Santos v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Omar H. Yapchiongco filed a complaint for damages against Jesus G. Santos and four other Santoses, alleging unlawful taking of possession of five parcels of land and a piggery farm subject to an agreement to buy and sell. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding petitioner liable for damages. The CA's decision was sent by registered mail to petitioner's counsel on June 15, 1995, but remained unclaimed and was returned to the sender. Subsequent attempts to serve the decision by registered mail also failed. Petitioner's counsel later moved for reconsideration after receiving a copy of the decision on April 3, 1996, which was filed on April 17, 1996. The respondent opposed, arguing the motion was filed out of time, asserting service was complete five days from June 15, 1995. The CA denied the motion, citing Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. A subsequent motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied as a prohibited second motion. The Petition: Petitioner sought to set aside the CA resolutions denying his motions for reconsideration, arguing that service was not complete as there was no proof of actual receipt of notices by his former counsel, and that his motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motions for reconsideration. Whether service of the Court of Appeals' decision by registered mail was complete on June 20, 1995, or upon actual receipt by petitioner's counsel.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1996, and January 30, 1997, are SET ASIDE. The Court of Appeals is directed to act on petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion because the CA arbitrarily deemed service complete on June 20, 1995, based solely on insufficient proof of notice. On the issue of completeness of service by registered mail: Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice, service takes effect at the expiration of that period. For constructive service to be complete, there must be conclusive proof that the addressee or someone acting on their behalf was duly notified or had actually received the notice. The postmaster's certification, stating that notices were 'issued,' was deemed insufficient proof. Such certification must include details on how, when, and to whom the delivery was made, not just that notices were sent. The Court cited Hernandez v. Navarro to emphasize that a certification merely stating 'issued' is insufficient and does not satisfy the requirements of due process and equity. The certification in this case was procured during the pendency of the petition, constituting a piecemeal introduction of evidence.
Main Doctrine
Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee; however, if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five (5) days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect at the expiration of such time. For constructive service to be complete, there must be conclusive proof that the addressee or someone acting on their behalf was duly notified or had actually received the notice.