Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33448)
Facts:
Philippine Suburban Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33448, September 17, 1980, First Division, Teehankee, J., writing for the Court.In Civil Case No. 59355, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment on January 9, 1966, ordering petitioner Philippine Suburban Development Corporation to pay private respondent P50,000 as moral damages. Petitioner timely appealed to the Court of Appeals. In the Court of Appeals petitioner’s counsel listed as his address of record No. 402 Trinity Building, T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila — the same address used in the lower court and where both petitioner and counsel then held office. When required to file the printed record on appeal counsel complied using that address.
Subsequently counsel transferred his law office to the 8th Floor, PLDT Building, Makati, but he did not file a formal notice with the Court of Appeals of the change of address. On January 21, 1970 the Court of Appeals sent by registered mail a notice to petitioner at counsel’s address of record directing the filing of appellant’s brief within 45 days; the notice was unclaimed. The reglementary period expired without the filing of the brief and, by Resolution dated June 27, 1970, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and entered final judgment. Notices of the dismissal and related communications sent to counsel’s address of record likewise remained unclaimed. Under Rule 13, section 9 of the Rules of Court, service by registered mail was deemed completed after five days.
The case record was remanded to the trial court on October 8, 1970, and on motion of private respondent the trial court issued a writ of execution. A copy of the writ was served on March 1, 1971 at counsel’s then current office in the PLDT Building, where he was traced. Counsel promptly filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to lift the dismissal, set aside entry of judgment and reinstate the appeal, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion in a Resolution of March 30, 1971. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals’ denial of the motion to lift dismissal.
Counsel for petitioner argued that incidental pleadings he filed after vacating his old office — specifically an urgent motion for extension of time showing a residence at 114 Scout Fernandez, Quezon City, and other pleadings indicating the PLDT...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to file appellant’s brief, thereby warranting relief by certiorari?
- Do incidental pleadings indicating a different address of counsel constitute sufficient notice to the court of a change of address of record?
- Was petitioner’s failure to receive the notice to file brief such that the dismissal and ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)