Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58623)
Procedural History and Initial Orders
On August 11, 1981, the respondent judge ordered the execution of the decision on the grounds that it had become final. The petitioner responded by filing a motion for reconsideration on the basis that they had not received a copy of the decision. However, this motion was denied on September 22, 1981, with the judge ruling that valid notice had been given to the defendant through its then counsel, Atty. Sisenando Villaluz.
Petitioner’s Request for Relief
The petitioner sought the annulment of the orders dated August 11 and September 22, 1981, and requested that a copy of the original decision be provided to them through their appointed counsel, Atty. Roberto A. Padilla. In response to the petition for certiorari and mandamus, the court issued a resolution on November 16, 1981, requiring the respondents to comment on the petition and issuing a temporary restraining order to prevent the execution of the prior orders.
Delivery Issues and Counsel Representation
A complication arose regarding the delivery of the trial court's decision. The notice intended for Atty. Villaluz was returned unclaimed. This was significant since Atty. Villaluz had been the counsel of record but had ceased to represent the petitioner prior to the trial court decision without formally notifying the court. Atty. Roberto A. Padilla had collaborated with Atty. Villaluz but similarly failed to inform the court of the change in legal representation.
Negligence by Counsel and Court
The failure of Atty. Villaluz to notify the court of his withdrawal as counsel constituted negligence, resulting in the decision being sent to an incorrect address. Atty. Padilla also did not take the initiative to update the court about the representation status. The court erred in not redistributing t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-58623)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the National Mines and Allied Workers' Union (NAMAWU-MIF) against Honorable Judge Domingo Coronel Reyes and other respondents.
- The original decision in Civil Case No. 5523 was rendered on January 23, 1981, ordering the petitioner to pay certain sums of money to the private respondent.
- On August 11, 1981, the respondent judge ordered the execution of the decision, asserting that it had become final.
Procedural History
- Following the execution order, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds of not receiving a copy of the decision.
- The motion for reconsideration was denied on September 22, 1981, citing valid notice of the decision through the petitioner's counsel on record, Atty. Sisenando Villaluz.
- The petitioner then sought a declaration that the orders of August 11 and September 22, 1981, were null and void, requesting that a copy of the decision be provided through its new counsel, Atty. Ro