Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. SERAFIN AQUINO AND RUMELIA AQUINO v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 173594 2008-02-06	SILKAIR PTE v. CIR CARPIO MORALES, J.
The facts of Dolores De Mesa Abad are not on all fours with those of the present case. In any event, more recent jurisprudence holds that in case of failure to comply with the procedure established by Section 26, Rule 138[31] of the Rules of Court re the withdrawal of a lawyer as a counsel in a case, the attorney of record is regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders and pleadings.[32] Thus, where no notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel has been shown, notice to counsel of record is, for all purposes, notice to the client.[33] The court cannot be expected to itself ascertain whether the counsel of record has been changed.[34]
	ADM CASE NO. 6266 2006-11-16	ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES v. ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA QUISUMBING, J.
Section 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court[9] provides the proper procedure for a lawyer's withdrawal as counsel in a case. Unless the procedure prescribed in the abovementioned section is complied with, the attorney of record is regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders and pleadings and who should be held responsible for the case.[10] For its part, the court could recognize no other representation on behalf of the client except such counsel of record until a formal substitution of attorney is effected.[11]
	GR No. 141484 2005-11-11	GCP-MANNY TRANSPORT SERVICES v. ABRAHAM Y. PRINCIPE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
should be observed. Unless said procedure is complied with, the counsel of record is regarded as the counsel who should be served with copies of the judgments, orders and pleadings and who should be held responsible for the case.[39] Indeed, a lawyer's withdrawal as counsel must be made in a formal petition filed in the case, without which, notice of judgment rendered in the case served on the counsel of record, is, for all legal purposes, notice to the client, the date of receipt of which is considered the starting point from which the period of appeal prescribed by law shall begin to run.[40] Petitioner having failed to appeal in due time, the trial court did not commit any error or grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for execution.