G.R. No. L-28078. April 29, 1971.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED LUIS C. DOMINGO, SR., CONSUELO DOMINGO DE LOPEZ, administratrix-petitioner, vs. PEDRO A. AQUINO, deceased, substituted by SALVACION YUSAY AQUINO, ETC., and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan approved a money claim of P20,000.00 against the intestate estate of Luis C. Domingo, Sr. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on January 20, 1967, affirmed the judgment with modifications, ordering payment of the principal with 12% compound interest from July 27, 1953, plus attorney’s fees. Notice of this decision was sent by registered mail to the estate’s counsel of record, Atty. Jose A. Unson, at his address of record. The postmaster’s certification later confirmed that Atty. Unson failed to claim the mail, and it was returned to the court.
Subsequently, the new judicial administratrix, Consuelo Domingo de Lopez, filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for substitution and to be served a copy of the judgment, alleging that Atty. Unson was no longer the estate’s counsel and that she wished to file a motion for reconsideration. The appellate court denied this motion, ruling the judgment had become final. After respondent moved for execution in the intestate court, petitioner filed this original action for certiorari nearly five months later, challenging the appellate court’s judgment as void for excess of jurisdiction, primarily arguing improper service of notice.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision became final and executory due to valid service of notice upon the counsel of record, thereby rendering the petition for certiorari without merit.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the finality of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic rests on the strict application of procedural rules concerning service and representation. Atty. Jose A. Unson remained the counsel of record for the estate in the appellate proceedings. He never formally withdrew his appearance in that court, nor did the petitioner inform the court of any change of counsel or administrator as required by Rule 138, Section 26 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, service of the decision sent by registered mail to his address of record was valid and effective.
Under Rule 13, Section 8, service by registered mail is deemed complete upon the addressee’s failure to claim the mail within five days from the first notice of the postmaster. The postmaster’s certification established this failure. Therefore, the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal began to run, and the judgment became final and executory by operation of law. The Court emphasized that this rule is fundamental to the sound administration of justice and finality of judgments. Petitioner’s belated attempts to question the service and the substance of the modified award (compound interest) after a long delay could not revive the lost remedy. The Court also admonished petitioner’s counsel for filing an unmeritorious case, reminding them of their certification duties under the Rules. The preliminary injunction was dissolved, and execution of the appellate court’s judgment was ordered to proceed.