Negligent lawyer

The counsel of record of a party to a case has the duty to promptly inform the court of a change of his address. If he fails to inform the court and the decision is sent to his old address which is the address of record, will such negligence bind his client? This is one of the issues raised in this case of a construction company (JDC) and Mando, the project designer of one of the building it was engaged to construct.

When JDC started the excavation and construction works of a 12-storey commercial building known as RM Plaza sometime in November 1993, slippages or cave-ins of soil occurred in the adjacent lot co-owned by the spouses Mar and Ella and their three children (family co-owners) causing massive cracks on the wall and floor of the residential building erected thereon where they resided.

Sometime in February 1994 in a conciliation meeting between the family co-owners and Mando the project designer of RM Plaza, the latter assured them that JDC will repair their residential building and restore the foundation that caved in. Mando also undertook that JDC shall pay damages in case of any defect in the repair and restoration of the building. Subsequently however, Mando informed the family co-owners that the wet and loose condition of their soil was the cause of the damage to their properties, so JDC refused to pay the damages.

When JDC proceeded with the construction despite the stop work order of the City Building Official because its on-going excavation works greatly affected the adjacent residents including the family co-owners, the latter already filed a petition for injunction with damages before the Regional Trial Court.

Before the hearing started, the parties agreed that JDC shall reconstruct the damaged residential building of the spouses and restore the foundation of the soil that caved-in as previously agreed upon before the case was filed leaving the issue of damages alone to be litigated between the parties.

After trial to determine only the issue of damages, the RTC rendered a decision ordering JDC and Mando to pay jointly and severally, the family co-owners, P500,000 moral damages, P200,000 exemplary damages, P50,000 attorney’s fees and cost of suit. JDC and Mando were also ordered to restore the foundation of the soil of the spouses’ lot to its original condition as well as to repair and reconstruct their residential building.

This decision was appealed by JDC and Mando to the Court of Appeals (CA). But on February 17, 2005, the CA affirmed the RTC decision except for the amount of moral damages which it reduced to P300,000. Service of this decision was made to JDC and Mando’s counsel at his address of record where it was received on March 2, 2005.  

Apparently, JDC and Mando’s counsel had changed address but did not inform the CA about it. So on March 17, 2006 or more than one year after the CA decision was promulgated, the CA issued a resolution declaring its decision dated February 17, 2005 final and executory upon motion of the family co-owners. When JDC and Mando learned about this, they questioned this CA resolution. They contended that they did not receive a copy of the CA decision dated February 17, 2005. So it did not attain finality against them. Were they correct?

No. They are deemed to have received a copy of the CA decision. The failure of their counsel to file with the CA a notice of change of address is fatal to their case. Sad to say the negligence of their counsel to promptly inform the CA of a change of his address resulting in the non-receipt of the decision when it was sent at his old address which was the address of record when the decision was promulgated binds JDC and Mando. Such service at the old address on March 2, 2005 is valid. It follows that the reglamentary period of 15 days within which JDC and Mando can file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review with the Supreme Court shall be counted from that date or up to March 17, 2005 only. So the CA did not err in declaring the decision of February 17, 2005 final (Jarson Development Corp. et. al. vs. Estrella et. al. G.R. 172750, January 28, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]

Reminder:  In celebration of the Asian Institute of Management’s (AIM) 40th foundation year, there will be a grand alumni homecoming dubbed Asian High at Boni High tomorrow, March 7, 2008, 6 p.m. at the Bonifacio High Street, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig. For more details contact Martin Romualdez at 8898332 loc. 132; [email protected] or AIM Alumni Office at 8924011.