Javier Logging Corporation v. Mardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose C. Solomon filed a Claim for Compensation against J. M. Javier Logging Corporation (petitioner). The employer failed to submit the Employer's Report, citing the claimant's resignation and receipt of separation pay. Procedural History: A decision was rendered in favor of the claimant on July 28, 1967. A copy was sent to the employer's counsel and to the employer itself. The employer, through new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration on August 25, 1967. The deciding officer denied the motion, deeming the decision final and executory as it was filed one day after the 15-day period from the employer's receipt of the decision on August 9, 1967. A writ of execution was issued and levy was made by the Sheriff. The employer's appeal to the Commission en banc was denied, upholding the finality of the decision. The Petition: The employer filed a petition for writs of certiorari and prohibition, assailing the writ of execution and levy for want of jurisdiction, arguing that the service of the decision was invalid and that their motion for reconsideration was timely.
Issue(s)
Whether service of a decision upon the party itself is valid when the party is represented by a counsel of record, and consequently, whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was timely.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The writs of certiorari and prohibition are granted. The writ of execution issued is annulled and set aside, and its implementation is prohibited. The preliminary injunction is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that service of the decision upon the employer itself, instead of its counsel of record, was invalid. Citing Rule 13, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, the Court reiterated the principle that where a party appears by attorney, service upon him shall be made upon his attorneys or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. The Court emphasized that notice to the party himself, when represented by counsel, is not notice in law, a rule previously established in cases like Notor vs. Daza and Vivero vs. Santos. This rule is not a mere technicality but is founded on considerations of fair play and practicality. A party engages an attorney because they lack the competence to deal with the intricacies of law and procedure, and direct service would shorten the usable period for their attorney to take appropriate action. Therefore, the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration did not commence from the employer's receipt of the decision. Without valid service on counsel, the decision had not yet become final and executory, making the motion for reconsideration timely, and the subsequent issuance and levy of the writ of execution without jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
Service of a decision upon a party represented by counsel must be made upon the attorney of record, and service upon the party himself is invalid unless ordered by the court. Failure to comply with this rule renders the service defective, preventing the judgment from becoming final and executory.