Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Belen Vs Chavez

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    This case involves a petition for review of a decision from the Court of Appeals affirming a Regional Trial Court decision in favor of private respondents Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb in an action to enforce a foreign judgment against petitioners Domingo and Dominga Belen. The Supreme Court held that service of the RTC decision was invalid because it was served on petitioners' late counsel's address and a former address in Laguna, rather than petitioners' actual present address as required. As such, the period to appeal did not commence until petitioners' new counsel received the decision, making the subsequent appeal timely. The CA decision was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Belen Vs Chavez

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    39 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition for review of a decision from the Court of Appeals affirming a Regional Trial Court decision in favor of private respondents Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb in an action to enforce a foreign judgment against petitioners Domingo and Dominga Belen. The Supreme Court held that service of the RTC decision was invalid because it was served on petitioners' late counsel's address and a former address in Laguna, rather than petitioners' actual present address as required. As such, the period to appeal did not commence until petitioners' new counsel received the decision, making the subsequent appeal timely. The CA decision was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Original Title

    Belen vs Chavez.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition for review of a decision from the Court of Appeals affirming a Regional Trial Court decision in favor of private respondents Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb in an action to enforce a foreign judgment against petitioners Domingo and Dominga Belen. The Supreme Court held that service of the RTC decision was invalid because it was served on petitioners' late counsel's address and a former address in Laguna, rather than petitioners' actual present address as required. As such, the period to appeal did not commence until petitioners' new counsel received the decision, making the subsequent appeal timely. The CA decision was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Belen Vs Chavez

    Uploaded by

    ana ortiz
    This case involves a petition for review of a decision from the Court of Appeals affirming a Regional Trial Court decision in favor of private respondents Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb in an action to enforce a foreign judgment against petitioners Domingo and Dominga Belen. The Supreme Court held that service of the RTC decision was invalid because it was served on petitioners' late counsel's address and a former address in Laguna, rather than petitioners' actual present address as required. As such, the period to appeal did not commence until petitioners' new counsel received the decision, making the subsequent appeal timely. The CA decision was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Belen vs Chavez

    Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

    FACTS:

     This is an action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment against herein petitioners, spouses
    Domingo and Dominga Belen, filed by private respondent spouses Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb,
    represented by their attorney-in-fact, Joselito Rioveros, before the RTC
     Private respondents secured a judgment by default in a case rendered by a certain Judge John
    W. Green of the Superior Court of the State of California
     The judgment ordered petitioners to pay private respondents to pay the loan and share in the
    profits plus interest and costs of suit; the summons was served on petitioners as was alleged in
    the complaint, and received by a certain Marcelo M. Belen.
     Atty. Reynaldo Alcantara entered his appearance as counsel for petitioners, stating that his
    legal services were retained at the instance of petitioner’s relatives. Atty. Alcantara
    subsequently filed an answer, alleging that contrary to private respondent’s averment,
    petitioners were actually residents of California, USA. The answer also claimed that petitioner’s
    liability had been extinguished via a release of abstract judgment issued in the same collection
    case.
     Due to Petitioner’s failure to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference, the RTC ordered the ex
    parte presentation of evidence for private respondents. Before the ex parte presentation, Atty.
    Alcantara filed a motion to dismiss, citing the judgment of dismissal issued by the Superior
    Court of the State of California, which allegedly dismissed the Case. The RTC held in abeyance
    the ex parte presentation
     For failure to present a copy of the alleged judgment of dismissal, the RTC denied the motion to
    dismiss; But Atty. Alcantara sought the reinstatement of the motion to dismiss by attaching a
    copy of the said foreign judgment.
     private respondents filed a motion for the amendment of the complaint for they were
    constrained to withdraw their complaint against petitioners from the California court because
    of the prohibitive cost of litigation, which withdrawal was favorably considered by said court.
     The answer to the amended complaint raised the defenses of lack of cause of action, res
    judicata and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons of the defendants
     Petitioners and Atty. Alcantara failed to appear at the rescheduled pre-trial conference. Thus,
    the RTC declared petitioners in default and allowed private respondents to present evidence ex
    parte; Atty. Alcantara passed away without the RTC being informed of such fact until much
    later.
     RTC favored respondents
     A copy of the RTC decision intended for Atty. Alcantara was returned with the notation
    Addressee Deceased. A copy of the RTC decision was then sent to the purported address of
    petitioners and was received by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla
     private respondents filed an ex-parte motion for preliminary attachment which the RTC granted
    in its Order; later issued writ of execution; levied properties
     Atty. Carmelo B. Culvera entered his appearance as counsel for petitioners and filed a Motion to
    Quash Writ of Execution (With Prayer to Defer Further Actions) but was denied
     CA affirmed the decision
    ISSUE:

    WON there was a valid service of the copy of the RTC decision on petitioners.

    HELD:

    NO. As a general rule, when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices
    must be made upon said attorney and notice to the client and to any other lawyer, not the counsel of
    record, is not notice in law. The exception to this rule is when service upon the party himself has been
    ordered by the court. In cases where service was made on the counsel of record at his given address,
    notice sent to petitioner itself is not even necessary.

    In the instant case, a copy of the RTC decision was sent first to Atty. Alcantara, petitioners counsel of
    record. However, the same was returned unserved in view of the demise of Atty. Alcantara. Thus, a copy
    was subsequently sent to petitioners last known address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna, which was
    received by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla.

    Undoubtedly, upon the death of Atty. Alcantara, the lawyer-client relationship between him and
    petitioners has ceased, thus, the service of the RTC decision on him is ineffective and did not bind
    petitioners.

    The subsequent service on petitioners purported last known address by registered mail is also defective
    because it does not comply with the requisites under the aforequoted Section 7 of Rule 13 on service by
    registered mail. Section 7 of Rule 13 contemplates service at the present address of the party and not at
    any other address of the party. Service at the party’s former address or his last known address or any
    address other than his present address does not qualify as substantial compliance with the
    requirements of Section 7, Rule 13. Therefore, service by registered mail presupposes that the present
    address of the party is known and if the person who receives the same is not the addressee, he must be
    duly authorized by the former to receive the paper on behalf of the party.

    Since the filing of the complaint, petitioners could not be physically found in the country because they
    had already become permanent residents of California, U.S.A. It has been established during the trial
    that petitioners are former residents of Alaminos, Laguna, contrary to the averment in the complaint
    that they reside and may be served with court processes thereat.

    On many occasions, the Court has strictly construed the requirements of the proper service of papers
    and judgments. The service of the trial court’s decision at an adjacent office and the receipt thereof by a
    person not authorized by the counsel of record was held ineffective. Likewise, the service of the decision
    made at the ground floor instead of at the 9thfloor of a building in the address on record of petitioners
    counsel, was held invalid in PLDT v. NLRC. In these cases, there was no constructive service of the
    decision even if the service was made at the offices adjacent to the address on record of the parties’
    counsels and even if the copies eventually found their way to persons duly authorized to receive them.

    In view of the foregoing, the running of the fifteen-day period for appeal did not commence upon the
    service of the RTC decision at the address on record of Atty. Alcantara or at the Laguna address. It is
    deemed served on petitioners only upon its receipt by Atty. Culvera on 29 December 2003. Therefore,
    the filing of the Notice of Appeal on 06 January 2004 is within the reglementary period and should be
    given due course.

    You might also like