G.R. No. L-41323. April 27, 1982.
ARISTEO T. FERAREN, petitioner-appellant, vs. REMEDIOS SANTOS, JUDGE SERAFIN SALVADOR, Branch XIV, Court of First Instance of Rizal, ZACARIAS M. CUNANAN, Deputy Sheriff of Rizal and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision against petitioner Aristeo T. Feraren, ordering him to deliver a Volkswagen car to respondent Remedios Santos and pay damages. Feraren’s counsel, the Mendez law firm, filed a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied this motion via a resolution dated March 14, 1975. A copy of this resolution was sent by registered mail to the counsel’s address of record. The post office sent two notices, but the registered mail was never claimed and was returned with the notation “Unclaimed.” Consequently, the Court of Appeals deemed the judgment final, issued an entry of judgment, and remanded the case for execution.
Feraren’s counsel later filed motions, alleging he never received the resolution denying reconsideration and praying to recall the entry of judgment and to be allowed to appeal. The Court of Appeals denied these motions. Feraren then filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, arguing he was deprived of his right to appeal due to non-receipt of the resolution. His counsel submitted affidavits claiming someone was always at the office to receive mail and that the notices were not received.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in declaring its judgment final and executory and in refusing to allow Feraren to appeal, considering his counsel’s claim of non-receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The ruling is anchored on the rules governing service by registered mail and the responsibilities of counsel. Under Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, service by registered mail is deemed complete upon expiration of five days from the date of the first notice by the postmaster if the addressee fails to claim the mail. The postmaster’s certification that two notices were sent but the mail went unclaimed prevails over the counsel’s bare denial of receipt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies to the postmaster’s actions.
The Court emphasized that it is the duty of a practicing lawyer to arrange for the prompt receipt of judicial communications. The failure to claim duly notified registered mail constitutes negligence, and such negligence binds the client. The Court cited precedents establishing that this is not excusable negligence warranting the reopening of a final judgment. Furthermore, the Court examined the merits and noted that Feraren’s motion for reconsideration raised only factual issues. Since an appeal via certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding, any appeal would likely be unmeritorious. Thus, the Court of Appeals acted within its discretion.