In 2002, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) filed a collections case against Mannequin International Corporation (MIC) and several other individuals including Genoveva Tan. Tan was represented by the law office Defensor Villamar Villamar Bahia and Tolentino. Thereafter, Atty. Carmelita Reyes-Eleazar entered her appearance as collaborating counsel. After the BOC rested its case in 2010, Tan, through another counsel, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, filed a demurrer to evidence. The demurrer was later amended to a motion to exclude to conform to its allegations
The motion was granted by the RTC. The BOC filed a petition for review on certiorari which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for being filed out of time. The CA however eventually took cognizance of the petition after the BOC filed a motion for reconsideration. Tan did not interpose any opposition. In July 2013, the CA reversed the order of the RTC which excluded Tan from the complaint.
When Atty. Reyes-Elazar received a copy of the CA decision, she did not do anything and the decision became final. She later withdrew as counsel for Tan. Thereafter, Atty. Simbillo filed an entry of appearance as counsel for Tan before the CA. Atty. Simbillo then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that he is the primary counsel for Tan; that he was kept in the dark by the other counsels; that he only knew of the CA decision when Tan’s housekeeper found a copy of it; that it would be unjust to not allow Tan to question the CA decision.
The CA did not give credence to Atty. Simbillo’s averments and his motion was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Simbillo’s arguments should be given credence.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court adopted the CA’s ruling. As it appears, Tan was well represented by her counsels. It is no longer the fault of the court if her counsels did not coordinate with each other. As the records shows, Atty. Reyes-Eleazar had actively represented Tan all throughout the hearing. When notices were sent to her, there was no need to send notice to the other counsels. Notice to one is notice to all.
Atty. Simbillo may argue that he ought to be considered as the counsel of record as he was the latest hire of Tan and that his name appeared in most of the issuances of the RTC. However, since Tan had not yet terminated the services of Atty. Reyes-Eleazar at that time, the latter could very well act in representation of Tan until her authority is properly withdrawn (which only happened when the CA decision became final). Without valid substitution of counsel of record, the Court can safely presume that Atty. Reyes-Eleazar continuously and actively represents Tan. Furthermore, a party may have two or more lawyers working in collaboration in a given litigation, but 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. The second counsel should only be treated as a collaborating counsel despite his appearance as the new counsel of record.
