G.R. No. L-55035 February 23, 1983
GENARO CUBAR, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. RAFEL T. MENDOZA, JUDGE of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch VI), VICTORIANO ENAD, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, claiming to be illiterate, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. R-15607) in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, Branch V, presided by Judge Mariano Zosa. They sought the nullification of documents they allegedly signed under the false representation that these granted a right of way to the government, but which instead authorized private respondents to explore and exploit mineral deposits on petitioners’ lands. After trial, Branch V rendered a judgment on October 1, 1979, declaring the documents void and awarding damages to petitioners. A copy of this decision was received on November 23, 1979, by the wife of Atty. Romeo Gonzaga, the counsel of record for private respondents, at his given office address. No appeal was filed within the reglementary period.
Consequently, petitioners moved for and were granted a writ of execution by Branch V on January 8, 1980. Subsequently, Judge Zosa was appointed to the Court of Appeals, vacating Branch V. Private respondents, through a new lawyer, Atty. Ponciano Alivio, then filed a motion for reconsideration and to quash the writ, arguing the decision was not yet final due to invalid service. This motion was assigned to and granted by respondent Judge Rafael Mendoza of CFI Branch VI in an Order dated January 28, 1980, which set aside the execution order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Mendoza committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the writ of execution by ruling that the trial court’s decision had not become final and executory due to alleged invalid service.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the Order of respondent judge. The Court held that service of the decision upon the wife of the counsel of record, Atty. Romeo Gonzaga, at his given address was valid and binding under Rule 13, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. It is a settled rule that when a party is represented by counsel, notices must be served upon said counsel at the address on record. The obligation to notify the court of any change of address rests upon the counsel; absent such formal notice, service at the recorded address remains effective.
Crucially, Atty. Gonzaga never formally withdrew as counsel of record. A lawyer’s withdrawal requires a formal petition filed in the case. In the absence of such withdrawal, Atty. Gonzaga remained the counsel upon whom court processes could be validly served. Therefore, the period for appeal began to run from November 23, 1979. With no appeal perfected, the decision became final and executory by the time execution was sought. Once a judgment is final, execution issues as a matter of right, and its grant is a ministerial duty of the court. Respondent Judge Mendoza thus gravely abused his discretion in interfering with this ministerial duty. The special civil action was filed within a reasonable time. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were granted, and the execution of the final decision was ordered.