G.R. No. 142627 & G.R. No. 172750; January 28, 2008
MARIANO, ESTRELLA, RAMON, MA. DULCE, CARMEL, and STELLA MARIS, all surnamed NAJARRO, petitioners, vs. JARSON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JOSE P. MABUGAT and ELISEO C. GALANG, respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

The Najarros owned a residential building on Lot 1394-C in Cebu City. Adjacent to their lot, Jarson Development Corporation (JDC) undertook excavation and construction for its Richmond Plaza project on Lot 1394-B. In November 1993, these excavation works caused soil slippages onto the Najarros’ lot, resulting in massive cracks that rendered their building unsafe. The Najarros vacated the premises. Despite a conciliation meeting and a subsequent court order reflecting an agreement for JDC to restore the damaged property, disputes over compliance and damages persisted.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) eventually ruled in favor of the Najarros, awarding damages. JDC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision with modification. JDC’s counsel failed to file a notice of change of address with the CA. Consequently, the CA’s decision was sent to his old address of record. The counsel did not receive it and thus failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration or petition for review. The Najarros later moved for an entry of final judgment, which the CA granted, declaring its decision final and executory.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring its decision final and executory due to the failure of JDC’s counsel to file a notice of change of address, thereby deeming service of the decision at the old address valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s resolutions. The legal logic rests on the procedural rule that service of court notices and decisions sent to counsel’s address of record is valid and binding upon the client. A lawyer has a duty to inform the court of any change in address to ensure proper receipt of all court processes. This responsibility is personal and cannot be delegated. The negligence of JDC’s counsel in failing to update his address with the CA is imputable to JDC as his client.
Since the CA decision was validly served at the counsel’s address of record, the reglementary period to appeal began from that date of service. No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed within that period. Therefore, the CA decision had already attained finality when the Najarros moved for an entry of judgment. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice, and their strict application in this case was justified to prevent prejudice to the winning party caused by the opposing counsel’s neglect.