GR 143791; (January, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143791; January 14, 2005
Peter D. Garrucho, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Hon. Oscar B. Pimentel (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 148, Makati City), Sheriff Renato C. Flora (in his capacity as Branch Sheriff), and Ramon Binamira, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Peter D. Garrucho, then Secretary of Tourism and PTA Chairman, requested immigration hold departure orders against Ramon Binamira in 1990 concerning a DOJ investigation. Binamira filed a complaint-in-intervention. The RTC ruled against Garrucho in 1997, awarding damages and declaring the hold order void. Garrucho appealed to the CA.
The CA sent notices for the filing of his appellant’s brief to his counsel’s address of record and to his last known office at the Department of Tourism. Notices were returned with notations “Moved Out” and “Unclaimed.” The CA declared service complete and subsequently dismissed Garrucho’s appeal for failure to file his brief. An entry of judgment was issued. The RTC then granted Binamira’s motion for execution.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court deprived petitioner Garrucho of his right to due process by dismissing his appeal and issuing a writ of execution based on notices sent to outdated addresses.
RULING
The petition is denied. The petitioner was not deprived of due process. Service of court notices to counsel of record is binding upon the client. Under the Rules of Court, when a party appears by counsel, notices must be served upon said counsel, not the party. Garrucho’s counsel, Remollo & Associates, remained his counsel of record, and service at their address of record in Makati was valid. The counsel’s failure to update the court of any change in address was negligence binding on the client.
Furthermore, the petitioner himself failed in his duty of diligence. He resigned from the Department of Tourism in 1991 but did not inform the court of his new address for direct service. His claim that the courts should have taken judicial notice of his resignation and subsequent appointments is untenable; it is a party’s obligation to notify the court of a current address to ensure receipt of orders and processes. His eventual location by the sheriff for execution demonstrates that a prudent and diligent litigant would have proactively informed the court of his whereabouts. Due process does not protect those who neglect their own case. The dismissal of the appeal for failure to file a brief, due to unclaimed notices, was proper.