Decision 5 G.R. No. 211829 While the Court indeed provides relief to litigants when gross negligence of counsel is manifest, in such cases, petitioners go to court through modes specifically provided by law and the Rules. In both APEX Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 17 and Legarda v. Court of Appeals, 18 cited by petitioner, the remedy availed of before the CA was a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. In Callangan v. People of the Philippines; 19 the petitioner resorted to a Rule 45 petition on a pure question of law before this Court, which assailed the RTC's dismissal of a Rule 65 petition questioning the MTC's denial of a motion for new trial in a criminal case. We are, thus, confounded by what mode of relief petitioner is referring to in his contention that the CA erred in treating his petition before it as one filed under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. As to petitioner's vain attempt to withdraw his notice of appeal to give way to a motion for reconsideration before the RTC, without manifesting such fact before the CA, the same smacks of forum shopping. The allegation that Atty. Causing was consulted so that the handling lawyer at the appeal stage would be based near in Manila contradicts petitioner's feigned expectation that Atty. Cerdon would continue to represent him before the CA. It puts into doubt the claim that petitioner left word with Atty. Cerdon's secretary that Atty. Cerdon shall continue to be his counsel of record to take charge of the appeal. While Atty. Causing ostensibly signed on as collaborating counsel, as Atty. Cerdon has not formally withdrawn from the case, there was in fact no collaboration between the two counsels. At any rate, it remains incumbent upon the petitioner to manifest before the CA the engagement of present counsel, the filing of motions before the RTC, and to follow-up the status of the case at the appellate stage. Even if we were to presume good faith, petitioner cannot avoid responsibility for any confusion caused by his engagement of a new lawyer without securing the written withdrawal or conforme of the lawyer who handled his case during the trial stage. Furthermore, on petitioner's averments alone, this Court does not have sufficient basis to conclude _that Atty. Cerdon was grossly negligent, especially without having heard Atty. Cerdon's side on the matter. Petitioner must, therefore, bear the loss of his appeal. To emphasize: x x x The doctrinal rule is that negligence of the counsel binds the client because, otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and [prove] that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced, or learned. 17 18 19 377 Phil. 482 (1999). 272-A Phil. 394 (1991). 526 Phil. 239 (2006). 1