G.R. No. L-60937 May 28, 1988
WALTER ASCONA LEE, ESPIRITU TAN, BENITO CHIONGBIAN and HENRY CHIONGBIAN, petitioners, vs. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 37; CITY SHERIFF OF PASAY CITY and LEONCIO C. MENDIORO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Leoncio C. Mendioro filed a complaint for accounting with damages against petitioners Walter Ascona Lee, Espiritu Tan, and Benito Chiongbian. The complaint stemmed from a Memorandum Agreement for arrastre services at Pier 14, where Mendioro operated from August to November 1973. Petitioners were alleged to have collected and held in trust the gross income from these operations but failed to remit the same to Mendioro despite demands. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated key facts, including the gross income derived and petitioners’ role in its collection. After protracted trials, the trial court rendered a decision against the petitioners, ordering them to pay Mendioro a specified sum.
Copies of the trial court’s decision were mailed to petitioners’ counsel at his office address in the William Lines Building. The registered mail notices were delivered to the guard-on-duty at the office, but the decision remained unclaimed. Subsequently, the trial court granted Mendioro’s motion for execution. Petitioners then filed a motion to set aside the judgment and quash the writ, which was denied. The Court of Appeals dismissed their subsequent petition, leading to this review.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the judgment was validly served upon the petitioners, and (2) whether the trial court’s delegation of the ex-parte reception of evidence to its legal researcher was illegal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, dismissing the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that service of the judgment was valid. Notice was properly sent by registered mail to petitioners’ counsel of record at his official address. The Court emphasized the rule under Rule 13, Section 8 that service upon a counsel of record is binding on the client. The fact that the counsel had allegedly resigned and left the office address did not invalidate the service, as there was no formal notice of withdrawal or change of address given to the court. The court cannot be expected to track a counsel’s movements; the duty lies with the party or counsel to inform the court of such changes. The delivery of notices to the guard-on-duty at the given address constituted valid service.
On the second issue, the Court found no merit in the challenge to the delegation of ex-parte evidence reception to the legal researcher. The Court distinguished the case from Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, noting that no default was involved here. Furthermore, the trial court had reconsidered its initial order and allowed the petitioners to fully present their evidence over three years of trial. Therefore, even assuming arguendo an initial irregularity, it was cured by the subsequent full opportunity granted to petitioners to be heard, negating any prejudice. The petitioners’ substantive participation in the lengthy trials waived any procedural objection.