GR L 15616; (September,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15616. September 19, 1961. LOURDES ALDECOA, BARBARA ZAMORA, and AUGUSTO E. SALAZAR, petitioners, vs. THE HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, and PEDRO G. SIGUENZA, respondents.
FACTS
The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental rendered a decision on March 25, 1958, ordering petitioners to pay respondent Pedro G. Siguenza. Attempts to personally serve a copy of the decision on petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Jose Macasa, and his brother, Carlos Macasa, on March 29 were refused. Consequently, the decision was sent by registered mail to Atty. Macasa. The first registry notice was sent by the Bacolod Post Office on March 31, 1958. Atty. Macasa failed to claim the registered letter, prompting second and third notices on April 7 and 17. The letter was finally claimed by Carlos Macasa on April 26, 1958. On May 8, Siguenza moved for execution. Petitioners filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal only on May 19, 1958.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners perfected their appeal within the reglementary period.
RULING
No, the appeal was not perfected on time. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for mandamus. The reglementary period for appeal began five days after the first registry notice was sent on March 31, 1958, pursuant to the rules on service by registered mail when the addressee fails to claim the mail. From April 6, 1958, petitioners had thirty days to appeal, making the deadline May 6, 1958. Their filing on May 19 was indisputably late. Petitioners’ contention that their counsel never received the registry notices was rejected. The Court of Appeals’ factual finding, binding on the Supreme Court, established through the mailman’s testimony that the notices were delivered to a person at the counsel’s residence who customarily received his mail. This constituted valid service. Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed the appeal and granted the motion for execution. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.