Pascual v. Angeles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC) and spouses Jose and Felisa Banaria (private respondents) filed a complaint for recovery of possession of Lot 3, Block 148 against Roberto A. Pascual (petitioner) and Felisa Deuda. The Court of First Instance of Rizal at Quezon City rendered a decision adverse to the defendants on July 25, 1966. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated September 10, 1966. Procedural History: The order denying the motion for reconsideration was sent by registered mail to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Teofilo Ogsimer, who received the first notice on September 22, 1966. However, Atty. Ogsimer's withdrawal as counsel was granted by the lower court on September 20, 1966. Despite this, Atty. Ogsimer continued to act as counsel for petitioner, filing an opposition to a motion for execution in November 1966. The trial court issued a writ of execution on January 4, 1967, and subsequently, a writ of demolition on April 22, 1967, granting petitioner 20 days to vacate and remove constructions. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the orders granting the writ of execution and demolition, alleging they were issued in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. The core issue was the propriety and effectiveness of the notice of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, given that it was served on counsel whose withdrawal was already granted.
Issue(s)
Whether the notice by registered mail of the order denying the motion for reconsideration to Atty. Teofilo Ogsimer was proper and effective upon the petitioner, considering that Atty. Ogsimer's withdrawal as counsel of record was granted two days prior to the receipt of the first notice. Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the writs of execution and demolition.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The dismissal is declared immediately executory, with double costs against the petitioner. Dispositive Portion: "IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, THIS PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THIS DISMISSAL IS HEREBY DECLARED IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY, WITH DOUBLE COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER. SO ORDERED."
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety and effectiveness of the notice to Atty. Ogsimer: The Court held that the notice of the order denying the motion for reconsideration to Atty. Ogsimer was proper and effective. The order and its mailing by registered mail on September 19, 1966, occurred before Atty. Ogsimer's withdrawal was approved on September 20, 1966. As there was a counsel of record at the time of issuance and mailing, service upon him was in compliance with Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which mandates service upon the attorney unless otherwise ordered. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that notice to the client and not to their attorney is not a notice in law, underscoring the importance of proper service on the counsel of record. The Court also noted that Atty. Ogsimer continued to act as petitioner's counsel even after his withdrawal was granted, as evidenced by his filing of an "Opposition to Motion for Execution" in November 1966. The Court further pointed out that the respondent Judge's computation of the finality of the judgment was lenient towards the petitioner, as it did not include the period from the receipt of the decision to the filing of the motion for reconsideration. On whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim. Since the notice to Atty. Ogsimer was deemed proper and effective, the order denying the motion for reconsideration became final and executory. Consequently, the decision dated July 25, 1966, became final and executory. The issuance of the writs of execution and demolition was therefore in accordance with law, as they were based on a final and executory judgment. The Court observed that the petitioner was merely a squatter on the property, and the resistance to the ejectment action and the petition itself appeared to be a dilatory tactic to deprive the respondent spouses of their property. The Court also noted that the demolition of the petitioner's construction had already occurred, rendering the injunction moot.
Main Doctrine
Notice of an order denying a motion for reconsideration sent by registered mail to the counsel of record, even if the counsel's withdrawal was granted two days after the order was issued but before the notice was received, is considered proper and effective service, especially when the counsel continues to act on behalf of the client. The issuance of writs of execution and demolition based on a final and executory judgment is therefore valid.