G.R. No. 175334 ; March 26, 2008
SPS. DOMINGO M. BELEN and DOMINGA P. BELEN, represented by NERY B. AVECILLA, Petitioners, vs. HON. PABLO R. CHAVEZ, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas and SPS. SILVESTRE N. PACLEB and PATRICIA A. PACLEB, represented by JOSELITO RIOVEROS, Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action to enforce a foreign judgment filed by the respondent spouses Pacleb against the petitioner spouses Belen before the RTC of Batangas. The petitioners, through their counsel Atty. Reynaldo Alcantara, filed an answer and participated in the proceedings. After the petitioners and Atty. Alcantara failed to appear at the pre-trial, the RTC declared them in default and allowed ex parte presentation of evidence. The RTC subsequently rendered a decision against the petitioners on August 5, 2003.
A copy of the decision sent to Atty. Alcantara was returned with the notation “Addressee Deceased.” Another copy was then sent to the petitioners’ address of record in Laguna and was received by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla on August 14, 2003. The respondents moved for execution, which the RTC granted. On December 16, 2003, a new counsel, Atty. Carmelo Culvera, entered his appearance for the petitioners. He filed a motion to quash the writ of execution and, upon receiving a copy of the RTC decision on December 29, 2003, filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2004. The RTC denied the motion to quash, ruling the decision had become final and executory. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners’ subsequent certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that its decision had become final and executory, thereby denying the petitioners’ notice of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the proper service of judgments upon a party represented by counsel. The Court reiterated the established rule that when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of court orders and judgments must be made upon said counsel. Service directly to the client is not effective. Notice to counsel is notice to the client.
In this case, Atty. Alcantara was the counsel of record at the time the RTC decision was promulgated. The service of the decision sent to him was invalid because he was already deceased. Service to the petitioners’ address in Laguna, received by a non-party individual, was likewise invalid as the petitioners were represented by counsel. Consequently, the period for appeal did not commence from these ineffective services. The reglementary period began to run only on December 29, 2003, when the new counsel, Atty. Culvera, received a copy of the decision. Therefore, the notice of appeal filed on January 6, 2004, was timely. The RTC’s orders denying the motion to quash and refusing to give due course to the appeal constituted grave abuse of discretion for having been issued without legal basis. The RTC was ordered to give due course to the notice of appeal.