Lopez v. De los Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Gregoria de los Reyes and Teodoro Marquez filed a complaint against petitioner Benjamin Lopez and a certain "John Doe" in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint sought the recovery of a truck allegedly leased to Lopez, along with damages, and included a prayer for a writ of replevin. Lopez denied the allegations and counterclaimed for reimbursement of repair expenses and for moral damages and attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: The trial court issued a writ of replevin, seizing the truck and delivering it to the plaintiffs. After the parties submitted their memoranda, the trial court dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim. The copy of the decision sent to plaintiffs' counsel, Atty. Angel Valladolid, via registered mail in Nasugbu, Batangas, was returned unclaimed. Eight months later, Atty. Valladolid learned of the decision and moved for reconsideration, which was denied. The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond, but the trial court disapproved the record on appeal, deeming the decision final. The plaintiffs elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari and mandamus, which reversed the trial court's order and directed it to give due course to the appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Benjamin Lopez, seeks review by certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision. The core issue is the validity of service of the trial court's decision upon the plaintiffs' counsel. Petitioner argues that the service in Nasugbu, Batangas, was ineffective because the counsel's official address of record was in Manila. The Court of Appeals, however, found that the counsel's request to receive a copy of the opposing counsel's memorandum in Nasugbu was a private arrangement and did not supersede his official address of record, and that there was no deliberate intent or inexcusable neglect to evade service. The petition questions whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of the rules regarding service of process.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of the copy of the decision upon the plaintiffs' counsel in Nasugbu, Batangas, was effective under Section 8 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. Whether the plaintiffs' appeal was filed out of time, rendering the decision final and unappealable.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the service of the decision upon the plaintiffs' counsel in Nasugbu, Batangas, was not effective. Consequently, the plaintiffs' appeal was not foreclosed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the effectiveness of service of the decision: The Court held that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, but if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the date of the first notice, service takes effect at the expiration of such time. This rule, however, is contingent upon the mail being sent to the correct address such that the failure to claim is attributable to the addressee's own fault. In this case, the address of record for Atty. Valladolid was 1622 Peñafrancia, Paco, Manila. His request to opposing counsel to send a memorandum to Nasugbu, Batangas, was a private arrangement and did not constitute notice to the court of a change of address. The notation "In Manila" on the returned envelope further indicated that effective service could and should have been made at his address of record. The Court found no circumstances indicating deliberate intent or inexcusable neglect on the part of Atty. Valladolid to evade service. Therefore, the service in Nasugbu was not effective. On the timeliness of the appeal: Since the service of the decision was deemed ineffective, the period for filing an appeal had not yet commenced. Atty. Valladolid's inquiry eight months after the decision was rendered and his subsequent motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal were therefore timely filed after he received actual notice of the decision. The trial court's disapproval of the record on appeal was consequently erroneous.
Main Doctrine
Service of court notices by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. If the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice, service takes effect at the expiration of that period, provided the mail was sent to the correct address of record and the failure to claim is attributable to the addressee's own fault.