THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234485. December 11, 2017.]
MARIE PAZ DEL PILAR GONZALES, petitioner,vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and USHIO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 11, 2017, which reads as follows: ATICcS
"G.R. No. 234485 (MARIE PAZ DEL PILAR GONZALES v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and USHIO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION). — After a perusal of the records, this Court resolved to deny the Petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals 1 committed any reversible error in the assailed Resolutions dated 30 May 2017 and 16 August 2017, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in and established by the petition: (1) that the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In order to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner must prove that the lower court acted in a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. 2 "Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law." 3
In the case at bar, no grave abuse of discretion is present. There is nothing in the petition that alleged any act that would constitute grave abuse of discretion or would prove that the CA exercised its judgment capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion and hostility. A review of the assailed Resolutions reveals that the denial of the motion to dismiss was in order.
As a rule, all notices, orders, and issuances must be served to the counsel of record. 4 Service upon any person other than the counsel of record is neither legally effective nor binding upon the party. Otherwise stated, a wrong service will not commence to run the reglementary period within which the receiving party must take the subsequent available remedies. 5
Here, Ushio was being represented by two counsels, namely: A.G. Uy Deticio & Associates, the counsel of record, which has always been the representative of Ushio; and Palad Lauron Palad Law Firm, which representation transpired only when it filed the motion for reconsideration before the RTC.
Despite the presence of two counsels, notices and processes, in order to be effective upon the party, must be served to the counsel of record. 6 As correctly held by the CA, "[t]here is no question that a party may have two or more lawyers working in collaboration in a given litigation. However, a substitution should not be presumed from the mere filing of a notice of appearance of a new lawyer. The fact that a second attorney enters his appearance for the same party does not necessarily raise the presumption that the authority of the first attorney has been withdrawn." 7 Absent any notice that A.G. Uy Deticio & Associates has withdrawn its representation, the subsequent filing of the motion of reconsideration by Palad Lauron Palad Law Firm is not deemed as a substitution. 8 Instead, Palad Lauron Palad Law Firm is considered as a collaborating counsel.
We clarified in our ruling in Soriano v. Soriano, 9 that service of orders and notices to any other lawyer other than the counsel of record is not notice in law. 10 Thus, the service of the Order upon Palad Lauron Palad Law Firm, as a collaborating counsel, is not binding upon Ushio. Accordingly, the date of receipt shall be reckoned upon the receipt of the counsel of record, A.G. Uy Deticio & Associates, which was on 27 December 2016, giving Ushio until 11 January 2017 within which to file a petition. As the Petition for Review was filed on 3 January 2017, clearly within the period within which to file a petition, the petition was filed on time.
Anent the prayer for issuance of a preliminary injunction, Gonzales having failed to prove the presence of extreme urgency that grave injustice and irreparable injury would arise unless it is issued immediately, an injunctive relief is hereby denied. 11
Therefore, the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 30 May 2017 and 16 August 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 148958 are AFFIRMED and the preliminary injunction prayed for is DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.
2.Tan v. Antazo, 659 Phil. 404, February 23, 2011.
3.Solvic Industrial Corp. v. NLRC, 357 Phil. 438 (1998).
4. Section 2, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
SEC. 2. Filing and service, defined. Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.
Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side.
5.Soriano v. Soriano, 558 Phil. 642, September 3, 2007.
6.Id.
7.Elbiña v. Ceniza, 530 Phil. 187, August 10, 2006.
8.Soriano v. Soriano, 558 Phil. 642, September 3, 2007; Elbiña v. Ceniza, 530 Phil. 187, August 10, 2006.
9.Soriano v. Soriano, 558 Phil. 627-648, September 3, 2007.
10.Id. at 642.
11.Australian Professional Realty, Inc. v. Municipality of Padre Garcia Batangas Province, 684 Phil. 292, March 14, 2012.