Arines v. Cuachin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Emilio Cuachin and Elizabeth Federis filed an action against petitioners Gregorio Arines and Julia Borromeo to declare a pacto de retro sale as a loan with mortgage. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dismissed the complaint and ordered the plaintiffs to execute a deed of sale in favor of the defendants. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in part, ordering the appellees (petitioners herein) to surrender possession of the land to the appellants (respondents herein) upon payment of P600.00, and to pay attorney's fees and costs. Procedural History: Petitioners received the Court of Appeals' judgment on May 28, 1968. They filed a motion for reconsideration on June 11, 1968, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1968. The resolution denying the motion was sent by registered mail to "Atty. Silvestre S. Felix and Associates, Naga City" but was returned to sender with the notation "unclaimed" and "addressee was unlocated." Petitioners claim they only discovered the denial on October 4, 1968, when they received notice that the records had been remanded. They filed a petition to vacate the entry of judgment and fix a period to appeal, arguing they were not properly served. This petition was denied on November 27, 1968, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on December 17, 1968. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, seeking to enjoin the respondent judge from acting on a motion for execution, nullify the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, vacate the entry of judgment, and be allowed to perfect their appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners were properly served by registered mail with a copy of the Court of Appeals' resolution dated July 9, 1968, denying their motion for reconsideration. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners' motion to vacate the entry of judgment and to fix a period within which to appeal.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated November 27 and December 17, 1968, as well as its Entry of Judgment in CA-G.R. No. 34525-R, are SET ASIDE. No special pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper service: The Court held that petitioners were not properly served with a copy of the Court of Appeals' resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. The registered letter was addressed to "Attys. Silvestre S. Felix and Associates, Naga City." However, postal authorities certified that the addressee was "unlocated." The Court emphasized that for constructive service under Section 5 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court to be valid, the party relying on it must prove that the first notice of the registered letter was sent and delivered to the addressee. Since the postal authorities indicated the addressee was unlocated, the Court of Appeals should have availed itself of alternative service methods as provided in Section 6 of Rule 13, which allows service by delivering the copy to the Clerk of Court if personal service and service by mail fail and the office and place of residence are unknown. This was not done, thus service could not be deemed completed. On the issue of vacating the entry of judgment: Consequently, because proper service was not effected, the petitioners were not duly notified of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Their subsequent discovery of the denial on October 4, 1968, was considered timely for them to seek relief. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in denying their petition to vacate the entry of judgment and to fix a period for appeal, as the basis for the entry of judgment (proper service) was flawed. The Court also noted that while it is the duty of counsel to maintain an efficient system for receiving court notices, the failure of the postal service to effect delivery due to the addressee being "unlocated" was a critical factor that prevented the completion of service. The Court reiterated the duty of counsel to inform the court of their correct and distinct addresses, but this did not cure the defect in the service attempted by the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
Service by registered mail is not deemed complete if the postal authorities inform the court that the addressee was unlocated, and the court fails to resort to alternative methods of service as provided by the Rules of Court.