GR 76232; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 76232 ; January 18, 1991
VILL TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE ENERGY CORPORATION, and the DEPUTY SHERIFF of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila, respondents.
FACTS
Vill Transport Service, Inc. was held liable for damages in a breach of contract case before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. On June 7, 1985, a copy of the adverse decision was sent by registered mail to its counsel of record, Atty. Amante Pimentel, at his address of record in Mandaluyong. The mail was returned to the court with a notation that the addressee had moved without leaving a forwarding address. Subsequently, private respondent Energy Corporation moved for and was granted execution of the judgment. Vill Transport later filed motions for reconsideration and for new trial, claiming it only learned of the decision on October 21, 1985, and was thus deprived of its right to appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed Vill Transport’s petition, prompting this review.
ISSUE
Whether notice of a decision served upon counsel at his address of record, which was returned due to his move without leaving a forwarding address, constitutes valid service that renders the decision final and executory after the lapse of the appeal period.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, denying the petition. The Court emphasized that service by registered mail is governed by Rule 13, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which provides that service is complete upon actual receipt, or upon expiration of five days from the date of the postmaster’s first notice if the mail is unclaimed. The Court found that the element of negligence was pivotal. Counsel for petitioner had a duty under the rules to notify the court of any change in his address of record. His failure to do so directly caused the non-delivery. The Court rejected the argument that service was invalid due to lack of actual receipt, holding that to rule otherwise would put a premium on negligence and allow litigants to evade service by simply not updating their addresses. The negligence of counsel binds the client; thus, the service at the address of record was valid, the decision became final, and execution was proper. The petition was denied for lack of merit.