Gatmaytan vs Dolor

Gr no. 198120

February 20, 2017

Facts: Gatmaytan insists that the Regional Trial Court's March 27, 2006 Decision has not attained finality
as the April 14, 2006 service was made to her counsel's former address (at No. 117 West Avenue, Quezon
City) as opposed to the address (at Unit 602, No. 42 Prince Jun Condominium, Timog Avenue, Quezon
City) that her counsel indicated in a June 8, 2004 Notice of Change of Address filed with the Regional
Trial Court. Gatmaytan adds that the Regional Trial Court noted the change of address in an Order of the
same date, and directed that, from then on, service of papers, pleadings, and processes was to be made at
her counsel's updated address at Unit 602, No. 42 Prince Jun Condominium, Timog Avenue, Quezon
City.

Issue: WON the service of the Decision to the petitioner was complete when it was send to her counsel’s
former address

Ruling: The court sustains petitioner's position that the service made on her counsel's former address was
ineffectual. The court finds however, that petitioner failed to discharge her burden of proving the specific
date - allegedly June 1, 2006 - in which service upon her counsel's updated address was actually made.
Having failed to establish the reckoning point of the period for filing her Motion for Reconsideration, we
cannot sustain the conclusion that petitioner insists on, and which is merely contingent on this reckoning
point: we cannot conclude that her Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed. Having failed to
discharge her burden of proof, we are constrained to deny her Petition.

Reckoning the date when a party is deemed to have been given notice of the judgment or final order
subject of his or her Motion for Reconsideration depends on the manner by which the judgment of final
order was served upon the party himself or herself.

Rule 13, Section 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides for three (3) modes of service of
judgments or final orders: first, personal service; second, service by registered mail; and third, service by
publication. It reads:

Section 9. Service of Judgments, Final Orders or Resolutions. - Judgments, final orders or resolutions
shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by publication has failed
to appear in the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him shall be served upon him also
by publication at the expense of the prevailing party.

Rule 13, Section 10 specifies when the first two (2) modes - personal service and service by registered
mail - are deemed completed, and notice upon a party is deemed consummated:

Section 10. Completeness of Service. - Personal service is complete upon actual delivery. Service by
ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise
provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5)
days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier. (Emphasis
supplied)
 MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE SERVICE, INC.,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY,

August 22, 2012

G.R. No. 163286

Facts: Atty. Dizon, counsel of MINTERBRO, contends that he was not properly served with the Court of
Appeals decision since Cabrera who received the decision was not connected with his office. She was a
front desk receptionist at the Prestige Tower Condominium, where Atty. Dizon was holding his office.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals Decision dated 21 November 2002 was properly served on
MINTERBRO’s counsel in accordance with service of judgment under Sections 9 and 10, Rule 13 of the
Rules of Court

Ruling: Yes it was properly served.

Sections 9 and 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, require that:

Section 9. Service of judgments, final orders, or resolutions. — Judgments, final orders or

resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. When a party summoned by
publication has failed to appear in the action, judgments, final orders or resolutions against him
shall be served upon him also by publication at the expense of the prevailing party.

Section 10. Completeness of service. — Personal service is complete upon actual delivery.
Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless
the court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the
addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster,
whichever date is earlier.

There is no dispute that as dictated by the Rules on Civil Procedure, Rule 13, Section 10 thereof,
service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or five (5) days from
the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier.

The purpose of the afore-quoted rule on service is to make sure that the party being served with
the pleading, order or judgment is duly informed of the same so that such party can take steps to
protect the interests, i.e., enable to file an appeal or apply for other appropriate reliefs before the
decision becomes final.33

Atty. Dizon, however, has forgotten that it was his elementary responsibility to have informed
the Court of Appeals of his change of address from 6/F Padilla Building, Emerald Avenue,
Ortigas Commercial Center, Pasig City, to Suite 402, Prestige Tower, Emerald Avenue, Ortigas
Center, Pasig City. The records show that Atty. Dizon only informed the Court of Appeals of his
change of address on 12 November 2003.34 This was almost one year after the entry of judgment
was made on 20 December 2002.

Hence, it was his own fault why he was not served of the Decision.
 Ara Realty Corporation vs Paces Industrial Corporation

G.R. No. 169761

December 1, 2010

Facts: The CA sent the notice of the decision to petitioners' counsel's address of record via registered
mail. However, petitioner failed to seasonably file a notice of change of address with the CA so it was
returned to the CA with the notation, Return to Sender, Moved left no address.

Issue: WON the notice of the decision was deemed complete

Ruling: Yes it was deemed complete

Thus, for failing to seasonably file a notice of change of address with the CA, petitioners' counsel's
official address remained as N.C. Lat Bldg., Tanauan, Batangas, and service of the CA Decision at said
official address should be deemed sufficient notice of the decision to petitioners' counsel. Petitioners have
no one to blame but themselves for not actually getting a copy of the CA Decision.
 Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Heirs of Bernardin J. Zamora

G.R. No. 164267

Facts: Petitioner therein moved to another address but failed to file a notice of change of address with the
NLRC. Hence, when a copy of the NLRC decision was sent to said petitioner's address of
record via registered mail, the same was returned to sender

Issue: WON the notice of the decision was deemed complete

Ruling: The rule on service by registered mail contemplates two situations: (1) actual service, the
completeness of which is determined upon receipt by the addressee of the registered mail; and (2)
constructive service, the completeness of which is determined upon expiration of five days from the date
the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster. A party who relies on constructive service or
who contends that his adversary has received a copy of a final order or judgment upon the expiration of
five days from the date the addressee received the first notice sent by the postmaster must prove that the
first notice was actually received by the addressee. Such proof requires a certified or sworn copy of the
notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

In the instant case, there is no postmaster's certification to the effect that the registered mail containing the
NLRC decision was unclaimed by the addressee and thus returned to sender, after first notice was sent to
and received by the addressee on a specified date. All that appears from the records are the envelopes
containing the NLRC decision with the stamped markings and notation on the face and dorsal sides
thereof showing "RTS" (meaning, "Return To Sender") and "MOVED." Still, we must rule that service
upon PAL and the other petitioners was complete.

First, the NLRC Deputy Executive Clerk issued a Certification that the envelopes containing the NLRC
decision addressed to Mr. Jose Pepiton Garcia and Atty. Bienvenido T. Jamoralin, Jr. were returned to the
NLRC with the notation "RTS" and "MOVED." Yet, they and the other petitioners, including PAL, have
not filed any notice of change of address at any time prior to the issuance of the NLRC decision up to the
date when the Certification was issued on January 24, 2000.

Second, the non-receipt by PAL and the other petitioners of the copies of the NLRC decision was due to
their own failure to immediately file a notice of change of address with the NLRC, which they expressly
admitted. It is settled that where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in a court of
record, all notices or orders required to be given therein must be given to the attorney of record.
Accordingly, notices to counsel should be properly sent to his address of record, and, unless the counsel
files a notice of change of address, his official address remains to be that of his address of record.

x x x To our mind, it would have been more prudent had PAL informed the NLRC that it has moved from
one floor to another rather than allowed its old address at Allied Bank Center to remain as its official
address. To rule in favor of PAL considering the circumstances in the instant case would negate the
purpose of the rules on completeness of service and the notice of change of address, which is to place the
date of receipt of pleadings, judgments and processes beyond the power of the party being served to
determine at his pleasure.

Resultantly, service of the NLRC decision via registered mail was deemed completed as of August 16,
1999, or five days after the first notice on August 11, 1999. As such, PAL only had 10 days from August
16, 1999 to file its motion for reconsideration. Its motion filed on October 29, 1999 was, therefore, late.
Hence the NLRC decision became final and executory.[12]
 Alba vs Malapajo
Gr no. 198752
January 13, 2016

Facts: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which sought the annulment of the RTC
Orders.

In a Resolution dated February 28, 2011, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari saying that there
was no proper proof of service of the petition to the respondents, and that only the last page of the
attached copy of the RTC Order was signed and certified as a true copy of the original while the rest of
the pages were mere machine copies.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in a Resolution dated August 31,
2011 based on the following findings:

Nevertheless, while petitioner filed with the Petition his Affidavit of Service and incorporated the
registry receipts, petitioner still failed to comply with the requirement on proper proof of service. Post
office receipt is not the required proof of service by registered mail. Section 10, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure specifically stated that service by registered mail is complete upon actual
receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the
postmaster, whichever is earlier. Verily, registry receipts cannot be considered sufficient proof of
service; they are merely evidence of the mail matter with the post office of the sender, not the delivery
of said mail matter by the post office to the addressee. Moreover, Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure specifically stated that the proof of personal service in the form of an
affidavit of the party serving shall contain a full statement of the date, place and manner of service,
which was not true in the instant petition

Issue: WON petitioner complied with the proof of service of the petition

Ruling: Yes petitioner complied with the proof of service of the petition

Sec.13. Proof of service.

Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return
of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and
manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the
person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by
registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu
thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the
postmaster to the addressee.

Clearly, service made through registered mail is proved by the registry receipt issued by the mailing
office and an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with the rule. In this case,
Nerissa Apuyo, the secretary of petitioner’s counsel, had executed an affidavit of personal service and
service by registered mail which she attached to the petition marked as original filed with the CA. She
stated under oath that she personally served a copy of the petition to the RTC of Roxas City on
December 6, 2010, as evidenced by a stamp mark of the RTC on the corresponding page of the
petition; that she also served copies of the petition by registered mail to respondents' counsels on
December 6, 2010 as evidenced by registry receipts numbers "PST 188" and "PST 189", both issued
by the Roxas City Post Office. The registry receipts issued by the
post office were attached to the petition filed with the CA.

Petitioner had indeed complied with the rule on proof of service.