CIAR, JULIE ANNE PRINCESS A.

CIVPRO 2D ASSIGNMENT 3.1

G.R. No. 178984, August 19, 2009, THIRD DIVISION, (Chico-Nazario, J.)
ERLINDA MAPAGAY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel, notices of all kinds ,
including motions, pleadings and orders, must be serve on the counsel. Notice to
counsel of records is binding to the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to
inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not
ground for setting asisde a judgment, valid and regular on its face.
Facts:
Erinda Mapagay (Mapagay) borrowed money from Relindia dela Cruz in
Novemebr 1996. Mapagay gave her a signed check for the loan and promised
to replace the check with cash. Upon failure of Mapagay to give her cash
despite repeated demands, she presented the check to the drawee bank. The
check was dishonored for the reason of Account Closed. Her lawyer, after
consultation, sent a demand letter to Mapagay but the latter refused to
receive it.

Dela cruz told Mapagay to pay the loan or the former will sue her in court.
Mapagay promised to pay, but failed to do so. Thus, she filed a case for the
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Check
law against Mapagay.

On June 1999, the Metropolitan Trial Curt (MeTC) provisionally dismissed the
case on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. However the
case was revived because Mapagay failed to comply with the terms of their
agreement.

The MeTC rendered a Decision finding Mapagay guilty of the violation of

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed in toto the the MeTC Decision.
Mapagay filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied by the RTC for
being the reglementary period. Mapagay alleges that she learned of the RTC
Decision only on 20 October 2004 when she asked a friend to check on the
status of the case and that her lawyer did not inform her of the RTC Decision.

The Court of Appeal (CA) held that the RTCs Decision had become final and
unalterable for filing the motion for reconsideration out of time.

Issue:
Whether or not the omission or negligence of Mapagays counsel binds her.
Ruling:
DENIED.

It is indeed settled that the omission or negligence of counsel binds the

client. This is more true if the client did not make a periodic check on the
progress of her case. Otherwise, there would be no end to a suit, so long as a
new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior
counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.

Evidence on record shows that petitioners counsel of record, Atty. Antonio J.

Ballena (Atty. Ballena), received on 21 September 2004 a copy of the RTC
Decision dated 14 September 2004, which affirms petitioners conviction for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Hence, petitioner may file a motion for
reconsideration within 15 days from such date of receipt, which must be on or
before 6 October 2004.

However, petitioner filed her motion for reconsideration only on 3 November

2004, or on the 43rd day, which was obviously way beyond the 15-day
reglementary period. Consequently, the RTC Decision dated 14 September
2004 has become final and executory.

CIAR, JULIE ANNE PRINCESS A.

CIVPRO 2D ASSIGNMENT 3.1

It was observed that there was no showing that Mapagay had constantly
followed up her case with the counsel of record. She did not even bother to
call or personally go to the court to verify the progress of her case.
Undeniably, Mapagay did not exercise diligence in pursuing her case.