G.R. NO. 133496 -

Ruling

Accordingly, notices of all kinds and all orders of the court must be sent to the counsel. While notice to counsel is an effective notice to the client, [12] notice to a client and not to his counsel is not notice in law. [13] Corollary to the foregoing postulates on attorney-client relationship is the rule that the client is bound by the action or inaction, as the case may be, of his counsel. In its assailed decision and resolution, the Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the trial court's holding on representation, ruled that neither Atty. Datukon nor Atty. Dilangalen can be considered as petitioners' counsel de parte at the time the trial court issued its January 31, 1996 decision and thereafter. Such status, the appellate court added, pertained exclusively to Atty. Estaniel whose appearance, made as it were through the medium of formally delivering to the clerk of court his Entry of Appearance, did not require, for its validity, court approval. [14] The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court of Appeals ruled, and rightly so, that although Atty. Estaniel was not officially sent a copy of the trial court's January 31, 1996 decision, he was however, put on effective official notice thereof on April 1, 1996 . He must, therefore, be made accountable for his failure to seek, within the reglementary period counted from April 1, 1996, a review of said decision. Wrote the appellate court: "However, while Atty. Estaniel is the counsel of record of the petitioners, We sustain the order of the respondent court that the notice of appeal was filed out of time. x x x As counsel for petitioners, it was incumbent upon him, consistent with his duty to serve his client with competent and diligence, to inquire from the respondent court about the status of the case or to obtain a copy of the decision at the earliest possible time (Canon 18, Code of Professional Responsibility) xxx xxx xxx The earliest possible time for him to have known that there was already a decision in the case was when he was furnished a copy of the manifestation filed by Atty. Datukon on 1 April 1996 , wherein the latter informed the respondent court that he was no longer the lawyer of petitioners as of 22 September [should be 27 September] 1995 since he had already been formally substituted by Atty. J.M. Estaniel as counsel for defendants as of said date xxx. Then, having known of the decision, he (i,e., Atty Estaniel) should have filed a motion for reconsideration, or seek quashal of the motion for execution. He did not do so. It was only on 24 May 1996 when Atty. Estaniel instructed his paralegal staff to get a copy of the decision of the respondent court. He was remiss as counsel for petitioners. It is for this reason that the denial of the notice of appeal must be sustained." (Emphasis supplied). The foregoing disposition and the premises holding it together commend themselves for concurrence. In particular, we agree with the designation of April 1, 1996 as the controlling date when Atty.