GR 167361; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167361; April 2, 2007
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF FERNANDO ALSUA, Respondents.
FACTS
The respondents are the heirs of Fernando Alsua, owner of agricultural lands in Albay placed under the Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued the property at ₱2,361,799.91, which the heirs rejected. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) later fixed the value at ₱4,806,109.05. Dissatisfied, LBP filed a petition for determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court.
The RTC dismissed LBP’s petition for failure to prosecute. A copy of the dismissal order was sent via registered mail to LBP’s counsel. The mail was delivered to and received by a security guard at the counsel’s office address on December 11, 2002. The counsel himself received it on December 12, 2002. On December 27, 2002, LBP filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied for being filed one day late, counting the 15-day reglementary period from the security guard’s receipt.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that service of the dismissal order upon the security guard constituted valid service to LBP’s counsel, thereby making the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed out of time.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that service of the order was complete upon receipt by the security guard, a person of sufficient discretion at the counsel’s given address. Citing Rule 13, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, service by registered mail is deemed complete upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five days from the date the addressee received the first notice from the postmaster, whichever is earlier.
The Court rejected LBP’s reliance on Lawin Security Services, Inc. v. NLRC, which involved personal service, not service by mail. For registered mail, jurisprudence establishes that delivery to a person of sufficient discretion at the recipient’s address, such as a housemaid, bookkeeper, or clerk, constitutes valid service. The security guard, who had previously received notices for LBP, fulfilled this role. The purpose of the rule is to remove a party’s control over determining the date of receipt. The Court found no compelling reason for liberal application, as LBP’s counsel was negligent in not inquiring about the mail’s status. Thus, the motion for reconsideration was correctly declared tardy, rendering the RTC’s dismissal order final.