G.R. No. L-33448 September 17, 1980
PHILIPPINE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XIII (HON. JESUS MORFE, Presiding Judge), DEPUTY PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL and PROTASIO AMONOY (Heirs of Protasio Amonoy), respondents.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Manila ordered petitioner Philippine Suburban Development Corporation to pay private respondent moral damages. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. Its counsel of record used the address “No. 402 Trinity Bldg., T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila” in all pleadings before both courts. Subsequently, counsel transferred his law office to the PLDT Building in Makati but never formally notified the Court of Appeals of this change of address.
The Court of Appeals sent a notice to file appellant’s brief via registered mail to counsel’s address of record. The notice was not claimed and the brief was not filed. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and entered final judgment. Notices of the dismissal were also sent to the old address and remained unclaimed. The case was remanded to the trial court, which issued a writ of execution. Only upon service of this writ at the new Makati address did counsel become aware of the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to lift the order dismissing its appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief, considering counsel’s failure to formally notify the court of his change of address.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory duty of counsel to notify the court of any change in address of record. Service of court notices sent to the official address of record is deemed valid and complete. Petitioner’s counsel argued that by using his new Makati address in some incidental pleadings, he had substantially complied with the notice requirement. The Court rejected this, holding that such sporadic use of a different address does not constitute formal notice of a change and does not supersede the official address of record. To hold otherwise would impose an intolerable burden on the court to scrutinize every pleading for potential address changes, sowing confusion and undermining orderly procedure.
The failure to file the brief was a direct result of counsel’s inexcusable negligence in not updating his address of record and not making arrangements to receive mail from his former office. The Court emphasized that attorneys have an affirmative obligation to adopt a system to receive judicial notices. A liberal interpretation of the rules was unjustified, as the dismissal was solely due to counsel’s oversight. Furthermore, petitioner failed to demonstrate any compelling merit in its appeal that would warrant equitable relief. Thus, the petition for certiorari was dismissed.