BENJAMIN LOPEZ, PETITIONER, VS. GREGORIA DE LOS REYES, AND TEODORO MARQUEZ, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review by certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 34181-R.

On February 16, 1962 Gregoria de los Reyes and Teodoro Marquez
filed a complaint against Benjamin Lopez and one “John Doe” in the
Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 49615, for the recovery
of a truck which plaintiffs had allegedly leased to defendant Lopez, as well as
for damages, with a prayer for a writ of replevin.  In his answer, the defendant denied the material averments of the complaint and put
up a counterclaim for reimbursement of expenses allegedly incurred in the
repair of the truck in the sum of P2,017.00, and for
moral damages and attorney’s fees amounting of P11,000.00.  The plaintiffs filed their reply.  In the
meantime, by virtue of ‘the writ
of replevin issued by the trial court, the sheriff seized the truck and delivered it to
the plaintiffs.  Subsequently, the
plaintiffs moved for the admission of their amended complaint, which included a
claim for unpaid rentals and for the value of missing spare parts of the truck.  The complaint, reply, motion, and amended
complaint were all signed by the plaintiffs’ counsel, Atty. Angel Valladolid,
whose address was stated therein as 1622 Peñafrancia, Paco, Manila.

After the hearing of the case, both parties were granted time within
which to submit their res­pective
memoranda.  On July 25, 1963 Atty. Valladolid, who was then in Nasugbu, Batangas, wrote
defendant’s counsel, Atty. Liberato C. de Jesus,
requesting that a copy of the defendant’s memorandum be sent to him in that
town.  The request was complied with and
Atty. Valladolid duly received by registered mail a copy of the defendant’s
memorandum.  Also from Nasugbu, Atty. Valladolid sent to the trial court a copy of
the plaintiffs’ memorandum at the end of which appears:  “Nasugbu, Batangas, for Manila,
July 26, 1963″ and
below his signature, “Counsel for plaintiffs, Nasugbu,
Batangas.”

With the submission by both parties of their respective
memoranda, the trial court, on September
13, 1963, rendered its decision dismissing the plaintiffs’
complaint and the defendant’s counterclaim. 
The copy of the decision for the plaintiffs was sent by registered mail
to their counsel, Atty., Valladolid,
in Nasugbu, Batangas.  The first notice was delivered to the Nasugbu Rural Bank, where said counsel used to transact
some legal business in connection with collection cases he was handling for
that firm, and was received on September
17, 1963 by a certain Socorro Villavirey,
an employee of the bank.  A week later, a
second notice was sent to Atty. Valladolid, and this time it was received by
one Marcial Alix, in whose house said counsel usually
stayed whenever he went to Nasugbu.  In spite of the two notices, the registered
letter containing the decision remained unclaimed by the addressee.  Having received information to the effect
that Atty. Valladolid was in Manila
and that it was not known when he would come to Nasugbu,
the postmaster caused the return of the registered letter to the Clerk of Court
of the Court of First Instance of Manila with the following notations on the
envelope:  “Rtn”
and “In Manila”.

On February 29, 1964,
eight months after submitting the plaintiffs’ memorandum, Atty. Valladolid went
to the office of the Clerk of Court in Manila
to inquire about the status of the case. 
He was informed that the case had already been decided, and accordingly
furnished a copy of the decision.  On March 9, 1964 the plaintiffs
moved to reconsider but was turned dawn in an order of March 17, 1964.  Thereupon, they filed a notice of appeal,
record on appeal and appeal bond on March
23, 1964.  The defendant
interposed his opposition thereto, alleging that the decision had become final
and, consequently, the plaintiffs had lost their right to appeal.  In an order dated May 29, 1964, the trial court upheld the
defendant and disapproved the record on appeal.

On June 23, 1964
the plaintiffs went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari and mandamus
to compel the trial court to give due course to their appeal.  After considering the memoranda of both
parties, the appellate court reversed the stand of the trial court and ordered
said court “to admit the appeal of the petitioners, pass upon the
correctness and sufficiency of their record on appeal, and, thereafter, if
found correct and sufficient, to approve and certify it to this Court.”
Not satisfied, the herein petitioner, defendant in the court a quo, ele­vated the case on the instant
petition for review by certiorari.

The decisive issue is whether the service of a copy of the
decision upon counsel for the plaintiffs in Nasugbu, Batangas, was effective under Section 8 of Rule 13, which
provides that “service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt
by the addressee; but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within
five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service shall
take effect at the expiration of such time.” The applicability of this
rule, in case the addressee fails to claim his mail, depends in turn upon
whether it is sent to the correct address such that his failure is attributable
to his own fault.

In this case the address of Atty. Valladolid given in all the
pleadings and the papers filed in court, except the memorandum he submitted,
was 1622 Peñafrancia, Paco,
Manila.  This was his address of record.  In ruling as it did, the Court of Appeals
said:

“His request to respondent’s counsel to send him a copy- of
the latter’s memorandum at Nasugbu, Batangas, is a private arrangement between them and only in
connection with the memorandum of respondent’s counsel.  True it is that the address given in the
memorandum filed by petitioner’s counsel was Nasugbu,
Batangas, but that was because it was prepared in and
mailed from said place and such being the case, said address does not supersede
his address of record to which notices of all kinds emanating from the court
should be sent in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a
change of address.  (Dabbay vs. Quitoriano, CA-G.
R. No. 25055-R Oct. 21, 1959.)”

We are not prepared to reverse the foregoing ruling of the Court
of Appeals.  The fact that Atty.
Valladolid sent a letter to
opposing counsel requesting the latter to send a, copy of his memorandum to the
former at Nasugbu, Batangas,
but made no similar request to the Court with respect to matters which would
emanate from it and which would require service upon the parties, supports the
conclusion that the letter-request was intended
merely as a private arrangement with said opposing counsel and only to
facilitate receipt of a copy of the memorandum he was to file.  Section 5 of Rule 13 requires that if service
is made by mail the envelope should be addressed to the party or his attorney
at his office, if known, otherwise at his residence, if known.  There is no showing that the Nasugbu Rural Bank was Atty. Valladolid’s office.  All that appears is that he used to be seen there relative to
some of the bank’s collection
cases.  Nor was the house of Marcial Alix Atty. Valladolid’s
residence, although it was there that he used to stay whenever he went to that
town.

The fact that below his signature on the memorandum he filed he
placed the words “Nasugbu, Batangas,”
must be considered in relation to the request he made to opposing counsel, and
should not be taken as notice to the Court of either a change of ad­dress or of
another address in addition to that which was already of record.  Indeed, the Clerk of Court in Manila
was duly apprised of this fact when the copy of the decision was returned to
him with the notation that the ad­dressee was in Manila;
and effective service could and should have been made at his address therein
which was of record in the case.

There are no circumstances here which would tend to indicate that
petitioner’s counsel acted with deliberate intent or inexcusable neglect in
order to evade service of a copy of the decision upon him; and his appeal therefrom should not be deemed foreclosed as a result.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, without
pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.