G.R. No. 163959 - MARCELINO E. LOPEZ, FELIZA LOPEZ, ZOILO LOPEZ, LEONARDO LOPEZ, AND SERGIO F. ANGELES, V. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PRIMEX CORPORATION.

Ruling

Accordingly, the March 7, 2012 resolution granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Withdrawal of Petition is set aside, and, consequently, the appeal of the petitioners is reinstated. 2. The CA did not err in declaring its decision final and executory on the ground of non-appeal By their petition for review on certiorari dated June 25, 2007, [19] the Lopezes seek the review and reversal of the decision of the CA promulgated on January 23, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No. 83159, and the nullification of the resolution promulgated on May 17, 2007. [20] We note that the CA thereby reversed and set aside the judgment of the RTC rescinding the parties' Deed of Conditional Sale and Deed of Sale covering the property in litis and ordering mutual restitution between the parties; and instead directed Primex to pay the petitioners the full balance of the purchase price of the property plus legal interest of 6% per annum . In the assailed resolution, the CA denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration for having been filed out of time; and declared its decision dated January 23, 2007 final and executory as of February 14, 2007. The petitioners submit that the CA thereby erred considering that Atty. Angeles had until March 10, 2007 within which to file the Motion for Reconsideration , which he did on March 6, 2007. We find and hold that the CA correctly acted in issuing the assailed decision and resolution. Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court expressly states that if a party has appeared by counsel, service shall be made upon his counsel or one of them. Considering that there is no question that the petitioners had engaged the services of two counsels, namely: Atty. Angeles and Atty. Pantaleon, notice to either of them was effective notice to the petitioners. [21] Considering that there was no notice of withdrawal or substitution of counsel shown to have been made, the notice of the decision to either Atty. Angeles and Atty. Pantaleon was, for all purposes, notice to the petitioners. [22] This is because the CA could not be expected to itself ascertain whether the counsel of record had been changed. [23] Atty. Pantaleon received the CA's decision on January 30, 2007, while Atty. Angeles received it on February 23, 2007. The service of the decision on Atty. Pantaleon started the running of the period for seeking the reconsideration of the decision or for perfecting an appeal notwithstanding that Atty. Angeles had yet to receive the copy of the decision. Under the circumstances, the petitioners effectively had until February 14, 2007 within which to seek the reconsideration or to perfect their appeal, but they failed to do either. They appear to have filed their Motion for Reconsideration only on March 6, 2007, which was too late for being already 35 days from notice of the decision. It is axiomatic that a party who fails to assail an adverse decision through the proper remedy within the period prescribed by law for the purpose loses the right to do so; hence