TodayisMonday,March06,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.76232January18,1991

VILLTRANSPORTSERVICE,INC.,petitioner,
vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALS,THEENERGYCORPORATION,andtheDEPUTYSHERIFFoftheRegionalTrial
Court,Makati,MetroManila,respondents.

RomualdoM.Jubayforpetitioner.
Castillo,Laman,Tan&Pantaleonforprivaterespondent.

FERNAN,C.J.:

Theissueinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorariiswhetherornotnoticeofadecisionserveduponcounselina
case who did not leave a forwarding address after he had moved from his address of record, is a valid service
therebymakingthedecisionfinalandexecutoryafterthelapseoftheperiodtoappeal.

ThefactsasfoundbytheCourtofAppealsareasfollows:

InCivilCaseNo.45167beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,BranchCXLI,defendantVillTransportService,
Inc.(VillTransportforbrevity)washeldliablefordamagesforbreachofcontractinfavoroftheplaintiffEnergy
Corporation.VillTransportwasorderedtopayEnergyCorporationUS$25,524.75orP191,435.62asdamages,
P40,000forcharterfees,P33,931.65forrentalandmaintenancecostsandP63,750forservicefees,withallof
theseamountsbeingsubjectto12%interestperannumfromJune16,1980,plusattorney'sfeesofP8,866.60.

OnJune7,1985acopyofthedecisionwassentbyregisteredmailtoAtty.AmantePimentel,counselofrecordof
VillTransport,athisaddressat563TanglawStreet,Mandaluyong,MetroManila.However,itwasreturnedtothe
court with the notation that the addressee had moved out of his given address without leaving a forwarding
address.

OnSeptember14,1985,EnergyCorporationmovedforexecutionofthedecisionandonSeptember19,1985,
thecourtfavorablyactedonthemotion.OnSeptember24,1985,awritofexecutionwasthereforeissued.

Amonthlater,VillTransportfiledanurgentmotionforreconsiderationoftheorderofSeptember19,1985and
served notice of its intention to appeal. It contended that the decision had not as yet become final because it
cametoknowofthedecisiononlyonOctober21,1985.Italsoclaimedthatthewritofexecutionwasvoidasno
copyofthemotionforexecutionwasservedonit.

EnergyCorporationfiledanoppositiontosaidurgentmotionpointingoutthatthedecisionhadbecomefinaland
executorysinceacopyofthedecisionwasservedonVilltransportthroughitscounselathisaddressofrecord
andnoappealwasperfectedwithinthereglementaryperiodofappeal.Itaddedthatamotionforexecutionofa
finalandexecutoryjudgmentdidnothavetobewithnoticetodefendant.

Before the motion for reconsideration could be resolved by the court, Vill Transport filed a motion for new trial
basedonnewlydiscoveredevidence.Again,withoutwaitingfortheresolutionofsaidmotion,itfiledwiththeCourt
of Appeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction aimed at the setting aside of the
orderofexecutionandtheissuanceofanorderforanewtrial.

OnSeptember30,1986,theCourtofAppeals 1renderedadecisiondismissingthepetitionforlackofmerit. 2It

heldthatpetitioner'scounselwasdutyboundtonotifythetrialcourtofanychangeofaddressandhisfailureto
dosocouldnotbeexcused.Itaddedthatthetrialcourthadeveryreasontoconsidertheserviceofitsdecision
completedupontheexpirationoffivedaysfromnoticetocounselintheabsenceofpriornoticebythelatterof
anychangeofaddress.Itopinedthat"toholdthatRule13,Sec.8cannotapplyherebecauseAtty.Pimenteldid
notgetthenotice,wouldbetoencouragelitigantsortheirattorneystoevadetheserviceofjudgmentsandorders
bysimplyleavingtheiraddresseswithoutnoticeoftheirwhereabouts."3

Its motion for the reconsideration of said decision having been denied, Vill Transport interposed the instant
petitionforreviewoncertiorari.

Petitioneradmitsthenegligenceofitscounselinnotleavingaforwardingaddressbutcontendsthatitscounsel
was not actually notified of the registered letter containing a copy of the trial court's decision for he had moved
from his address of record. Hence, service thereof could not have taken effect after the lapse of the fiveday
period mentioned in Rule 13, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. It invokes due process complaining that it was
deprivedofitsrighttoappealfromthedecisionofthelowercourtonaccountofitsfailuretoreceiveacopyofthe
decision.

Ontheotherhand,privaterespondentaversthatthepetitionwasprosecutedmanifestlytodelayexecutionofthe
decisionofthelowercourtwhichhadlongbecomefinalandexecutory.Itstressesthefactthat,beingdesignated
bySection2,Rule13oftheRulesofCourttoreceivecopiesofallcourtprocesses,petitioner'scounselwasduty
boundtoinformthecourtofanychangesinhisaddressofrecordandtherefore,shouldhefailtodoso,serviceof
suchprocessesinhisaddressofrecordshouldbeconsideredcompleteandbindinguponhisclient.

Wefindfortheprivaterespondent.

Section8,Rule13oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat"(s)ervicebyregisteredmailiscompleteuponactualreceipt
by the addressee but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first
noticeofthepostmaster,serviceshalltakeeffectattheexpirationofsuchtime."InBarramedavs.Castillo, 4the
Courtheldthatsincetheexceptioninservicebyregisteredmailreferstoconstructiveservice,nottoactualreceipt
ofthemail,itisbutfairandjustthattherebeconclusiveproofthatafirstnoticewassentbythepostmastertothe
addressee.WhileinthemorerecentcaseofDelaCruzvs.DelaCruz,5theCourtappearstohaveadoptedthe
more stringent rule of requiring not only that the notice of the registered mail be sent but that it should also be
delivered to and received by the addressee, We find that this rule cannot be applied in this case wherein the
elementofnegligenceispresent.

Petitioner herein disputes that a first notice was ever sent to its counsel of record because "the post office just
returnedtheregisteredletterandputthestampmark...'Moved'"thereon. 6Toourmind,petitioner'scontention
is sufficient proof that indeed a first notice was sent to its counsel of record. Its nonreceipt by the addressee,
however, was due entirely to his neglect in informing the court of the fact that he had moved and had a new
address.Tocatertopetitioner'srhetoricalargumentwouldputapremiumonnegligenceandencouragethenon
terminationofcasesbyreasonthereof.

InAntoniovs.CourtofAppeals,7theCourtcategoricallystatedthattherequirementofconclusiveproofofreceipt
oftheregistrynotice"presupposesthatthenoticeissenttothecorrectaddressasindicatedintherecordsofthe
court.Itdoesnotapplywhere,asinthecaseatbar,thenoticewassenttothelawyer'sgivenaddressbutdidnot
reachhimbecausehehadmovedtherefromwithoutinformingthecourtofhisnewlocation.Theserviceattheold
addressshouldbeconsideredvalid.Otherwise,noprocesscanbeservedontheclientthroughhislawyerifthe
latterhassimplydisappearedwithoutleavingaforwardingaddress.Thereisnoneedtostressthatserviceonthe
lawyer,ifvalid,isalsovalidserviceontheclientherepresents.Theruleinfactisthatitisonthelawyerandnot
theclientthattheserviceshouldfirstbemade."

Losing a case on account of one's counsel's negligence is a bitter pill to swallow for the litigant. But then, the
Court is dutybound to observe its rules and procedures. And, in the observance thereof for the orderly
administrationofjustice,itcannotcountenancethenegligenceandineptitudeoflawyerswhowantonlyjeopardize
theinterestsoftheirclients.8Onhispart,alawyershallobservetherulesofprocedureandshallnotmisusethem
todefeattheendsofjustice.9

Thus, a lawyer should so arrange matters that official and judicial communications sent by mail will reach him
promptly and should he fail to do so, not only he but his client as well, must suffer the consequence of his
negligence. 10 Failure to claim registered mail of which notice had been duly given by the postmaster is not
excusablenegligencethatwouldwarrantthereopeningofadecidedcase. 11Thesameruleappliesincaseslike
theinstantonewherethecounsel,throughhisnegligence,causedthenondeliveryofajudicialnotice.

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebydeniedforlackofmerit.Thisdecisionisimmediatelyexecutory.Costs
againstthepetitioner.

SOORDERED.

Gutierrez,Jr.,FelicianoandBidin,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1
PennedbyJusticeVicenteV.MendozaandconcurredinbyJusticesJosueN.BellosiloandHectorC.
Fule.
2
Rollop.41.
3
Rollo,pp.4041.
4
L27211,July6,1977,78SCRA1.
5
L48697,April15,1988,160SCRA361.
6
Rollo,p.14.
7
L35434,November9,1988,167SCRA127.
8
JusticeConradoV.Sanchezaptlypointedouttheeffectsthatacounsel'sfailuretoinformthecourtofhis
changeofaddressmaybringinJuanev.Garcia(L21115,October29,1968,25SCRA801,807).Hesaid:

The time has come, we believed, for this Court to remind the members of the Bar that it is their
inescapabledutytomakeofrecordtheircorrectaddressinallcasesinwhichtheyarecounselfora
suitor.For,instancestherehavebeeninthepastwhen,becauseoffailuretoinformthecourtofthe
change of address, litigations were delayed. And this, not to speak of inconvenience caused the
other parties and the court. Worse still, litigants have lost their cases in court because of such
negligenceonthepartoftheircounsel.Itispainfulenoughforalitiganttosufferasetbackinalegal
battle. It is doubly painful if defeat is occasioned by his attorney's failure to receive notice because
thelatterhaschangedtheplaceofhislawofficewithoutgivingthepropernoticetherefor.Itisonly
when some such situation comes about that the negligent lawyer comes to realize the grave
responsibility that he has incurred both to his client and to the cause of justice. It is then that the
lawyerisremindedthatinhisoathofofficehesolemnlydeclaredthathe"willconduct"himself"asa
lawyeraccordingtothebestofhisknowledgeanddiscretion."Toolate.Experienceindeedisagood
teacher.Toalawyer,though,itcouldproveveryexpensive.
9
Rule10.03,Canon10,1988CodeofProfessionalResponsibility.
10
Ferarenv.Santos,L41323,April27,1982,113SCRA707citingIslasv.PlatonandOna,47Phil.162.
11
Ferarenv.Santos,Ibid.,citingPielagov.Generoso,73Phil.654.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation