Vill Transport Service v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Vill Transport Service, Inc. was found liable for breach of contract by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch CXLI, in Civil Case No. 45167. The court ordered Vill Transport to pay The Energy Corporation US$25,524.75 or P191,435.62 in damages, plus P40,000 for charter fees, P33,931.65 for rental and maintenance, P63,750 for service fees, all with 12% annual interest from June 16, 1980, and P8,866.60 in attorney's fees. 2. Procedural History: A copy of the decision was sent by registered mail to Vill Transport's counsel, Atty. Amante Pimentel, at his address of record on June 7, 1985. The mail was returned unclaimed with a notation that the addressee had moved without leaving a forwarding address. Consequently, Energy Corporation moved for execution on September 14, 1985, which the court granted on September 19, 1985, issuing a writ of execution on September 24, 1985. Vill Transport filed a motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal on October 21, 1985, claiming it only learned of the decision on that date and that the writ of execution was void due to lack of notice. The trial court denied the motion. Vill Transport then filed a motion for new trial and subsequently a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition on September 30, 1986, holding that service on the counsel of record was valid despite his failure to provide a forwarding address. Vill Transport's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the instant petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Vill Transport Service, Inc. The petitioner admits its counsel's negligence in not leaving a forwarding address but argues that actual receipt of the decision was not made, thus service could not have taken effect after the five-day period stipulated in Rule 13, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. Vill Transport invokes due process, asserting it was deprived of its right to appeal. The private respondent contends that the petition is a dilatory tactic, emphasizing that service on the counsel of record at his last known address is valid when the counsel fails to notify the court of any change of address, as per the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether notice of a decision served upon a counsel of record, who had moved from his address without leaving a forwarding address, is valid service, thereby making the decision final and executory. Whether the failure to serve a copy of the motion for execution on the defendant renders the writ of execution void. Whether the petitioner was deprived of its right to due process and appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service of decision upon counsel: The Court held that service of court processes upon a counsel of record at his last known address is valid and binding on the client, even if the counsel has moved without informing the court of his new address. Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt, but if the addressee fails to claim mail within five days from notice, service takes effect at the expiration of that period. The Court emphasized that the exception regarding constructive service presupposes that the notice is sent to the correct address. In this case, the non-receipt was due to the counsel's neglect in informing the court of his change of address. To allow such a situation would encourage litigants to evade service of judgments and orders by simply leaving their addresses without notice of their whereabouts. The Court reiterated that service on the lawyer, if valid, is valid service on the client he represents, and it is on the lawyer that service should first be made. On the validity of the writ of execution: The Court implicitly affirmed the validity of the writ of execution by denying the petition. The private respondent correctly argued that a motion for execution of a final and executory judgment does not require notice to the defendant. Since the decision was deemed final and executory due to valid service on counsel, the subsequent motion for execution was a procedural step that did not necessitate further notice to the petitioner. On the alleged deprivation of due process and right to appeal: The Court found no deprivation of due process. The petitioner's counsel was duty-bound to notify the trial court of any change in his address. His failure to do so meant that service of the decision at his last known address was considered complete and effective. The Court stated that losing a case due to a counsel's negligence is a consequence that the litigant must bear, and the Court cannot countenance such negligence that jeopardizes a client's interests. The rules of procedure must be observed for the orderly administration of justice, and lawyers must arrange their affairs so that official communications reach them promptly; failure to do so results in consequences for both the lawyer and the client.
Main Doctrine
Service of court processes upon a counsel of record at his last known address is valid and binding on the client, even if the counsel has moved without informing the court of his new address, as the negligence of the counsel binds the client.