G.R. No. 247345 - Abutin vs. San Juan

The petition involves petitioner Filipina D. Abutin and respondent Josephine San Juan (in behalf of Julita San Juan, Corazon’s sister) in a probate dispute over holographic wills allegedly executed by Corazon M. San Juan.
Corazon, who had been in a same-sex relationship with Purita Dayao, died on March 23, 2008, without surviving ascendants or descendants, leaving behind a 108-square-meter lot in Tondo, Manila, with a residential house.
The holographic wills, which purportedly bequeathed Corazon’s property to Purita and Filipina, became the subject matter of contest between Purita/Filipina and Julita/Josephine.

On July 7, 2008, Purita and Filipina filed a petition for probate, covering three holographic wills (the first dated December 23, 2007; the second, March 10, 2008; and a third undated).
On September 2, 2008, Julita San Juan and Josephine San Juan opposed the probate petition.
During trial, three witnesses authenticated Corazon’s handwriting and signature, including a document expert from the NBI.
In an Order dated December 28, 2015, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso admitted to probate two of the wills (those dated December 23, 2006 and March 10, 2008), thus initially confirming the validity of the holographic wills.
Sometime later, Purita and Filipina, believing that the admitted Order had attained finality (in the absence of a Motion for Reconsideration), inquired about the service of the Order and subsequently obtained certification regarding its receipt.
On November 25, 2016, the RTC reversed its earlier decision by issuing an Order setting aside the December 28, 2015 Order and denying probate to the wills.
Multiple motions ensued:

Filipina filed her Notice of Appeal on January 11, 2017.
Respondent’s counsel, Atty. Ginete, and later a replacement counsel filed a belated Motion for Reconsideration (April 12, 2016).
Purita and Filipina attempted to enforce the Order by filing a Motion for Entry of Judgment and Writ of Execution on April 7, 2016.

The RTC dismissed Filipina’s Motion to Admit Record on Appeal on August 7, 2017, effectively dismissing her appeal for failure to include the record on appeal.

The RTC sent a copy of its December 28, 2015 Order via registered mail to respondent’s counsel, Atty. Adorlito B. Ginete, at his mailing address.
A key issue was whether the receipt of the Order by a third party, Rodnelito Capuno (purportedly acting as Atty. Ginete’s representative), constituted valid service.
Although Atty. Ginete later disavowed that Capuno was authorized to receive the mail, evidence (including several registry return receipts with Capuno’s name and signature) indicated that Capuno had customarily received court documents on his behalf.
The delay and subsequent withdrawal by Atty. Ginete (who filed his Manifestation with Motion to withdraw appearance on April 6, 2016) raised questions about his proper fulfillment of his duties as counsel.

Subsequent to the RTC’s reversal Order (November 25, 2016) and the dismissal of Filipina’s appeal due to the absence of the record on appeal, Filipina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court of Appeals had previously rendered a February 6, 2019 Decision dismissing Filipina’s Rule 65 Petition and a May 15, 2019 Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration.
The Supreme Court took cognizance of the conflicting procedural events, particularly issues of valid service, finality of the decision, and the proper exercise of judicial and administrative duties.

Whether RTC Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso committed grave abuse of discretion by:

Reversing her own December 28, 2015 Order that allowed probate of the holographic wills, thereby effectively changing the outcome of the probate proceedings.
Dismissing petitioner Filipina D. Abutin’s appeal for failing to include the record on appeal, given that the failure was attributable to the nonfeasance (or bad faith) of the RTC’s Clerk of Court.

Whether the service of the Order by registered mail, received by Rodnelito Capuno on behalf of respondent’s counsel, constitutes valid service under the procedural rules.

Whether serving the counsel through a person of “sufficient discretion” (i.e., Capuno) meets the standards stipulated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether the alleged improper withdrawal and later excuse offered by Atty. Ginete affect the validity and finality of the Order.

Whether the finality of the RTC’s December 28, 2015 Order was properly determined, particularly in light of the timing of motions for reconsideration and the subsequent actions of the counsel.