G.R. No. L-33448 - Philippine Suburban Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals.
The Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII (with Hon. Jesus Morfe presiding).
The Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Rizal.
Protasio Amonoy (and his heirs).

On January 9, 1966, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 59355, sentencing the petitioner to pay P50,000.00 in moral damages to private respondent.
The petitioner timely appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals.

Initially, petitioner's counsel designated the official address of record as No. 402 Trinity Building, T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila – the same address used in the lower court proceedings.
While filing the necessary records on appeal, counsel complied using the recorded address.
Later, counsel transferred his law office to the 8th Floor of the PLDT Building, Makati, but failed to file a formal notice with the court regarding this change.

On January 21, 1970, respondent court sent a registered notice to file the appellant’s brief within 45 days to the counsel’s address of record.
The notice, however, was not claimed because counsel had already transferred his office and did not update the address, resulting in the lapse of the filing period.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed per the respondent court’s Resolution dated June 27, 1970, with the final judgment subsequently entered.

The record was remanded on October 8, 1970 to the lower court, where execution of the judgment was processed on a motion by the private respondent.
On March 1, 1971, the writ of execution was served to the petitioner’s new office address in Makati.
In response, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion to lift the dismissal order, set aside the entry of judgment, and reinstate the appeal, but it was denied on March 30, 1971.

Counsel argued that incidental pleadings filed with varying addresses (one showing his residence and another his new office address) should be interpreted as notice of change of address.
He maintained that such indications in pleadings (e.g., an extension of time to file comment and subsequent comment submissions) were intended to communicate his new whereabouts, thereby putting the court and opposing counsel on notice.
Counsel further contended that a liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court should allow for reinstatement of the appeal despite the failure to formally update the official address of record.

The Court reiterated that notices to counsel must be sent to the address of record unless a formal notice of change is filed.
It cited prior jurisprudence (such as Lopez vs. de los Reyes) underscoring that the use of alternate addresses in pleadings is insufficient to override the official address.
The Court emphasized that it is the duty of counsel to ensure a proper system is in place to receive judicial notices and to inform the court of any change without delay.

Whether petitioner's counsel’s failure to file a formal notice of change of address justifies the dismissal of the appeal due to the lapse in filing the appellant’s brief.
Whether the incidental indications of different addresses in subsequent pleadings (including his residence and new office address) can be considered sufficient and substantial notice to the court regarding the change of address.
Whether the respondent court, by strictly enforcing the Rules of Court concerning the address of record, committed a grave error or abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal.