In November 1994, Danilo Omega obtained a favorable judgment for the annulment of his marriage with Criselda Jose. Criselda was represented by Atty. Margarito Yap of the Public Attorney’s Office. In December 1994, Criselda, without the knowledge of Atty. Yap, filed a notice of appeal.
In May 1996, Criselda found out that her appeal was not given due course by reason of her failure to pay the required docket fee. It turns out that the notice to pay the docket fee was sent to Atty. Yap but not action was taken. As such, the Decision in her case became final in December 1995.
Criselda then filed a motion to reinstate her appeal which was denied. Criselda then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. She averred that the notice sent to Atty. Yap did not bind her because when she filed the notice of appeal herself and without the assistance of counsel, she was essentially without a lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Criselda’s argument is correct.
HELD: No. Under Section 22, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, an attorney who appears de parte in a case before a lower court shall be presumed to continue representing his or her client on appeal, unless he or she files a formal petition withdrawing his or her appearance in the appellate court. Although Criselda herself personally filed the Notice of Appeal, the fact remains that Atty. Yap has not filed any formal notice of withdrawal of appearance in the trial court. Therefore, insofar as the appellate court is concerned, Atty. Yap is the counsel of record. As such, the appellate court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying Criselda’s motion to reinstate appeal.
