5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In the present case, and as correctly pointed out by petitioners, the 60-day reglementary period for the purpose of filing a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from January 12, 2011, the date Atty. Borromeo, Sarmiento’s then counsel of record, had the notice of the December 30, 2010 Resolution, and not February 10, 2011, the date when Sarmiento was personally notified thereof. This is in consonance with the well-settled rule that if a litigant is represented by counsel, notices of all kinds, including court orders and decisions, must be served on said counsel, and notice to him is considered notice to his client. As declared in the case of GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Hon. Principe:[50] The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds including motions, pleadings and orders must be served on the counsel. And notice to such counsel is notice to the client. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment, valid and regular on its face.[51] (Emphasis supplied) To this end, the Court cannot give credence to Sarmiento’s contention that Atty. Borromeo had been discharged as counsel even before Sarmiento received the December 30, 2010 Resolution, considering that Atty. Borromeo never filed a formal withdrawal of appearance prior thereto, conformably with Section 26,[52] Rule 138 of the Rules. For his failure to observe the proper legal formalities, Atty. Borromeo remained as Sarmiento’s counsel on record. Fundamental is the rule that until a counsel’s dismissal or withdrawal is formally made, any court record sent to him binds the client, despite an internal arrangement between them terminating their professional relationship,[53] as in this case. Besides, on June 1, 2011, Atty. Borromeo eventually filed a Manifestation with Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance[54] before the CA, thus confirming that he was, in fact, Sarmiento’s legal counsel at the time he received the December 30, 2010 Resolution. [55] Accordingly, the 60-day period within which to file a petition for certiorari before the CA should be computed from January 12, 2011, the last day of which would be on March 13, 2011. As Sarmiento’s petition was filed only on April 7, 2011, it was belatedly filed by twenty-five (25) days. Effectively, therefore, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over Sarmiento’s petition, hence, the NLRC Ruling could no longer be assailed.[56] WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 23, 2012 and the Resolution dated March 26, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 118912 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated September 30, 2010 and the Resolution dated December 30, 2010 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. OFW(M) 05-07119-09/NLRC LAC No. OFW(M) 03-000209-10 are REINSTATED. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57652 5/9