Feraren v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Court of Appeals (CA) ordered Aristeo T. Feraren to deliver a Volkswagen car to Remedios Santos and pay damages and attorney's fees. Feraren's counsel, Felipe Ponce, withdrew, and Mendez, Mendez & Associates entered their appearance as new counsel. Procedural History: The CA granted Feraren's new lawyers extensions to file a motion for reconsideration. The CA's resolution denying the motion for reconsideration was sent via registered mail on March 21, 1975. Despite two notices, the mail was returned unclaimed to the CA. On the assumption that the judgment became final on March 31, 1975, entry of judgment was made and the record remanded to the lower court. Feraren's counsel filed a motion for recall of the entry of judgment, claiming the motion for reconsideration had not been resolved, which the CA denied. A subsequent motion to be allowed to appeal was also denied. The Petition: Feraren's counsel filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, praying to be allowed to appeal and to enjoin the execution of the judgment, alleging non-receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Affidavits from the counsel and his clerk attested to someone attending to correspondence at his office.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of the Court of Appeals' resolution denying the motion for reconsideration was validly effected. Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeals became final and executory. Whether Feraren should be allowed to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service: The Court held that service of resolutions by registered mail is effective upon the expiration of the five-day period from the date of the first notice from the postmaster, if the addressee fails to claim the mail. The postmaster's certification that notices were sent and the mail was unclaimed prevails over the lawyer's denial, as there is a presumption that official duty was regularly performed. It is the duty of a practicing lawyer to ensure that official communications reach him promptly, and failure to do so, resulting in the non-claiming of registered mail, is not excusable negligence. On the finality of judgment: Consequently, the Court found that the judgment of the Court of Appeals had become final and executory on March 31, 1975, as the motion for reconsideration was denied and the resolution denying it was validly served by registered mail, which was returned unclaimed. The subsequent entry of judgment and remand to the lower court were therefore proper. On the allowance of appeal: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in not allowing Feraren to appeal. The petition for review to the Supreme Court would likely not be meritorious as it primarily raised factual issues, and the Supreme Court is bound by the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, appeals to the Supreme Court are generally given due course only when they involve important legal issues, which were not raised in Feraren's motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
Service of resolutions by registered mail is effective upon expiration of the five-day unclaimed period, and failure to claim registered mail due to counsel's negligence is not excusable.