20, 1999, and that the petitioner’s late filing forfeited his right to appeal.
Petitioner raised arguments alleging that his former counsel’s gross negligence and purported incompetence caused him prejudice, and that such negligence should warrant a new trial.

Petitioner made further allegations suggesting a conspiracy among various parties, including the Bank, opposing counsel, and judicial officers, notably impugning the integrity of RTC Judge Abrogar.
These allegations extended to claims of collusion and misconduct, with specific reference to actions of Atty. Benedicto Valerio, Atty. Flaminiano, and others.
The court admonished both petitioner and his current counsel for the baseless and disrespectful accusations, emphasizing that such unfounded imputations against judicial officers are not tolerated under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Whether the Notice of Appeal filed on November 5, 1999, could be given due course when the reglementary period was computed from the date Atty. Javier, then counsel of record, received the RTC decision on October 20, 1999.
Whether petitioner’s claim that he should not be bound by the acts or alleged negligence of his former counsel has merit, particularly when legal formalities regarding counsel withdrawal were not properly followed.
Whether procedural irregularities—specifically, the formal effectiveness of the notice of termination of counsel—affect the computation of the appeal period.
Whether the RTC and Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion or any other exceptional error in denying the appeal and upholding the RTC’s decision.