G.R. No. L-23671 January 30, 1970
BENJAMIN LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. GREGORIA DE LOS REYES and TEODORO MARQUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

On February 16, 1962, respondents Gregoria de los Reyes and Teodoro Marquez filed a complaint for recovery of a truck and damages against petitioner Benjamin Lopez in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The pleadings filed by respondents’ counsel, Atty. Angel Valladolid, stated his address as 1622 Peñafrancia, Paco, Manila. After trial, both parties were to submit memoranda. On July 25, 1963, Atty. Valladolid, while in Nasugbu, Batangas, wrote petitioner’s counsel requesting that a copy of the memorandum be sent to him there, which was done. Atty. Valladolid also mailed his own memorandum to the trial court from Nasugbu, signing it with “Nasugbu, Batangas” below his name. On September 13, 1963, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing both the complaint and counterclaim. A copy of the decision was sent by registered mail to Atty. Valladolid at Nasugbu, Batangas. Notices were delivered to the Nasugbu Rural Bank (where he transacted business) and a private house (where he stayed), but the registered letter remained unclaimed and was returned to the Clerk of Court with notations “Rtn” and “In Manila.” On February 29, 1964, Atty. Valladolid inquired at the Clerk’s office in Manila and obtained a copy of the decision. Respondents moved for reconsideration and later filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court disapproved the record on appeal, ruling the decision had become final. Respondents then filed a certiorari and mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals, which ordered the trial court to admit the appeal. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether service of the trial court’s decision by registered mail to counsel at Nasugbu, Batangas, instead of his address of record in Manila, was effective under Section 8 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the service was not effective. Under Section 8 of Rule 13, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt or, if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice, service takes effect at the expiration of such period, provided the mail is sent to the correct address. Here, Atty. Valladolid’s address of record was 1622 Peñafrancia, Paco, Manila, as stated in all pleadings except his memorandum. His request to opposing counsel to send a copy of the memorandum to Nasugbu was a private arrangement and did not constitute notice to the court of a change of address. The notation “Nasugbu, Batangas” on his memorandum, prepared and mailed from there, did not supersede his address of record. The Nasugbu Rural Bank was not his office, and the private house was not his residence. Since the decision was not sent to his correct address of record, his failure to claim it was not attributable to his fault. The Clerk of Court was aware he was in Manila when the mail was returned, and effective service should have been made at his Manila address. No deliberate intent or inexcusable neglect to evade service was shown. Thus, respondents’ right to appeal was not forfeited. The trial court was ordered to admit the appeal. No costs were awarded.