145 DOMINGO SR.

v AQUINOFACTS

Court of First Instance approved money claim of AQUINO against the Estate of
Domingo and orderedAdministratrix STA MARIA to pay P20,000 to AQUINO

Both parties appealed

CA affirmed the ruling of the CFI

Copies of the judgment were sent to ATTY UNSON through registered mail

The new administratrix DE LOPEZ alleges the co-administratrix of STA MARIA,

ATTY DOMINGO, was removed from his trust by the intestate courts order for
having squandered cash so being the one (ATTY DOMINGO) whoengaged the
services of ATTY UNSON, the removal of ATTY DOMINGO is in effect the
removal of ATTY UNSON ascounsel of the estate

DE LOPEZ prays that the clerk of court be directed to serve a copy of the CA
judgment on her counsel instead of ATTY UNSON( In other words, yun court
nagsend ng copy ng decision ng ca kay atty unson pero sabi ng estate hindi
valid yun pagsend ng notice kasi hindi na nila lawyer si atty unson at the time
notice was served)

Issue: WON the service of judgement to Atty Unson was valid

HELD:
YES, EVEN IF ESTATE CLAIMS THAT ATTY UNSON WAS NOT THEIR LAWYER AT THE
TIME COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WAS SENT, ABSENCE OF MANIFESTATION OR NOTICE OF
DISCHARGE FILED WITHTHE COURT MAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE SENT TO THE COUNSEL OF
RECORD BINDING UPON THECLIENT
RATIO:
Records show that ATTY UNSON was the counsel of record of the ESTATE OF
DOMINGO in the appellate court and never filed any withdrawal as such counsel.
Even after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administrator of the estate,
ATTYUNSON filed in the appellate court his memorandum for the estate. Moreover,
while it may be true that ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the estate and for the
former administrator when the intestate court granted his motion to withdraw as
counsel by virtue of his appointment to and assumption of public office of Assistant
Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration, this was true only as far as the

intestate court was concerned. He continued on record in the appellate court and
did not file any withdrawal as counsel. In addition to that,no appearance of new
counsel for the estate was ever filed. It follows that since notice and copy of the
appellate courts decision were served by registered mail on the estates counsel of
record ATTY UNSON and the latter failed to claim his mail on the 5 th day after the
first notice of the post master, such service was deemed completed and effected
and binding upon the client, in this case the Estate of Domingo. As to the contention
that removal of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means removal of ATTY UNSON as
the estates counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was the one who engaged the
services of ATTY UNSON, the fact that ATTY UNSONS services were engaged by
ATTY DOMINGO in his official capacity as administrator, did not make ATTY UNSON
his personal counsel. ATTY UNSON continued to be authorized to represent the
estate as its counsel until the new administrator DOMINGO DE LOPEZ should
terminate his services which she never did.
JUDGMENT
SC: ATTY REGINO (petitioners counsel in this case) is reminded that cooperation of
litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court
dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. Hence, petition is dismissed and
ATTY REGINO is ordered to pay treble costs