Facts:

In the case of National Mines and Allied Workers' Union (NAMAWU-MIF) vs. Honorable Judge Domingo Coronel Reyes, et al., adjudicated by the Philippine Supreme Court under G.R. No. 58623 on September 30, 1982, the petitioner, NAMAWU-MIF, contested a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Albay in Civil Case No. 5523 on January 23, 1981. The trial court had ordered the petitioner to pay certain sums of money to the private respondent. Following the ruling, on August 11, 1981, Judge Reyes issued an order of execution, asserting that the decision had become final. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming it had never received a copy of the decision, but this request was denied on September 22, 1981, based on the court's conclusion that valid notice had been given through the petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Sisenando Villaluz. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to annul the execution order and the deni

...

Facts:

Civil Case Background

• A decision in Civil Case No. 5523 of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay was rendered on January 23, 1981, ordering the defendant (the petitioner, National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union (NAMAWU-MIF)) to pay sums of money to the plaintiff.
• On August 11, 1981, the respondent judge ordered the execution of the decision on the basis that the decision had become final.

Motion for Reconsideration and Subsequent Orders

• The defendant, by motion, sought reconsideration of the execution order, claiming non-receipt of a copy of the decision.
• The motion was denied on September 22, 1981, with the court finding that valid notice was given to the defendant through its counsel of record, Atty. Sisenando Villaluz.
• The petitioner’s prayer was that judgment be rendered declaring the orders of August 11, 1981 (ordering execution) and September 22, 1981 (denying the motion for reconsideration) as null and void, and that a copy of the decision be furnished to petitioner through counsel Atty. Roberto A. Padilla.

Resolution on Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus

• On November 16, 1981, the Court issued a resolution on the petition for certiorari and mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
• The resolution ordered the respondents to submit their comments within ten (10) days and issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) effective immediately.
• Although a copy of the resolution was served by registered mail on the private respondent on November 23, 1981, no required comment was filed by him.

Inconsistencies in Counsel’s Representation and Address

• The decision of the trial court was sent to Atty. Sisenando Villaluz at his address at Suite 306 Trade Center Building, Manila, but the copy was returned as unclaimed.
• It was shown that Atty. Villaluz was the counsel of record, having signed the motion to dismiss the complaint and the answer with counterclaim, and originally gave his address as noted above.
• Various pleadings and annexes in the records revealed conflicting addresses for Atty. Villaluz and Atty. Roberto A. Padilla, with addresses also given as Suite 202-210 Isabel Building, Espana, Manila.
• It appears that Atty. Villaluz ceased to represent the defendant before or in May 1979, but he failed to notify the court of his withdrawal.
• Similarly, Atty. Padilla did not notify the court that he remained the sole counsel after Atty. Villaluz’s withdrawal.
• The trial court was negligent in not re-sending the decision to the correct address known from the pleadings (i.e., the Isabel Building address).

Findings on Negligence and Abuse of Discretion

• The negligence of Atty. Villaluz in failing to notify the court of his cessation and the negligence of Atty. Padilla in not informing the court of his continued representation were identified.
• The respondent judge was found to be guilty of grave abuse of discretion in issuing the execution order and the order denying the motion for reconsideration, especially after the miscommunication regarding counsel’s addresses was evident.

Issue:

Whether the execution of the judgment should have proceeded given the questionable service of notice owing to the conflicting and outdated addresses of counsel.

• Did the trial court correctly consider the notice purportedly served on the defendant through counsel even though the address used was no longer valid?
• Was it proper for the trial court to issue the execution order and deny the motion for reconsideration without confirming the updated representation status of the defendant?

• Whether the negligence on the part of the counsel (both Atty. Villaluz and Atty. Padilla) in notifying the court of the change in representation and corresponding address constitutes sufficient ground for nullifying the orders regarding execution and the consequent denial of reconsideration.

• Whether the respondent judge’s actions in issuing orders without re-sending the decision to the correct address constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial intervention through certiorari and mandamus.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)