Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > January 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13764 January 30, 1960 - RAFAEL RUEDA v. MARCELO JUAN

106 Phil 1069:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13764. January 30, 1960.]

RAFAEL RUEDA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELO JUAN, ET AL., Defendants. VICTORIANO C. LULUQUISIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Zoilo P. Perlas for Appellee.

Luis Manalang & Associates for appellant Victoriano Luluquisin.


SYLLABUS


1. NOTICE; SERVICE OF NOTICE BY REGISTERED MAIL; NOT CONSTRUCTIVE IF ADDRESSEE IS DEAD. — While ill the ordinary course of business notice sent by registered mail to the correct address of a lawyer may be considered as a constructive notice that may bind him even if he fails to receive the mail within a reasonable time from notice (Section 8, Rule 27), the rule cannot apply when the addressee is already dead and there is no showing that the notice was received by a person of sufficient discretion to receive the same in behalf of said counsel (Section 4, Rule 27).

2. TRIAL; DEPRIVATION OF DAY IN COURT; OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD; STATUS OF JUDGMENT. — No one shall be personally bound until he has had a day in court, by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is a judicial usurpation and oppression, and can never be upheld where justice is justly administered (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1957 ed., p. 476).

3. JUDGMENT; ABSENCE OF DUE PROCESS; WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT MAY BE SET ASIDE. — A final and executory judgment may be set aside with a view to the renewal of the litigation when the judgment is void for lack of due process of law (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, supra, p. 523; Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921).


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On November 21, 1957, Victoriano C. Luluquisin filed a motion before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija praying that the decision rendered by that court on September 13, 1954 be annulled on the ground that it was rendered without giving him his day in court.

To this motion, Rafael Rueda filed his opposition contending that the court has already lost its jurisdiction to act thereon and so the motion cannot be entertained. In support of his opposition, he invoked Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court which provides that a petition for relief from a judgment or order of the court must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or order to be set aside, and not more than 6 months after said judgment is rendered, to be accompanied by affidavits of merit alleging facts constituting petitioner’s defense or cause of action, and since the motion of Luluquisin was apparently filed beyond the periods above- mentioned, hence the decision in question has already become binding and final and can no longer be set aside.

On December 13, 1957, the court issued an order sustaining the opposition and denying the motion, and when his motion for reconsideration was denied, Luluquisin interposed the present appeal.

The circumstances under which the decision which appellant seeks to set aside was rendered appears in the decision itself, the pertinent portion of which we quote:ClubJuris

"When this case was called for trial on September 3, 1954, Atty. Luis A. Cruz, did not appear notwithstanding that notice of this trial had been sent to him by registered mail on August 5, 1954. The return card, however, had not been received by this court. Considering the lapse of time from the date of the hearing, it must be presumed that Atty. Luis A. Cruz had received the notice to this trial, or should have received it in the ordinary course of mail. It must be observed that the records shows that two previous notices to Atty. Luis A. Cruz had been returned to this court, the same not having been received by the addressee. It would appear, therefore, that Atty. Cruz had deliberately refused to receive the notice. The plaintiff closed his evidence and the court considered the case submitted for decision." clubjuris

The reason now advanced by appellant for the failure of his former counsel Luis A. Cruz to receive the several notices of hearing sent to said counsel by registered mail and the consequent failure of appellant to be notified of the hearing and be present at the trial is the fact that said counsel died on April 4, 1954 for which reason said notices were returned without the mail having been called for, but when he came to know of his death, he immediately took steps to have the decision set aside and the case reopened in order that he may be given his day in court. The trial court, however, did not consider this explanation satisfactory and denied the motion on the ground that, even if appellant’s counsel has already died when the notices of hearing were sent to him by registered mail, said notices which were sent to the last known address of counsel constitute constructive notice which binds the counsel and his client and as such failure to receive them on that ground cannot serve as basis for the annulment of the decision. More specifically, the court made on this matter the following comment:ClubJuris

"The death of Atty. Luis A. Cruz and his consequent failure and that of the defendants to receive the notices are not sufficient grounds for the annulment of the decision. Notices having been sent by registered mail at the last known address of the counsel for the defendants and having been returned to this Court, the same constitutes constructive notice to counsel and defendants. That the notice had not been received because of the death of Atty. Luis A. Cruz does not make that failure a jurisdictional requisite which would annul the decision. The notice having been sent but not having been received by the lawyer because he is dead and as a consequence thereof defendants had not known of the status of the case only entitles the defendants to relief under Rule 38, Section 3. It was the duty of the defendants to inquire into the status of the case either from their lawyer or from the Court. The fact that they had allowed more than three years from the date of the decision to the filing of the motion is evidence of inexcusable negligence on their part. At any rate, the period prescribed by Rule 38 has already lapsed, and it is now too late to grant relief to the defendants." clubjuris

We fail to agree to the foregoing finding of the trial court for the record shows that when the notices of hearing were sent to the former counsel of appellant, said counsel was already dead, having died on April 4, 1954, or about one month before the date set for the hearing of the case. While in the ordinary course of business notice sent by registered mail to the correct address of a lawyer may be considered as a constructive notice that may bind him even if he fails to receive the mail within a reasonable time from notice (Section 8, Rule 27), the rule cannot apply when the addressee is already dead and there is no showing that the notice was received by a person of sufficient discretion to receive the same in behalf of said counsel (Section 4, Rule 27). Here there is no such showing. As a matter of fact, the two notices sent to appellant’s former counsel were returned with the mail unclaimed which shows that they did not reach any person of sufficient discretion to receive the same in behalf of counsel and appellant court not have known within a reasonable time the death of his counsel because while the latter resided in Manila the former was then living in Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija. The record shows that appellant was not given personal or constructive notice of the hearing which accounted for his failure to appear in court.

It is a well settled rule that "no one shall be personally bound until he has had a day in court, by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is a judicial usurpation and oppression, and can never be upheld where justice is justly administered 1 (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. I, 1957 ed., p. 476). And it has been held that a final and executory judgment may be set aside with a view to the renewal of the litigation when the judgment is void for lack of due process of law (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, supra, p. 523; Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921).

Wherefore, the orders appealed from are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The decision rendered by the trial court on September 13, 1954 is also set aside. Costs against appellee.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Ong Su Han v. Gutiérrez David, 76 Phil., 546, quoting Lerma v. Antonio, 6 Phil., 236, Muerteguy v. Delgado, 22 Phil., 109; Lavitoria v. Judge, 32 Phil., 204; Villegas v. Roldan, 76 Phil., 349.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



January-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16413 January 26, 1960 - EMILIO C. SANTOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-10854 January 27, 1960 - MANILA POLO CLUB v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    106 Phil 885

  • G.R. Nos. L-12091 & L-12092 January 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIM HO

    106 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-9075 January 29, 1960 - S. V. S. PICTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 897

  • G.R. No. L-12476 January 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANGLO CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK

    106 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12573 January 29, 1960 - PAULINA DURAN v. BERNARDINO PAGARIGAN

    106 Phil 907

  • G.R. Nos. L-12614 & L-12615. January 29, 1960 - JUAN ESTELLA, ET., AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL

    106 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12981 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: MARCIANO DEETUANKA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-13194 January 29, 1960 - BUENAVENTURA T. SALDAÑA v. PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO., INC.

    106 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-13489 January 29, 1960 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JOSE J. GONZALES

    106 Phil 925

  • G.R. No. L-13536 January 29, 1960 - ADRIANO VALDEZ v. RODRIGO OCUMEN

    106 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-13956 January 29, 1960 - ROMULO C. NICOLAS v. FULGENCIO DACARA

    106 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-14027 January 29, 1960 - LIBERTAD ALTAVAS CONLU v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-14306 January 29, 1960 - PABLO CALION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-14341 January 29, 1960 - MARCIANO SONGAHID v. BENITO CINCO

    106 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-14359 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: SALVADORA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-16360 January 29, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-6406 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KUSAIN SAIK

    106 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-9483 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS NANA

    106 Phil 966

  • G.R. No. L-11215 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO BALOYO

    106 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-11430 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS ESTACIO

    106 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-11756 January 30, 1960 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. MA- AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC.

    106 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-11908 January 30, 1960 - FLORA CAMPANERO v. APOLONIO T. COLOMA

    106 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-12105 January 30, 1960 - TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN v. MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN

    106 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-12280 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO TEMPLONUEVO

    106 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-12661 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ARANDA

    106 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-12692 January 30, 1960 - COSMIC LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. AGAPITA MANAOIS

    106 Phil 1015

  • G.R. No. L-12754 January 30, 1960 - ESTANISLAO ALFONSO v. PASAY CITY

    106 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-13146 January 30, 1960 - VALENTIN CASTILLO v. ARTURO SAMONTE

    106 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13160 January 30, 1960 - BIENVENIDO NERA v. PAULINO GARCIA

    106 Phil 1031

  • G.R. No. L-13274 January 30, 1960 - REMEDIOS SACLOLO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1038

  • G.R. No. L-13399 January 30, 1960 - ALBERTA VICENCIO v. GAVINO TUMALAD

    106 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-13456 January 30, 1960 - IRINEO C. HAMOY v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

    106 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13488 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG

    106 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-13551 January 30, 1960 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ABUNDIO MADRID

    106 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-13564 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CENTENERA v. NICASIO YATCO

    106 Phil 1064

  • G.R. No. L-13764 January 30, 1960 - RAFAEL RUEDA v. MARCELO JUAN

    106 Phil 1069

  • G.R. No. L-13781 January 30, 1960 - Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA v. JOSE JAVELLANA

    106 Phil 1073

  • G.R. No. L-14016 January 30, 1960 - ALFREDO FORMOSO v. DELFIN S. FLORES

    106 Phil 1079

  • G.R. Nos. L-14023 & L-14135 January 30, 1960 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-14047 January 30, 1960 - PRIMO PANTI v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CATANDUANES

    106 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-14109 January 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LUMBER & HARDWARE CO. v. PEDRO J. VELASCO

    106 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-14310 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    106 Phil 1103

  • G.R. No. L-14327 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO BORJA

    106 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-14373 January 30, 1960 - GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. NG HUA

    106 Phil 1117

  • G.R. No. L-14375 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CASTILLO v. FROILAN BAYONA

    106 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-14535 January 30, 1960 - BENITO SYMACO v. PATERIO AQUINO

    106 Phil 1130

  • G.R. No. L-14674 January 30, 1960 - MELECIO R. DOMINGO v. JUDGE S. C. MOSCOSO

    106 Phil 1138

  • G.R. No. L-16286 January 30, 1960 - CESAR SAMSON v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

    106 Phil 1140