LEGAL PROFESSION

TOPIC: AUHTORITY TO APPEAR, AUTHORITY TO BIND CLIENTS, COMPENSATION, ATTYS LIEN

AYLLON VS. SEVILLA A client is bound by the mistakes and omissions of his counsel, so that if an appeal is lost through the unjustified neglect of counsel, as happened in the instant case, that loss is binding upon the client. Ponente: Justice PADILLA, 1987 FACTS: Petitioner Ayllon filed a petition for probate in the RTC. In said will, testator distributed his property to his surviving spouse, the petitioner, and to his sons and daughter by first marriage, the respondents. The latter opposed the probate, and so hearings were held. While the case was awaiting the courts decision, petitioner, without aid of counsel, entered into an amicable verbal settlement with the respondents. Believing that she will be given one (1/2) of the house and lot, in return abandoning the rest of the properties willed to her, petitioner order her lawyer to file a motion to dismiss the case. The case was dismissed. Respondents apparently did not comply with the verbal agreement with petitioner; hence, the petitioner filed an affidavit, asking for the withdrawal of her motion to dismiss and for the revival of the case. Court dismissed the motion on the grounds that: (a) Case was amicably settled (b) Petitioner failed to present three (3) witnesses who could Identify the handwriting of the testator in the disputed holographic will, as provided under Article 811 of the Civil Code Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to the trial court; but, it was denied. Petitioner then went to the Court of Appeals to file a petition. The respondent court required the petitioner to file a Record on Appeal within 60 days from notice. Petitioners counsel failed to file the record on appeal despite due notice; and instead, file an appeal brief. Respondent Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners motion on account of the failure of petitioners counsel. Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider but was also dismissed.

The present is a petition for certiorari, with the petitioner praying that her case be revived, and that she be allowed to submit a record on appeal

DECISION: Court denied the petition but remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings, specifically, to determine and adjudicate to the petitioner and respondents their respective hereditary shares in the estate left by Mateo Ayllon in accordance with the rules on intestate succession. The Court held that the petitioner's counsel ignored compliance with the requirement of filing a record on appeal, as provided for by the Rules. Hence, there was no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals, in dismissing petitioner's appeal. However, even if this Court affirms the Court of Appeals decision for dismissal, petitioner still has her hereditary rights which are acquired by law. And, in interest of justice, the special proceeding of the trial court may be required to continue, as it is required to determine and adjudicate the respective hereditary shares of petitioner and respondents in the estate of the late Mateo Ayllon in accordance with the rules on intestate succession.