G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982
National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU-MIF), petitioner, vs. Honorable Judge Domingo Coronel Reyes of the Court of First Instance of Albay; the Provincial Sheriff of Albay and Jose Millete, respondents.

FACTS

A decision was rendered against petitioner NAMAWU-MIF in Civil Case No. 5523 by the Court of First Instance of Albay on January 23, 1981, ordering it to pay sums of money to private respondent Jose Millete. On August 11, 1981, respondent Judge Domingo Coronel Reyes ordered the execution of this decision, deeming it final. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, asserting it had never received a copy of the decision. The motion was denied on September 22, 1981, with the court ruling valid notice had been given through petitioner’s counsel of record, Atty. Sisenando Villaluz.
The trial court had mailed the decision to Atty. Villaluz at his address in the Trade Center Building, Ermita, Manila, but it was returned unclaimed. During the trial, Atty. Roberto A. Padilla had verbally entered his appearance in collaboration with Atty. Villaluz. Pleadings on record showed both attorneys later used an address at the Isabel Building, España, Manila. Atty. Villaluz had ceased representation by May 1979 but failed to formally withdraw, and Atty. Padilla did not notify the court he remained as sole counsel after this withdrawal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders for execution and denying reconsideration, despite the petitioner’s claim of non-receipt of the decision.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the proper service of court decisions to effect finality. While there was negligence by both Attys. Villaluz (for not formally withdrawing) and Padilla (for not notifying the court of his sole representation), the trial court was more negligent. After the decision sent to the Trade Center Building address was returned unclaimed, the court had a duty to ensure proper service. The Isabel Building address for the attorneys was a matter of record from subsequent pleadings, yet the court failed to redirect the decision to this known address. This failure violated the fundamental requirement of notice, preventing the decision from attaining finality for lack of proper service. Consequently, the orders for execution, premised on a final judgment, were issued without jurisdiction. The Court set aside the orders and permitted the petitioner to file a notice of appeal within thirty days from notice.