Carretero v. Tarca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Angeles Cason Vda. de Carretero was the appellee, and Gregorio Tarca and Rodulfo Tarca Castro were the appellants in two cases (CA-G.R. Nos. 2699-R and 2700-R) before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision favorable to Carretero on September 15, 1949. Procedural History: Notice of the decision was sent by registered mail to the attorneys of record for the Tarcas, Fernandez, Unson and Patajo, and was allegedly received by Atty. Ramon Fernandez on September 21, 1949. As no motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period, final judgment was entered on October 7, 1949, and the records were remanded on October 19, 1949. The decision was executed on October 25, 1949, placing Carretero in possession of the land. The Petition: On October 29, 1949, the Tarcas, through new counsel, filed a petition to set aside the entry of final judgment and allow a motion for reconsideration, claiming their former attorneys never received the notice and that the signature on the registry return card was falsified. The Court of Appeals granted this petition, setting aside the entry of final judgment. Carretero then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to nullify the resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the resolution of the Court of Appeals setting aside the entry of final judgment and permitting the filing of a motion for reconsideration by the respondents is null and void. Whether notice of the decision sent by registered mail to the attorneys of record of the respondents, and received by a member of the successor law firm, constitutes valid notice to the respondents.
Ruling
The resolution of the Court of Appeals setting aside its entry of final judgment in the two cases involved herein is declared null and void, and its decision of September 15, 1949, is declared final. Costs against the respondents other than the respondent court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the resolution of the Court of Appeals setting aside the entry of final judgment was null and void. The Tarcas' former attorneys of record were Fernandez, Unson and Patajo. While this firm was dissolved, a successor firm, Fernandez, Unson, Angeles and Fernandez, was formed, which included two senior members of the former firm. Notice of the decision was received by Atty. Ramon Fernandez, a member of the successor firm, on September 21, 1949. The Court found that it was reasonable to assume that Atty. Ramon Fernandez was authorized to receive registered mail addressed to the former firm, especially since the senior members of both firms were the same. The failure of the Tarcas' counsel to receive the notice or to act upon it within the reglementary period did not invalidate the service, as notice to the attorney of record is notice to the client. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the notice of the decision sent by registered mail to the attorneys of record, and received by Atty. Ramon Fernandez, constituted valid notice to the respondents. It was established that Atty. Ramon Fernandez was a member of the successor law firm, Fernandez, Unson, Angeles and Fernandez, which handled the cases. The Court reasoned that it was fair to assume that Atty. Ramon Fernandez was authorized to receive registered mail for the successor firm, and by extension, for the cases previously handled by the dissolved firm, given the continuity of senior members. The Court also noted that even if the notice was received by a messenger of Atty. Crispin A. Fernandez (a senior member), it would still be considered authorized receipt. The Court found the Court of Appeals' finding of negligence on the part of Atty. Crispin A. Fernandez or his companions to be inconsistent with the claim that Atty. Ramon Fernandez was not authorized to receive the notice.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that service of pleadings, motions, notices, and other papers upon the attorney of record is generally considered service upon the client. This principle holds true even if the attorney fails to receive the notice or fails to inform the client, as long as the service was properly made through registered mail to the attorney's address of record. The Court emphasized that the client is bound by the consequences of their counsel's actions or omissions, including the failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.