Martinez v. Martinez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An action for forcible entry was filed in the justice of the peace court of Butuan, Agusan. The plaintiff obtained a favorable judgment. The defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Agusan. Procedural History: The CFI rendered a decision by default against the defendants for failure to file an answer and appear at the trial. This decision was vacated upon the defendants' petition, as notice was sent to them instead of their attorney. The defendants filed their answer, signed by their attorney, Atty. Apolonio D. Curato. The trial was set for October 13, 1949, and notice was sent by registered mail to Atty. Curato. Neither the defendants nor their attorney appeared at the trial. The CFI proceeded to receive evidence for the plaintiffs (who had substituted for the deceased original plaintiff). On October 15, 1949, the CFI rendered judgment ordering the defendants to vacate the premises and pay damages. The Petition: The defendants filed motions to set aside the decision and grant a new trial, alleging that Atty. Curato did not receive the notice of trial because he was absent from the province due to political campaigns. The CFI denied these motions, and the defendants appealed.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed an error in denying the defendants' petition for vacation of the decision and for a new trial. Whether the failure of the attorney to receive the notice of trial due to absence from the province constitutes excusable neglect.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order, denying the defendants' petition for vacation of the decision and for a new trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the petition for vacation of the decision and new trial: The trial court did not commit an error in denying the defendants' petition. The Court reiterated the provisions of Section 8 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Court, which states that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if the mail is not claimed within five days from the first notice, service takes effect at the expiration of that period. Furthermore, Section 2 of Rule 27 mandates that service upon a party represented by an attorney shall be made upon the attorney, unless the court orders otherwise. In this case, notice of trial was sent to the defendants' attorney of record via registered mail, and the post office made the usual notices. The failure of the attorney to claim the mail was due to his absence from the province, which the Court found to be an insufficient excuse. On whether the attorney's absence constitutes excusable neglect: The excuse that the attorney was absent from the province due to political campaigns in other provinces does not constitute excusable neglect that would warrant setting aside a default judgment. The Court emphasized that an attorney owes it to himself and his clients to adopt a system that ensures prompt receipt of all judicial notices, even during his absence from his address of record. This principle was applied in the case of Enriquez vs. Bautista, where a similar excuse was rejected. The Court also addressed the argument that the notice should have been sent to the parties directly, citing Section 3 of Rule 31, and clarified that the term "parties" in that rule is general and does not preclude the application of Rule 27 when a party is represented by an attorney. The Court further reinforced its stance by quoting Tielago vs. Generosa, stating that such neglect or inaction gives life to the rule on constructive service by registered mail.
Main Doctrine
Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or if unclaimed within five days from the first notice, it takes effect at the expiration of such period. Failure of counsel to claim registered mail due to absence from the province, even for political campaigns, does not constitute excusable neglect that warrants setting aside a default judgment.