G.R. No. 36039, December 21, 1932
Felipe Yango vs. Simplicio Millan, et al., defendants. Juan Fronda, appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Felipe Yango filed a complaint in 1918 for recovery of possession of land and damages. The case experienced prolonged delays over fourteen years. In 1929, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. His attorney sent a copy to defendant Juan Fronda’s counsel, Eusebio V. Sison, by registered mail to Urdaneta, Pangasinan, where the attorney resided. The letter was received at the post office, but despite three notices, it was never claimed. Defendant’s counsel failed to file an answer within the prescribed period. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion and declared defendant in default, subsequently rendering a judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant moved for reconsideration and a new trial, which were denied, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly declared defendant in default for failure to answer the second amended complaint, specifically focusing on whether there was proper service of the complaint on defendant’s counsel.

RULING

Yes, the trial court was justified. Service by registered mail to the attorney’s residence in Urdaneta, where he had previously received mail, constituted sufficient compliance with the rules of court. It is the duty of a practicing attorney to arrange for the prompt receipt of communications sent by mail to his office or residence. The defendant’s counsel, having previously been declared in default in the same case (with the judgment later vacated), had a heightened duty to avoid a repetition of such negligence. Public policy favoring the finality of judgments and the requirement for attorneys to actively manage their cases necessitate ending the litigation. The judgment by default is affirmed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.