Tuazon v. Molina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Jesus O. Tuazon and Luz P. Tuazon were defendants in Civil Case No. 95668 before the Court of First Instance of Manila, with respondent Joseph Roque as the plaintiff. A decision was rendered by respondent Judge Conrado M. Molina on January 31, 1979. Procedural History: Petitioners alleged that a copy of the decision was attempted to be served on their counsel's office on March 9, 1979. However, their counsel was abroad, and the person at the office, Josephine A. Serrano, who was an Assistant Manager of Prompt Service and not an employee of the law office, refused to receive it. The serving officer noted counsel's absence but never returned to deliver the copy. Petitioners themselves were also not served. On August 18, 1980, respondent Roque filed a motion for execution, which petitioners opposed, arguing the decision had not become final due to lack of valid service. Respondent judge granted the motion for execution on October 29, 1980, and a writ of execution was issued, leading to levies on petitioners' properties. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the October 29, 1980 order was resolved adversely on December 12, 1980, the same day they received notice of an auction sale. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the October 29, 1980 order granting the motion for execution and the resulting writ of execution. They argued that since they and their counsel were never validly served with a copy of the decision, the judgment had not attained finality and could not be executed. They also prayed for a restraining order against further proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of the decision on Josephine A. Serrano, an employee of Prompt Service and not of the petitioners' counsel's law office, constituted valid service. Whether, because the service was invalid, the decision in Civil Case No. 95668 had become final and executory, thereby justifying the issuance of a writ of execution.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted. The order of execution dated October 29, 1980, and the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto in Civil Case No. 95668 are set aside. The decision in the said case shall be immediately served on the counsel of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the service of the decision on Josephine A. Serrano was not valid service under Section 4, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court. Josephine A. Serrano was not an employee of Atty. Arsenio O. de Leon, the petitioners' counsel, nor was she in charge of his office. She was merely an Assistant Manager of Prompt Service, and had been instructed by Atty. de Leon not to receive any pleading requiring immediate action in the absence of other associates. The attempt to serve the decision on her, therefore, did not comply with the requirement that service be made on "the party or his attorney, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof." The Court noted that the Deputy Sheriff did not attempt to serve any of Atty. de Leon's associates, nor did he leave a copy at the party's or attorney's residence with a person of sufficient discretion. On Issue 2: Consequently, the Court ruled that the decision had not become final and executory. Valid service of the decision upon the petitioners' counsel was a prerequisite for the judgment to attain finality. Since the attempted service was invalid, the period for appeal or filing a motion for reconsideration had not commenced. Therefore, the motion for execution filed by the respondent Joseph Roque was premature, and the respondent judge's order granting the motion for execution and issuing the writ of execution constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a judgment that has not attained finality cannot be the subject of a writ of execution, as this would violate the principles of due process and the orderly administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a judgment does not attain finality and cannot be subject to execution if it has not been validly served upon the party or their counsel. The Court emphasized that service must be made on the party or their attorney, or by leaving it in their office with a clerk or a person in charge thereof. Attempted service on an unauthorized individual, who was neither a clerk nor in charge of the office, does not constitute valid service. Consequently, the issuance of a writ of execution based on a judgment that has not attained finality due to defective service is considered a grave abuse of discretion, warranting the setting aside of such order and writ.