Najarro v. Jarson Development Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Mariano and Estrella Najarro, owners of a residential building and its lot in Cebu City, along with their children, alleged that excavation and construction work by Jarson Development Corporation (JDC) on an adjacent lot caused soil slippages and cave-ins. This damage rendered their residential building unsafe for habitation. JDC, through its representatives Jose P. Mabugat and Eliseo C. Galang, initially assured the Najarros of repairs and compensation but later disclaimed responsibility, attributing the damage to the soil's condition. Despite a Stop-Work Order from the Office of the Building Official due to violations of the Building Code, JDC continued its work. 2. Procedural History: The Najarros filed a petition for injunction with damages against JDC, Mabugat, and Galang. The parties reached an agreement, recorded by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), wherein respondents undertook to reconstruct the damaged building and restore the soil foundation at their expense, dispensing with the injunction issue. The RTC later denied a motion for execution pending appeal. After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of the Najarros, ordering JDC and Mabugat to pay damages and to complete the restoration of the building and foundation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, reducing the moral damages. The Najarros' motion for execution pending appeal was denied by the CA, citing that execution of moral and exemplary damages is not allowed pending appeal. Subsequently, the CA granted the Najarros' motion for entry of finality of judgment, declaring its decision final and executory. 3. The Petition: Two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 were filed. In G.R. No. 142627, the Najarros sought to nullify the CA resolutions denying their motion for execution pending appeal. In G.R. No. 172750, JDC and Mabugat sought to nullify the CA resolutions declaring their decision final and executory, arguing they did not receive a copy of the decision. The Supreme Court found the petition in G.R. No. 142627 moot due to subsequent events. For G.R. No. 172750, the Court held that the negligence of the counsel in failing to report a change of address bound the petitioners, rendering the service of the CA decision valid and the subsequent finality of judgment proper. Both petitions were denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition in G.R. No. 142627, seeking execution pending appeal, has become moot. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring its Decision dated February 17, 2005, final and executory in G.R. No. 172750, despite petitioners' claim of non-receipt of the judgment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition in G.R. No. 142627 for being moot. It also denied the petition in G.R. No. 172750 and affirmed the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, dated March 17, 2006 and May 5, 2006.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of G.R. No. 142627: The Court found that the petition filed by the Najarros had become moot. This mootness arose from subsequent events, specifically the Court of Appeals' Resolution dated March 17, 2006, which granted the Najarros' Motion for Entry of Finality of Judgment. This resolution declared that the Court of Appeals' Decision dated February 17, 2005, had become final and executory. Consequently, the issue of execution pending appeal, which was the subject of the Najarros' petition, was rendered moot by the finality of the judgment itself. The Court reiterated that execution pending appeal is generally not allowed for awards of moral and exemplary damages, as their existence and amounts remain uncertain until the main case is finally resolved. The appellate court correctly applied this principle when it denied the motion for execution pending appeal. On the finality of judgment in G.R. No. 172750: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that its Decision dated February 17, 2005, had become final and executory as against Jarson Development Corporation and Jose P. Mabugat. The appellate court found that copies of the Notice of Judgment and its Decision were validly sent through registered mail to the petitioners' counsel at his last known address of record. The counsel's failure to promptly inform the Court of Appeals of his change of address, as required by Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, was deemed a fatal procedural lapse. This negligence binds the clients, the petitioners herein. Therefore, the service of the Decision to the counsel at his old address was valid, and the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review commenced from that date. Since no such pleading was filed within the prescribed period, the Decision attained finality.
Main Doctrine
The failure of counsel to promptly report a change of address to the court binds the client, and service of judgment to the old address of record is valid, leading to the finality of the judgment if no appeal or motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period. A case may be rendered moot if, during its pendency, the issues have been resolved or have ceased to exist.