G.R. No. L-30014 July 31, 1978
GREGORIO ARINES and JULIA BORROMEO, petitioners, vs. EMILIO CUACHIN, ELIZABETH FEDERIS, HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and HON. ULPIANO SARMIENTO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action to declare a pacto de retro sale as an equitable mortgage. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dismissed the complaint and ordered the plaintiffs to execute deeds of sale. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this judgment in a decision dated May 15, 1968, ordering the petitioners to return possession of the lands upon payment of P600.00. Petitioners, through their counsels Silvestre S. Felix and Borja & Naval, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals in a resolution dated July 9, 1968.
The critical procedural issue arose from the service of this denial. The Court of Appeals sent the resolution via registered mail addressed to “Attys. Silvestre S. Felix and Associates, Naga City.” The postal certification later revealed the letter was returned to sender because the addressee was “unknown” or “unlocated” to the letter carriers. Atty. Silvestre S. Felix was a resident of Iriga, Camarines Sur, not Naga City, and the pleadings in the case were signed by Atty. David C. Naval of Borja & Naval in Naga City. Petitioners claimed they only learned of the denial on October 4, 1968. They subsequently filed a petition to vacate the entry of judgment, which the Court of Appeals denied, leading to this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was valid service by registered mail of the Court of Appeals’ resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, such that the judgment had become final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the resolutions and entry of judgment of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centered on the proper completion of service by registered mail under Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. For such service to be deemed completed, the law requires that the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice of the postmaster. This constructive service presupposes that the registry notice was actually delivered to the addressee. The postal certification proved that no such delivery of the notice was effected because the addressee, “Attys. Silvestre S. Felix and Associates,” was unlocated in Naga City. Consequently, the service was not completed.
While the Court noted that notice to one of multiple attorneys is generally sufficient, this rule assumes the attorney’s address is known. The Clerk of Court exercised poor judgment in addressing the mail to an attorney whose specific Naga City address was not of record, especially when the signed pleadings originated from a different firm (Borja & Naval) with a known Naga City address. Since personal service and service by mail failed, the Court of Appeals should have resorted to service upon the Clerk of Court as provided by the rules. However, the Court also admonished petitioners’ counsel for their failure to clearly inform the court of their separate office addresses, emphasizing counsel’s duty to maintain a system for tracking court notices. The flawed service invalidated the entry of judgment, allowing the appeal to proceed.