Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODOLFO DE LEON v. CA AND SPS. ESTELITA AND AVELINO BATUNGBACAL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 152150 2008-12-10	SPS. REYNALDO O. PADUA AND IRENE C. PADUA AND GLADYS C. PADUA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
In any case, the grounds for dismissing an appeal under Section 1[24] of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court are discretionary upon the Court of Appeals. This can be gleaned from the very language of the Rules which uses the word may instead of shall. In De Leon v. Court of Appeals,[25] we held that Section 1, Rule 50, which provides specific grounds for dismissal of appeal, manifestly "confers a power and does not impose a duty. Moreover, it is directory, not mandatory." With the exception of Section 1(b), the grounds for the dismissal of an appeal are directory and not mandatory, and it is not the ministerial duty of the court to dismiss the appeal.[26]
	GR No. 175334 2008-03-26	SPS. DOMINGO M. BELEN v. PABLO R. CHAVEZ TINGA, J,
As a general rule, when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney and notice to the client and to any other lawyer, not the counsel of record, is not notice in law. The exception to this rule is when service upon the party himself has been ordered by the court.[15] In cases where service was made on the counsel of record at his given address, notice sent to petitioner itself is not even necessary.[16]
	GR NO. 158992 2007-01-26	REPUBLIC v. SPS. JOSE AND AMELIA LURIZ VELASCO, JR., J.
It is a hornbook doctrine that when a party is represented by counsel, notice to the client and to any other lawyer, not the counsel of record, is not a notice in law.[10] The only exception, as provided in Section 2 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is when service upon the parties themselves is ordered by the court. Indisputably, in their Motion for Reconsideration of the Order denying their Notice of Appeal, petitioners submitted a photocopy of the notice of decision which the trial court served on their counsel. The said copy had an October 13, 1997 stamped receipt. Unfortunately, the trial court offhandedly dismissed the petitioners' explanation without taking into account the said proof.
	GR NO. 159806 2006-01-20	BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED v. THELMA U. LEE QUISUMBING, J.
The Notice of Appeal filed by respondents stated that they were appealing the subsequent decision dated May 31, 2002, which disposed of the remaining factual issues. To our mind, the said appeal must be deemed to include the prior partial judgment as amended. The decision on the remaining factual issues is not the final and appealable judgment that finally disposes of the case on the merits. It must, therefore, only be appealed together with the amended partial judgment.[21]