G.R. No. L-37919 September 6, 1974
BIENVENIDO U. RODRIGUEZ, NATIVIDAD U. RODRIGUEZ and FELISA R. ABELEDA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Fifth Division), PHILWOOD SAWMILL CO., INC. and TIMES SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision on October 20, 1972, against petitioners and their surety. Copies of this decision and subsequent orders, including one denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, were sent by the trial court via registered mail to the address of record of petitioners’ counsel. These mailings were all returned with the notation “no longer at” the stated address. The petitioners’ counsel, however, had filed a formal notice of change of address with the trial court on November 25, 1972. Unaware of the denial of their motion, petitioners filed their notice of appeal and appeal bond on February 5, 1973. The trial court, recognizing the change of address issue, approved the record on appeal, finding the appeal timely. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling it was filed out of time because the period to appeal began from the time the mailed orders were returned, as counsel had not formally notified the court of his new address.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for being filed out of time, despite the filing of a formal notice of change of address by their counsel.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the appeal. The legal logic centers on the proper reckoning of the reglementary period for appeal, which hinges on valid notice to counsel. The Court emphasized that the period to appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration begins to run only from counsel’s receipt of a copy of that order. Here, the trial court’s mailings were sent to an outdated address despite the existence of a formal notice of change of address filed on November 25, 1972, which was part of the official record. The Court of Appeals’ dismissal was based on a factual oversight, as it failed to account for this formal notice. Consequently, the petitioners never validly received the order of denial. Therefore, their filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond on February 5, 1973, could not be deemed late, as the reglementary period had not commenced. The Supreme Court found the trial court’s initial approval of the record on appeal, which considered the change of address, to be correct. The appellate court’s dismissal deprived petitioners of their right to appeal on a technicality stemming from an unverified factual premise. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals were nullified and the appeal was ordered reinstated.