Aguilar v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, through Jose Aguilar, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a petition for review on certiorari assailing a Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 30, 1994, and a Resolution dated February 2, 1995, denying their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners claimed receipt of the February 2, 1995 Resolution on July 11, 1995. Procedural History: Private respondent San Miguel Corporation opposed the motion, asserting that the CA decision had become final and executory on March 29, 1995, with entry of judgment made by the CA on May 5. The petition was filed on August 25, 1995. The Supreme Court (SC) previously required petitioners to submit the name and address of their counsel, which they failed to do despite extensions. The CA rollo showed that a copy of the February 2, 1995 Resolution was sent to petitioners' counsel of record, Atty. Almario T. Amador, via registered mail, but was returned unclaimed. A subsequent copy sent to Jose Aguilar was returned with the annotation "moved." The Petition: Petitioners sought to have the CA decision reviewed, arguing that service was not complete, and thus the judgment was not yet final.
Issue(s)
Whether service upon Atty. Amador, petitioners' counsel of record, may be deemed complete; and whether, despite the lack of proof of service on counsel, service upon petitioner Jose Aguilar himself may be deemed complete. Whether the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals was duly made.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40901 had already been entered in the Book of Judgments of the Court of Appeals on May 5, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi
On the completeness of service upon counsel of record and petitioner Jose Aguilar: The Court reiterated the general rule that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt. The exception, where service is deemed complete five days after the first notice of the postmaster if the mail is unclaimed, requires conclusive proof that the first notice was duly sent and delivered to the addressee. The mere exhibition of an envelope marked "unclaimed" is insufficient proof. In this case, there was no postmaster's certification to prove that notice was sent to Atty. Amador and actually received by him, thus the disputable presumption of completeness of service did not arise as to him. Despite the lack of proof of service on counsel, the Court ruled that service upon petitioner Jose Aguilar himself was complete. Jurisprudence dictates that when a party is represented by counsel, service should be made upon the counsel of record unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. However, the Court noted that petitioners admitted Atty. Almario took ill and could no longer discharge his functions, and that Mr. Aguilar himself signed the motion for reconsideration and was involved in "following up" the case. Knowing that their counsel might be unable to act, it was the responsibility of petitioners and their counsel to devise a system for receiving mail. To rule otherwise would negate the purpose of the rule on completeness of service, which is to prevent parties from determining the date of receipt at their pleasure, and would make the finality of a decision dependent on a party's convenience. On the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals: (The provided text does not contain any ratio decidendi related to the entry of judgment. Assuming the entry of judgment was duly made because the service was deemed complete on at least one party) The entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals was duly made.
Main Doctrine
Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or, if unclaimed within five days from the first notice of the postmaster, upon the expiration of such period. However, for the exception to apply, there must be conclusive proof that the first notice was duly sent and delivered to the addressee. When a party is represented by counsel, service must be made upon the counsel of record unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court.