INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED LUIS C. DOMINGO, SR.

, CONSUELO
DOMINGO DE LOPEZ VS PEDRO AQUINO
38 SCRA 472 April 29, 1971

CONTENTION OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Atty. Jose A Unson was the estate’s counsel of record in the appellate court, he
contends that the copy of the notice and judgement of the appellate court sent to him by
registered mail was not received by him. The estate’s attorney in the intestate proceedings
pending in the lower court. Attys. Primicias, Del Castillo and Macaraeg were verbally
informed by Unson of the judgement rendered on appeal by the appellate court.
Atty. Unson had ceased to be the estate’s lawyer since May 21, 163 with the removal
of the former administrator.

DEFENSE OF THE RESPONDENT:

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered judgement approving the money
claim of Pedro Aquino ordering the special administratix to pay from the available funds of
the same the sum of Php20,000.00 with 12% interest per annum from June 10, 1954. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court’s judgement with modifications in
favor of Aquino.
No further move was made by Domingo thereafter until almost five months later after
Aquino had filed in the intestate court a motion for execution of judgement.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT

While it may be true that Atty. Unson ceased as counsel for the estate and for the
former administrator sometime on November 8, 1966, when the intestate court granted his
motion dated November 2, 1966, to withdraw as counsel by virtue of his appointment to and
assumption on February 8, 1966 of the public office of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar
Quota Administration, this was true only insofar as the case in the intestate court was
concerned. He continued on record in the appellate court as counsel for the estate as
appellant therein and did not file therein any withdrawal as counsel and neither did the
petitioner inform said court of any change of counsel or of party-administrator, as required
by Rule 138, section 26 of the Rules of Court. More so, no appearance of any new counsel
for the estate was ever filed with the appellate court.
Notice and copy of the appellate court's decision of January 20, 1967, were therefore
duly served by registered mail on the estate's counsel of record at his address of record at
307 Trinity Building, San Luis, Ermita Manila in accordance with Rule 13, section 8 of the
Rules of Court. In accordance with said Rule, service by registered mail of the appellate
court's decision upon the petitioner's counsel of record was deemed completed and effected
upon the addressee's failure to claim his mail on the fifth day after the first notice of the
postmaster. Atty. Unson continued to represent the estate as counsel in the appellate court.
He continued to be authorized to represent the estate as its counsel, until the new
administrator should terminate his services, which she never did.
Petitioner's counsel are reminded of this Court's admonition in Pajares vs. Abad
Santos, and other cases cited therein, to wit, that "the cooperation of litigants and their
attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases
may be avoided. There must be more faithful adherence to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of
Court which provides that 'the signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that
he has read the pleading and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there
is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay' and expressly
admonishes that 'for a willful violation of this rule, an attorney may be subjected to
disciplinary action