GR 139167; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139167 ; June 29, 2005
HEIRS OF WILFREDO C. DELOS SANTOS, et al., petitioners, vs. FELISA DEL ROSARIO and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Felisa Del Rosario filed a complaint for replevin and damages against Wilfredo Delos Santos, doing business as Rich-mon Pawnshop, alleging that pieces of jewelry entrusted for sale on commission were unlawfully pawned to the pawnshop. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Del Rosario. A copy of the decision was sent by registered mail to petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Oliver Olaybal. His office was closed from April 2 to 16, 1998, due to his illness and his clerk’s leave. The postman delivered the decision on April 2 to Bernadeth Alamares, a clerk in an adjacent office, who signed the registry return card.
Atty. Olaybal returned to work on April 17, 1998, and received the decision from Alamares. Relying on her mistaken recollection that she received it on April 8, he calculated the reglementary period to appeal and filed a Notice of Appeal on April 20. The RTC dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, counting the period from the April 2 delivery to Alamares. The RTC and the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ subsequent petition for relief from judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the service of the trial court’s decision upon a person in an adjacent office, during the temporary closure of counsel’s law office, constituted valid service to commence the reglementary period for appeal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that the service was invalid. Service of court orders and decisions must be made personally on the party or counsel, or left at the office with a person having charge thereof. For a person to be considered “in charge,” they must have some degree of control or authority over the office’s operations and receipt of papers.
Here, Alamares was merely a clerk in a separate, distinct corporation adjacent to the law office. She had no control, supervision, or duty over Atty. Olaybal’s law office, which was closed at the time. Her receipt of the mail did not constitute valid service upon petitioners’ counsel. Consequently, the reglementary period to appeal did not commence on April 2, 1998. Valid service occurred only on April 17, when Atty. Olaybal actually received the decision. The Notice of Appeal filed on April 20 was therefore timely. The RTC decision had not become final and executory, and the payment made under the executed judgment was void.