Magno v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action for Partition of Certain Properties and for Damages filed by private respondents Gavino Magno, Nicetas Magno, and Nazaria Magno against petitioners Teofilo Magno, Isidro Cabatic, Herminio Cabatic, Felicitas Cabatic, Tomas Magno, Elpidio Magno, Aurora Magno, Nicanor Magno, and Lolita Magno. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan ruled in favor of the private respondents, ordering the partition of the properties and awarding attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 52655-R. On June 30, 1981, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. Subsequently, a copy of this decision sent to the petitioners' counsel, Atty. Atinidoro B. Sison, was returned unclaimed due to the counsel having moved. The Court of Appeals then resolved to resend the decision directly to the petitioners, but this copy was also returned, this time marked as 'deceased' for the addressee, Teofilo Magno. Following these events, the respondent Court of Appeals issued a Resolution on September 22, 1981, ordering the issuance of an Entry of Judgment. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to declare the September 22, 1981 Resolution of the Court of Appeals void ab initio. They also requested a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the writ of execution. The core of their argument, as addressed by the Supreme Court, revolves around the validity of service of notice. The Supreme Court found the petition to be without merit, citing the well-settled rule that notice should be served upon the counsel of record, and that the failure of the counsel to inform the court of a change of address does not stay the finality of a decision. The Court also noted the inconsistency in the petitioners' claim of Teofilo Magno's death while still including him in the petition without proper substitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the notice of the Court of Appeals' decision was validly served. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of an entry of judgment despite the returned notices.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order previously issued is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of valid service of notice: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that when a party is represented by counsel, notice of court processes should be made upon the counsel of record at their given address, absent proper notice to the court of a change of address. In this case, the notice and copy of the CA decision were sent to petitioners' counsel, Atty. Atinidoro E. Sison, at his registered address. The returned mail indicated that the counsel had moved. The Court noted that service of notice becomes effective upon the expiration of the five-day period from the date of the first notice if the addressee fails to claim the mail. Therefore, service of the decision became effective on July 14, 1981, and the decision became final on August 13, 1981. The Court emphasized that if the counsel moved without informing the respondent court, this omission or neglect would not stay the finality of the decision. Consequently, the subsequent notice sent to the petitioners themselves was rendered unnecessary. The Court also pointed out that while petitioners claimed Teofilo Magno was deceased, his name was still included in the petition without proper substitution, indicating a potential procedural defect on their part. Given that the decision became final on July 29, 1981, and no appeal was taken, the respondent court committed no error in issuing the resolution ordering the entry of judgment.
Main Doctrine
When a party is represented by counsel, notice of court processes must be made upon the counsel of record at their given address. Failure to inform the court of a change of address by the counsel will not stay the finality of a decision, and service of notice to the party themselves becomes unnecessary under such circumstances.