PHILIPPINE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH XIII (HON. JESUS MORFE, PRESIDING JUDGE), DEPUTY PROVINC…

Philippine Suburban Development Corporation versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari brought by Philippine Suburban Development Corporation against the Court of Appeals, the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the private respondent, to annul the appellate court's refusal to lift its dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and to set aside the entry of judgment. The case matters because it fixes, in the sharpest terms, the duty of counsel of record to notify the court of any change of address, and it defines when the negligence of counsel may be visited upon the client without offending the rules of fair procedure.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance of Manila, in a decision rendered in January 1966, ordered the petitioner to pay the private respondent moral damages. The petitioner timely appealed to the Court of Appeals. In that court, counsel for the petitioner gave as his address of record the office at Trinity Building, Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila, the same address used below and where both the petitioner and its counsel held office. When required to file the printed record on appeal, counsel complied using the same address of record.

The Court of Appeals sent by registered mail a notice to file brief, but the notice was not claimed. The period lapsed without a brief and without explanation, so the appellate court dismissed the appeal and entered final judgment. The record was later remanded to the trial court, which issued a writ of execution on motion of the private respondent. Counsel then promptly filed a motion to lift the order of dismissal, to set aside the entry of judgment, and to reinstate the appeal. The Court of Appeals denied that motion. Hence this special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

Facts

The petitioner was held liable for moral damages by the trial court and appealed. Before the Court of Appeals, counsel maintained his office at the Trinity Building in Ermita, Manila, which was also the petitioner's office, and that address stood as his address of record.

In the meantime, counsel transferred his law office to the eighth floor of the PLDT Building in Makati, but he filed no formal notice of change of address with the appellate court. The Court of Appeals sent the notice to file brief to the address of record by registered mail, and the notice was not claimed. The period lapsed without a brief. The appeal was dismissed and judgment was entered, and the notices of these developments, sent to the same address of record, were likewise unclaimed. Under the Rules, service was deemed completed after five days from the first notice of the postmaster. The record was remanded, and the writ of execution was served at the PLDT Building in Makati, where counsel was traced.

Counsel argued that incidental pleadings filed with the appellate court, showing his residence address in one and his new office address in another, substantially complied with the rule on notice of change of address. The appellate court rejected this and held that it is inexcusable negligence for an attorney of record not to notify the court of his change of address.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to lift the order of dismissal and to set aside the entry of judgment, where counsel failed to receive the notice to file brief because he changed his office without notifying the court.
• Whether or not the use of a different address in later pleadings, or the appearance of a residence address in an earlier pleading, constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement of a notice of change of address.
• Whether or not the Rules of Court should be liberally interpreted to allow the reinstatement of the appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, on service by registered mail, provides:

Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier.

This provision is the basis for treating the unclaimed notices as validly served upon counsel at his address of record.

Section 5 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, on the completeness of service, provides:

Service upon the attorney or upon a party shall be made by delivering a copy to him or by leaving it at his office with the person in charge thereof, or if no person is in charge, by leaving it in a conspicuous place therein, or if his office is not known or cannot be found, by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his residence, if known.

This provision explains why the court and its personnel are guided by the address of record, and why the burden of keeping that address current rests on counsel.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion. Counsel failed to receive the notice to file brief because he transferred his law office without giving the proper notice, and without arranging that notices sent to his old address, which was likewise the petitioner's address, would be forwarded. There was also an apparent failure to check periodically, as an act of prudence, the status of the pending case. The Court quoted with approval the appellate court's ruling that it is inexcusable negligence for an attorney of record not to notify the court of his change of address, since attorneys are under obligation to adopt a system whereby they can always receive judicial notices.

On the second issue, the Court held that notices must be sent to the address of record in the absence of due notice of a change of address. The use of a different address in later pleadings should not be taken as notice to the court of either a change of address or of another address in addition to that already of record. Counsel cannot presume that the court will take cognizance of any other address used in his pleadings, for at most such an address merely indicates that the pleading was prepared in and mailed from that place. To require the court and its personnel to check the record and the various addresses from which counsel may have filed pleadings would sow confusion and add an intolerable burden not permitted by the Rules.

On the third issue, the Court declined to apply a liberal interpretation. The failure to file the brief and the dismissal of the appeal were of counsel's own doing. The Court reiterated its admonition that it is the inescapable duty of members of the Bar to make of record their correct address in all cases in which they are counsel, and it noted that litigants have lost their cases because of such negligence on the part of their counsel. Finally, the Court observed that even at that late hour the petitioner had not submitted any pleading, copy of the questioned decision, or appellant's brief showing a lawful and valid defense that would justify the corrective writ.

Doctrine

Notices to counsel are properly sent to his address of record in the absence of due notice to the court of a change of address. The use of a different address in later pleadings does not operate as notice of a change of address or of an additional address. It is the inescapable duty of counsel to make of record his correct address and to notify the court of any change, and failure to do so is inexcusable negligence that binds the client. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt or after five days from the first notice of the postmaster, whichever is earlier, so an unclaimed notice sent to the address of record is validly served.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved effective upon promulgation.

Remember This

Memorize the line that it is the inescapable duty of counsel to make of record his correct address in all cases, and that a change of address without notice to the court is inexcusable negligence binding on the client. Examiners use this case in civil procedure and remedial law on service of notices, change of address of counsel, and the limits of liberal construction of the Rules.