Case Summary (G.R. No. 167886)
Background Facts
On April 27, 2004, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) issued a decision determining the just compensation for the land at P58,237,301.68. LANDBANK sought reconsideration, which was denied, and the denial was received on June 11, 2004. Attys. Engilberto F. Montarde and Felix F. Mesa filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance and a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 2004, but their authority to act on behalf of LANDBANK was challenged by the respondent. The respondent contended that the new counsels did not have the requisite authorization.
Legal Proceedings and Issues Raised
DARAB ruled that Montarde and Mesa lacked the authority to represent LANDBANK since no valid substitution of counsel had occurred, leading to the assertion that the decision from April 27, 2004, had become final and executory. LANDBANK's subsequent motion for reconsideration, supported by two memoranda attesting to the lawyers' authority, was also denied. An appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed, affirming DARAB's ruling.
Court’s Assessment of Representation Authority
The Supreme Court highlighted that an attorney is presumed to possess proper authority to represent their client unless proven otherwise. Section 21, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court dictates that no written power of attorney is needed for representation in court. The mere act of filing a notice of entry of appearance establishes the presumption of authority. In the presence of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), which had been provided by LANDBANK, authority was sufficiently established for Montarde and Mesa to act on behalf of the petitioner.
Ratification and Authority to Appeal
The Court stated that any unauthorized act by an attorney can be ratified by the client, thereby validating earlier actions retroactively. The lack of formal substitution of counsels was immaterial, as LANDBANK had not intended to replace its original counsel but to add collaborating counsel, thereby maintaining their connection to the case. The Court also differentiated this
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167886)
Case Overview
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Date: October 25, 2005
- G.R. No.: 167886
- Petitioner: Land Bank of the Philippines (LANDBANK)
- Respondent: Pamintuan Development Company, represented by Mariano Pamintuan, Jr.
- Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari against the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the authority of counsel to file a notice of appeal.
Background Facts
- The case originated from DARAB Case No. 1204-0545-2003 concerning the preliminary determination of just compensation for a 274.9037-hectare property owned by Pamintuan Development Company.
- On April 27, 2004, DARAB determined the just compensation amounting to P58,237,301.68.
- LANDBANK's motion for reconsideration of the DARAB decision was denied, and the order was received on June 11, 2004.
- On June 15, 2004, new counsels, Attys. Engilberto F. Montarde and Felix F. Mesa, filed a notice of appeal and a notice of entry of appearance on behalf of LANDBANK.
Legal Issues Presented
- The respondent opposed the notice of appeal, arguing that the new counsels lacked proper authority from LANDBANK.
- The DARAB ruled that the notices filed by Attys. Montarde and Mesa were invalid due to a lack of proper substitution of their former counsel, leading to the declaration that the April 27, 2004 decision had become final and executory.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- LANDBANK filed a petition