Villalongha v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Villalongha filed a complaint for annulment of sale and transfer certificates of title against their mother, Felipa, and siblings, alleging that Felipa, despite waiving her rights in an extra-judicial settlement, subsequently sold lands covered by TCT Nos. T-141817 and T-141832 to BBHAI. Respondents Villalongha denied the conjugal nature of the lands and claimed Felipa was misled into signing the extrajudicial settlement. BBHAI claimed to be an innocent purchaser in good faith. Procedural History: The RTC dismissed the complaint, declared the extrajudicial settlement null and void, and adjudged Felipa as the sole owner. The CA affirmed with modification, adjudging Felipa as the sole owner, declaring the sale to BBHAI valid, ordering Felipa to deliver possession to BBHAI, and ordering plaintiffs Villalongha to pay litigation expenses. A copy of the CA Decision dated March 22, 2013, was allegedly sent via registered mail to plaintiffs Villalongha's counsel, Atty. Advincula, Jr., and received by Ariel Hernandez. Atty. Advincula, Jr. denied receiving the notice and knowing Hernandez. The CA granted Atty. Advincula, Jr.'s motion to withdraw as counsel. Subsequently, BBHAI moved for an entry of judgment. The CA issued a Resolution dated July 7, 2016, declaring the March 22, 2013 Decision final and executory and directing an entry of judgment. Petitioners' motion to recall the entry of judgment was noted without action by the CA in a Resolution dated September 20, 2016. The Petition: Petitioners assail the CA Resolutions dated July 7, 2016, and September 20, 2016, arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in directing an entry of judgment and denying their motion to recall the same, despite their claim of lack of proper service of the March 22, 2013 Decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in directing an entry of judgment and denying petitioners' motion to recall the same, despite their claim of lack of proper service of the March 22, 2013 Decision; specifically, whether the service upon Ariel Hernandez legally commenced the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated July 7, 2016, and September 20, 2016, of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE, and the Entry of Judgment dated July 7, 2016, is RECALLED. The case is REMANDED to the CA, which is ordered to furnish petitioners, through counsel, a copy of the March 22, 2013 Decision and give petitioners a period of fifteen (15) days from such notice to file their motion for reconsideration therefrom.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proper service of notice and its effect on the finality of judgment: The Court reiterated that service upon a party's counsel is the proper mode of service, as provided by Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that even if a party represented by counsel has been actually notified, such notice is not considered notice in law if it is not served upon the counsel or their authorized representative. This rule is based on the principle that parties, generally lacking legal expertise, rely on their counsel for procedural matters, and orderly procedure dictates dealing with the counsel. The Court stressed that service of a court's order upon any person other than the counsel of record is not legally effective and binding upon the party, nor does it start the corresponding reglementary period for subsequent procedural steps. In this case, the alleged receipt of the March 22, 2013 Decision by Ariel Hernandez, who was not an employee or authorized representative of Atty. Advincula, Jr., was without legal effect. Consequently, the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal did not commence to run from May 8, 2013. The Court found that the CA erred in relying on the reply to tracer from the postmaster, as the registry return card was not returned, and the denial by Atty. Advincula, Jr. of receiving the notice and knowing Hernandez was not refuted. The Court also noted that even after Atty. Advincula, Jr. withdrew as counsel, neither the petitioners nor their subsequent counsel were properly served with notice of the March 22, 2013 Decision. Therefore, the entry of judgment made on the ground that the Decision had become final and executory was premature and inefficacious. The CA committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolutions directing the entry of judgment and noting without action the motion to recall it.
Main Doctrine
Service of court notices upon a person not authorized to receive them is legally ineffective and does not commence the reglementary period for filing appeals or motions for reconsideration. An entry of judgment based on such invalid service is premature and must be recalled.