G.R. No. L-32998 July 12, 1973
MERCY ALMONIDOVAR DE VERA and JUAN DE VERA, petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The Republic filed a collection case against petitioners for unpaid rentals on a leased lot. The trial court ordered payment of back rentals and decreed termination of the lease if payment was not made within three months. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. A copy of the appellate decision was sent by registered mail to petitioners’ counsel of record and was received by a person named “Soriano” at the counsel’s stated address on August 10, 1968. Entry of judgment was made on August 27, 1968. Petitioners claimed they and their counsel never personally received the decision, learning of it only in January 1969. They filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, not to challenge the merits, but to have the date of finality computed from their actual knowledge and to have a subsequent tender of payment (via a check later dishonored and replaced) deemed compliance with the three-month payment period under the affirmed judgment.
The Court of Appeals initially, after investigation, set aside the entry of judgment upon finding the counsel did not receive the decision. However, upon the Solicitor General’s motion for reconsideration, it reversed itself and reinstated the original entry, holding service was valid. Petitioners then filed this original action for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to annul the appellate court’s resolutions and uphold the setting aside of the entry of judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition to resolve the procedural issue concerning the validity of service of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court sustained the Solicitor General’s motion to dismiss, finding the resolution of the procedural issue would serve no practical purpose. The legal logic is grounded in the petitioners’ own admissions and conduct, which rendered the procedural question moot and academic. Petitioners admitted they learned of the decision in January 1969 and expressly manifested no intention to appeal it, thereby accepting its merits. More critically, they failed to comply with the substantive judgment they claimed to accept.
Even assuming the entry of judgment was incorrect, petitioners did not clear their outstanding obligations. After applying a payment in March 1969, a significant balance remained, which ballooned further due to non-payment of accruing rentals. The Court rejected their excuse that subsequent offers to pay were refused, noting they failed to make a judicial consignation, which was the proper remedy. Their actions demonstrated a lack of genuine intent to satisfy the judgment. Consequently, granting the petition to potentially recompute the judgment’s finality would be a futile exercise, as petitioners were not in compliance with the judgment’s core monetary directive. The petition was dismissed for being dilatory and without practical utility.