View full case

NESTOR BRACERO v. RODULFO ARCELO

FACTS:

The case involved Nestor Bracero and the heirs of Victoriano Monisit. The heirs filed a complaint against Rodulfo Arcelo and Nestor Bracero, alleging that Victoriano Monisit owned a parcel of land which the heirs inherited. During Victoriano Monisit's lifetime, a portion of the land was mortgaged to Rodulfo Arcelo's grandmother, and Arcelo inherited the right over that portion. Nestor Bracero claimed to be Arcelo's tenant and cultivated the mortgaged portion. Victoriano Monisit previously sued Bracero for failure to share the products of the land, but the case was dismissed.

After Victoriano Monisit's death, his heirs partitioned the properties and took possession of the land. Bracero expanded his occupation of the land and drove out a tenant worker of Victoriano Monisit's heirs. The heirs then filed a complaint for quieting of title, recovery of possession, and damages.

Bracero argued that the complaint was premature, barred by res judicata, and lacked jurisdiction, but the trial court denied his motion to dismiss. The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs and declared Bracero in default. A writ of execution was issued, which Bracero sought to vacate on the grounds of not being furnished a copy of the trial court's decision and his counsel not receiving the decision. The trial court denied his motion to vacate, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order.

Bracero then filed a petition for review assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution, while the respondents argued that Bracero had no legal claim on the property and that he received actual notice of the trial court's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether receipt of petitioner's counsel of a copy of the motion for execution amounts to effective official notice of the Regional Trial Court Decision dated April 16, 2009 if he was not furnished a copy of the Decision.

  2. Whether the lawyer, Atty. Estaniel, is negligent in failing to act on the manifestation of the opposing counsel regarding the motion for execution.

  3. Whether the client, petitioner Nestor Bracero, is bound by the negligence of his counsel.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that the receipt of petitioner's counsel of a copy of the motion for execution amounts to effective official notice of the Regional Trial Court Decision dated April 16, 2009, even if he was not furnished a copy of the Decision. This is in accordance with Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, which provides that service upon a party's counsel shall be made unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. The rule admits of exceptions, and previous cases have considered the filing of a motion for reconsideration or the receipt of a manifestation as sufficient actual notice of the assailed decision. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the Regional Trial Court Order denying petitioner's Urgent Motion to Vacate the Writ of Execution.

  2. Yes, Atty. Estaniel is negligent in failing to exercise due diligence in the discharge of his duties as counsel. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility imposes upon a lawyer the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence. Atty. Estaniel should have inquired about the status of the petitioner's case upon receipt of the opposing counsel's manifestation. His failure to do so makes him responsible for failing to act on the motion for execution.

  3. Yes, the client, petitioner Nestor Bracero, is bound by the negligence of his counsel. A client is bound by the conduct, negligence, or mistakes of his counsel. Therefore, the petitioner must suffer the consequences of his counsel's failure to act.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notice sent directly to the client is not notice in law. Rule 13, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that service upon a party's counsel shall be made unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. (Santiago v. Guadiz, Jr.)

  • The lack of formal notice cannot prevail against the fact of actual notice. The filing of a motion for reconsideration or the receipt of a manifestation can be considered as actual notice of the assailed decision. (Santiago v. Guadiz, Jr.; Ramos v. Spouses Lim)

  • Lawyers have a duty to serve their clients with competence and diligence.

  • Clients are bound by the conduct, negligence, or mistakes of their counsel.

  • Parties represented by counsel should not expect to sit back and relax, but should periodically keep in touch with their counsel and inquire about the status of the case.

  • Relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of a judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence.

  • Dilatory schemes frustrate the efforts, time, and expenditure of the courts, which increases the costs of litigation.