Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 124 views

    Balgami v. CA

    Uploaded by

    sj catubay
    The Supreme Court ruled that Aplomina did not properly perfect their appeal. While Aplomina's counsel was suspended, the law firm still represented Aplomina and the firm's secretary received the trial court's decision, triggering the period to file an appeal. The failure to appeal within the mandatory period meant the trial court's decision became final.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Balgami v. CA

    Uploaded by

    sj catubay
    124 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that Aplomina did not properly perfect their appeal. While Aplomina's counsel was suspended, the law firm still represented Aplomina and the firm's secretary received the trial court's decision, triggering the period to file an appeal. The failure to appeal within the mandatory period meant the trial court's decision became final.

    Original Description:

    Balgami v. CA case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Aplomina did not properly perfect their appeal. While Aplomina's counsel was suspended, the law firm still represented Aplomina and the firm's secretary received the trial court's decision, triggering the period to file an appeal. The failure to appeal within the mandatory period meant the trial court's decision became final.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    124 views1 page

    Balgami v. CA

    Uploaded by

    sj catubay
    The Supreme Court ruled that Aplomina did not properly perfect their appeal. While Aplomina's counsel was suspended, the law firm still represented Aplomina and the firm's secretary received the trial court's decision, triggering the period to file an appeal. The failure to appeal within the mandatory period meant the trial court's decision became final.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Balgami v. CA Her failure to deliver to Atty.

    Barrera the copy of the


    decision is not a valid justification for giving due
    Facts: course to the appeal. The SC has held that the
    negligence of clerks is binding upon the lawyers.
    Balgami, et. al filed a complaint for
    partition, accounting with damages with a plea for a Despite the suspension of Atty. Barrera, it
    writ of preliminary injunction of the cadastral survey did not relieve the secretary from her duty to hand
    over a parcel of land against Aplomina in the RTC. over the decision to any of the associates in the law
    office. Remember, Aplomina was represented by the
    Aplomina was represented by the law firm firm and not Atty. Barrera alone. Thus, Atty. Barreras
    of J.T. Barrera & Associates (Aplominas counsel). suspension did not sever the lawyer-client
    However, his counsel Atty. Barrera was suspended relationship. When a client employs the services of a
    from the practice of the law by the Court for one firm, he does not employ only the lawyer assigned to
    year. The counsel of Aplomina did not notify the TC handle the case. Rather, he employs the entire firm.
    and Balgamis counsel.
    Perfection of an appeal in the manner and
    The TC rendered a decision in favor of period laid down by law is not only mandatory but
    Balgami, ordering partition of the property. A copy of also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect an appeal
    the decision was served on Aplominas counsel on has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a
    July 1, 1993. No notice of appeal was filed by them. party and precludes the appellate court from
    Thus, the trial court issued a writ of execution upon acquiring jurisdiction over the case. It is not a natural
    motion of Balgami. right but a statutory privilege.

    On Dec. 21, 1993, Aplomina filed a notice Failure of Aplomina to appeal properly had
    of appeal on his own. He alleged that he learned of the effect of rendering the judgment final and
    the TC decision recently after he was told that Atty. executory.
    Barrera had been suspended by the Court. He further
    stated that he was still looking for a new lawyer to
    handle his case on appeal. Of course, this was
    opposed by Balgami on the ground that it was filed
    out of time.

    The appeal was first denied by the TC but


    later reversed itself after a motion for reconsideration
    filed by Atty. Barrera himself (after serving the
    suspension). This was affirmed on the grounds that
    there was no showing that Atty. Barrera had received
    the copy of the decision as he was under suspension
    that time.

    The records were elevated to the CA.


    Balgami filed a motion to strike off appeal but was
    denied. Thus it now files a petition for certiorari and
    prohibition under Rule 65 with the SC.

    Issue:

    Was there a perfected appeal?

    Decision:

    No. Delos Santos, the secretary of the law


    firm, received the decision of the TC on July 1, 1993.

    You might also like