G.R. No. L-15616 - Aldecoa vs. Arellano

On March 25, 1958, Judge Francisco Arellano of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 4352, where petitioners Lourdes Aldecoa, Barbara Zamora, and Augusto E. Salazar were held liable to pay respondent Pedro G. Siguenza the sum of ₱7,500 plus interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint, and ₱1,000 as attorney’s fees.
The decision established the basis for the subsequent procedural steps, including service issues and appeal filings by the parties.

On March 29, 1958, an attempt was made by a court stenographer to serve the copy of the decision on petitioners’ counsel, Attorney Jose Macasa, who was present in the court premises; however, the service was not accepted by the gatekeeper.
Subsequently, on the same day, the clerk of court attempted to serve a copy upon Attorney Macasa’s brother, Carlos Macasa, who similarly refused service, insisting that the document should be received personally by Attorney Macasa.
Due to these refusals, the copy of the decision was sent to Attorney Macasa via registered mail. The first registry notice was generated and sent by the Bacolod Post Office on March 31, 1958.
After the initial notice was unclaimed, a second and a third registry notice were sent on April 7 and April 17, 1958, respectively.
Finally, on April 26, 1958, Carlos Macasa claimed the registered letter at the post office.

On May 8, 1958, Siguenza moved for the execution of the decision based on the said copy.
Petitioners filed their notice of appeal, along with the appeal bond and the record on appeal, on May 19, 1958, which was objected to by Siguenza.
Petitioners opposed the motion for execution on May 23, 1958.
An order issued on June 5, 1958, granted the execution motion and dismissed petitioners’ appeal for not being perfected within the prescribed time.
Petitioners appealed the June 5 decision on July 17, 1958; however, Siguenza objected to this appeal.
The appeal was eventually dismissed on July 26, 1958, with a subsequent motion for reconsideration by petitioners being denied on August 9, 1958.

On September 17, 1958, petitioners filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA-G.R. No. 23786-R) requesting a writ of mandamus to direct the judge to give due course to their appeal from the earlier decision in Civil Case No. 4352.
After full proceedings, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on April 28, 1959, dismissing the petition and imposing costs against the petitioners.
The present case is an appeal by certiorari by petitioners challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The sole issue presented is whether petitioners’ appeal in Civil Case No. 4352 was filed within the reglementary period as prescribed by law.
A contention exists regarding the computation of the period to appeal which allegedly started after five (5) days from the first registry notice dated March 31, 1958, when the counsel failed to claim the registered copy of the decision.

Petitioners argued that Attorney Macasa never received the first and second registry notices, alleging that they were delivered to unidentified persons.
The credibility of the mailman’s testimony, which indicated that the notices were delivered to a person residing at Attorney Macasa’s address who had been the usual recipient of his mail, becomes central to resolving the issue of whether the proper service occurred.