GR L 58781; (July, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-58781; July 31, 1987
TEOFILO MAGNO, et al., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, GAVINO MAGNO, et al., respondents.
FACTS
This is a special civil action for certiorari assailing a Court of Appeals Resolution ordering the issuance of an Entry of Judgment. The case originated from Civil Case No. A-413, an action for partition and damages filed by private respondents against petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The trial court ordered partition and the payment of attorney’s fees. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision on June 30, 1981.
Notice of this decision was sent to petitioners’ counsel of record, Atty. Atinidoro B. Sison, at his given address: 33 B.M.A. Ave., Tatalon, Quezon City. The mail was returned with the postmaster’s notation “moved.” Subsequently, the appellate court resolved to send a copy of the decision directly to the petitioners at their address of record in Alaminos, Pangasinan. This mailing was also returned, marked “deceased.” The Court of Appeals then issued the assailed Resolution on September 22, 1981, ordering the entry of judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of an Entry of Judgment, thereby declaring its decision final and executory.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit. The ruling is anchored on the settled rule that when a party is represented by counsel, notices must be sent to said counsel at the address on record. Service by registered mail is deemed complete upon the expiration of five days from the date of first notice by the postmaster, if the addressee fails to claim the mail. The records showed that the first notice to Atty. Sison was made on July 9, 1981. Service thus became effective on July 14, 1981, making the decision final on August 13, 1981.
The neglect of counsel in failing to inform the court of a change of address cannot stay the finality of the judgment. The subsequent attempt to notify the petitioners directly was unnecessary under the circumstances. The Court noted an inconsistency in the petitioners’ claim that Teofilo Magno was deceased, as his name remained in the petition without a proper substitution. Consequently, the Court of Appeals committed no error in issuing the Entry of Judgment after the decision had become final and executory.