View full case

FILIPINA D. ABUTIN v. JOSEPHINE SAN JUAN

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioner Filipina D. Abutin. The case concerns the probate of two holographic wills purportedly executed by Corazon M. San Juan. Corazon was in a same-sex relationship with Purita Dayao, and they lived together with Purita's daughter, Filipina, in a house in Tondo, Manila. Corazon passed away without any surviving ascendants or descendants. On July 7, 2008, Purita and Filipina filed a Petition for the probate of three holographic wills executed by Corazon. Corazon's sister, Julita San Juan, and niece, Josephine San Juan, opposed the petition. During trial, three witnesses authenticated Corazon's handwriting and signature. On December 28, 2015, the Regional Trial Court admitted the two wills for probate. However, Purita and Filipina discovered that their opponent's counsel, Atty. Adorlito Ginete, claimed he did not receive a copy of the court's order. They filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment and Writ of Execution, believing that the order had attained finality. In response, Julita and Josephine filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The court eventually set aside its Dec. 28, 2015 order and denied probate to the wills. Filipina filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 11, 2017.

In this case, the Regional Trial Court sent a copy of its December 28, 2015 Order to respondent's counsel, Atty. Ginete, through registered mail to Atty. Ginete's known mailing address. The Order was received by Capuno, an office staff of Atty. Ginete. Respondent argues that Capuno's receipt does not constitute valid service because Capuno was not authorized to receive mail for Atty. Ginete. However, Rule 13, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service upon a party's counsel is considered as service upon the actual party. When a party is represented by counsel, notices, motions, pleadings, and orders must be served on said counsel, and notice to him is considered as notice to the client. Therefore, the receipt of the December 28, 2015 Order by Capuno amounts to valid service upon Atty. Ginete and respondent.

This case involves a situation wherein the petitioner argues that they did not receive a copy of a decision, and thus, the decision should not be considered final and executory. The petitioner claims that there were no proper guidelines for receiving mail on their behalf, suggesting that they should not be held accountable for not receiving the decision.

In reference to a previous case, NIA Consult, Inc. v. NLRC, the court highlighted that it is the responsibility of the petitioners and their counsel to establish a system for receiving mail intended for them. The court emphasizes that the finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot be contingent on the convenience of a party.

The circumstances of this case closely resemble those in a previous case, Land Bank. It is revealed that Capuno was certified by the Office of the Postmaster as having actually received a copy of Judge Patrimonio-Sor's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the receipt of the order of dismissal by the security guard should be deemed as receipt by petitioner's counsel.

  2. Whether the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent, through her counsel, Atty. Ginete, should be given due course despite the long delay in filing and the finality of the order being questioned.

  3. Whether the error in a judgment renders it void and prevents it from attaining finality.

  4. Whether the principle that the error of counsel visits the client applies in this case.

  5. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal was proper despite the fault of the Clerk of Court in failing to complete and attach the record on appeal.

  6. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an abuse of discretion in granting the Petition for Certiorari.

  7. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court's Order should be reinstated.

RULING:

  1. The receipt of the order of dismissal by the security guard should be deemed as receipt by petitioner's counsel. The paramount consideration is that the registered mail is delivered to the recipient's address and received by a person who would be able to appreciate the importance of the papers delivered to him, even if that person is not a subordinate or employee of the recipient or authorized by a special power of attorney. The security guard who received the order of dismissal fully realized his responsibility to deliver the mails to the intended recipient. Therefore, the receipt by the security guard should be considered receipt by petitioner's counsel as well.

  2. No, the Motion for Reconsideration should not be given due course. Atty. Ginete's negligence in filing the motion in a timely manner and the finality of the order being questioned bind the respondent. The court cannot facilitate remedies that have been foregone due to counsel's negligence.

  3. The error in a judgment does not render it void and prevent it from attaining finality. In this case, the respondent argues that the judgment was void and could not have lapsed into finality due to an error in the judgment. However, the Supreme Court clarifies that the case cited by the respondent, Heirs of Borres v. Abela, involved a decision that was found to be void because it was penned by a retired judge, not because of an error in the decision itself. The Supreme Court emphasizes that a void judgment never acquires finality, but in this case, the error in the judgment does not render it void and it has already attained finality.

  4. The principle that the error of counsel visits the client is not applicable in this case. The respondent argues that the error in the judgment should not be attributed to her and that it should be the responsibility of her counsel. However, the Supreme Court asserts that finding good counsel is the responsibility of the client, especially when the client can afford to do so. Upholding client autonomy in choosing counsel is preferred over assuming that the state is omniscient. The principle that the error of counsel visits the client does not apply in this case, and the client bears some degree of error for the choices made.

  5. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal was improper. The Court held that the Clerk of Court had the duty to complete the record on appeal, and the petitioner's failure to include it was not her fault but that of the Clerk of Court. It was grave abuse of discretion for the trial judge to dismiss the appeal based on the absence of a record on appeal when such failure was attributable to the fault of her own subordinate. The trial judge should have applied the well-established standards on service of papers, finality of judgments, and the duties of clerks of court properly. The trial judge's disregard of basic rules and procedures amounted to grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction.

  6. Yes, the Court of Appeals committed an abuse of discretion in granting the Petition for Certiorari. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals.

  7. The Regional Trial Court's Order should be reinstated. The Supreme Court held that the Order of the Regional Trial Court in Sp. Proc. No. 08-119593 is reinstated.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The delivery of registered mail to a person of sufficient discretion to receive it is considered receipt by the addressee. The important factor is that the person who received the registered mail would be able to appreciate the importance of the papers delivered to him, even if he is not the recipient's subordinate or employee, or authorized by a special power of attorney.

  • The finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party.

  • Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. This is based on public policy and the need for an end to litigation.

  • The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the application of procedural rules. The exception is when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law.

  • A lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary, and a counsel's negligence can have serious consequences for the client. The counsel's competence, knowledge of the law, and diligence are expected and essential in the proper handling of a client's case.

  • The court cannot guarantee the level of service a client may expect from their counsel. It sets standards for competence and integrity through application requirements and disciplinary powers.

  • An error in a judgment does not render it void and prevents it from attaining finality.

  • A void judgment never acquires finality and has no legal or binding effect.

  • The error of counsel visits the client, and the client bears some degree of error in the choices made.

  • The duty of the clerk of court to verify and complete the record on appeal (Rule 41, Section 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

  • The obligation of the trial judge to apply well-established standards on service of papers, finality of judgments, and the duties of clerks of court.

  • Grave abuse of discretion amounts to lack of jurisdiction and constitutes an inexcusable abuse of authority. Judges should be well-versed in procedural rules and ensure no undue advantage is given to litigants. The exercise of judicial functions calls for the dispensation of justice and should not be a mere mechanical application of the law.

  • The Court of Appeals may be found to have committed an abuse of discretion if it grants a Petition for Certiorari in a manner that is not in accordance with the law and jurisprudence.

  • The Supreme Court has the power to reverse and set aside the decisions of the lower courts, including the Court of Appeals.

  • The Order of the Regional Trial Court may be reinstated if the Supreme Court finds that its issuance was proper and lawful.