Philippine Suburban Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a civil case where the Philippine Suburban Development Corporation (petitioner) was ordered by the Court of First Instance of Manila to pay P50,000.00 in moral damages to Protasio Amonoy (private respondent). 2. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner's counsel, who shared the same office address as the petitioner, failed to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period after a notice to file brief was sent by registered mail to his address of record but was unclaimed. This failure was attributed to the counsel's transfer of his law office to a new address without formally notifying the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and entered a final judgment. Notices of dismissal and entry of judgment were also sent to the old address and were unclaimed. A motion to lift the dismissal and reinstate the appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals' resolution denying their motion to reinstate the appeal. Petitioner argued that certain incidental pleadings filed with the Court of Appeals, which indicated a new office address, constituted sufficient notice of the change of address. The Supreme Court, however, found that the counsel's failure to formally notify the court of his change of address constituted inexcusable negligence and that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to lift its resolution dismissing the appeal and to set aside the entry of judgment. Whether the filing of pleadings with a new address indicated therein constitutes sufficient notice to the court of a change of address of record.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved effective immediately upon promulgation hereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to lift its resolution dismissing the appeal and to set aside the entry of judgment: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal of the appeal was a consequence of the petitioner's counsel's failure to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period. This failure stemmed from the counsel's transfer of his law office without formally notifying the respondent court of his new address. Notices sent to the counsel's address of record were returned unclaimed, and under the Rules of Court, service is deemed completed upon expiration of five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster. The Court emphasized that it is inexcusable negligence for an attorney of record not to notify the court of a change of address, as attorneys are under an obligation to adopt a system to receive judicial notices and to inform the court of any change. On the issue of whether the filing of pleadings with a new address indicated therein constitutes sufficient notice to the court of a change of address of record: The Court found this contention untenable. It reiterated the established principle that notices to counsel should be sent to his address of record in the absence of due notice to the court of a change of address. The fact that counsel used a different address in later pleadings does not serve as notice to the court of a change of address or of an additional address. Such usage merely indicates that the pleading was prepared and mailed from that place and does not supersede the address of record. The Court further explained that to require courts and their personnel to continuously check various addresses from which counsel may have filed pleadings, instead of relying on the duly recorded address of record, would sow confusion and impose an intolerable burden not permitted by the Rules of Court. The Court stressed that it is the inescapable duty of members of the Bar to make of record their correct address in all cases, as failure to do so can lead to the loss of cases for litigants due to the negligence of their counsel.
Main Doctrine
An attorney of record has an inescapable duty to notify the court of any change in address; failure to do so constitutes inexcusable negligence, and the court commits no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing an appeal for failure to file the appellant's brief when notices were sent to the counsel's last known address of record.