Intestate Estate of Domingo vs. Aquino

Service by registered mail of a court’s decision upon a party’s counsel of record is complete and effective upon the addressee’s failure to claim the mail within five days from the first notice of the postmaster, and the judgment becomes final if no appeal or motion for reconsideration is timely filed; a change of administrator or trial-level counsel does not automatically terminate the attorney-client relationship in the appellate court without a formal withdrawal and substitution.

During the intestate proceedings of Luis C. Domingo, Sr. in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, respondent Pedro A. Aquino filed a money claim for ₱20,000.00 based on a promissory note. The trial court approved the claim on August 7, 1961, with interest at 12% per annum from June 10, 1954 but without compound interest or stipulated attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, in a decision dated January 20, 1967, affirmed the lower court with modifications, ordering payment of ₱20,000.00 with compound interest at 12% from July 27, 1953, plus ₱500.00 attorney’s fees. The estate’s counsel of record in the appeal, Atty. Jose A. Unson, did not claim the registered mail containing the decision. The then administratrix, Consuelo Domingo de Lopez, belatedly sought to substitute herself and be served a copy of the decision so she could move for reconsideration, but the appellate court denied her motion because the judgment had already become final.

• Nature of the Action: An original petition for certiorari seeking to declare the Court of Appeals’ decision of January 20, 1967 void for alleged lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

• The Intestate Estate and the Money Claim: The intestate estate of Luis C. Domingo, Sr. was pending in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Pedro A. Aquino filed a money claim for ₱20,000.00 based on a promissory note that expressly stipulated compound interest and attorney’s fees. The trial court approved the claim but denied compound interest and the ₱500.00 attorney’s fees, prompting Aquino to appeal.

• Counsel and Administrator Changes: During the appeal, the estate was represented by Atty. Jose A. Unson as counsel of record. The co-administrator who engaged him, Luis Domingo, Jr., was removed on May 21, 1963, and Consuelo Domingo de Lopez became the sole administratrix. Atty. Unson filed a memorandum for the estate on August 17, 1963. In the intestate court, he was granted leave to withdraw as counsel effective November 8, 1966, due to his appointment as Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration. However, he never filed a withdrawal in the Court of Appeals, and no new counsel entered an appearance for the estate in that court.

• Service of the Appellate Decision: The Court of Appeals’ decision was mailed by registered mail to Atty. Unson at his address of record, 307 Trinity Building, San Luis, Ermita, Manila. He failed to claim the mail within five days from the first postmaster’s notice. The Manila Postmaster certified on March 14, 1967, that the registry letter was returned to the appellate court on March 9, 1967, unclaimed.

• Belated Motion and Denial: Petitioner administratrix, upon being verbally informed of the decision by respondent’s counsel, filed on March 9, 1967 an “Appearance with Motions for Substitution and to be served with a copy of the Judgment,” asking that she be substituted as party-administrator and that her new counsel be served the decision so she could file a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the motion on April 27, 1967, stating the judgment had become final. No motion for reconsideration was ever filed.

• Certiorari Petition: Almost five months later, on September 23, 1967, the administratrix filed the instant petition. She represented that the appellate court had awarded “new and further relief” by granting compound interest not imposed by the trial court, and that Atty. Unson had ceased to be counsel, making service upon him invalid. A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on November 7, 1967.

• Invalid Service and Lack of Finality: Petitioner argued that Atty. Unson was no longer counsel for the estate because the intestate court had already granted his withdrawal and the administrator who engaged him had been removed. Since the decision was not served upon the incumbent administratrix or her counsel, the period for filing a motion for reconsideration never commenced, and the appellate court’s judgment never became final. The denial of the motion for substitution was therefore premature and constituted an excess of jurisdiction.

• Excess of Jurisdiction on Compound Interest: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals acted beyond its jurisdiction by awarding compound interest, contending it was “new and further relief” that the trial court did not grant, effectively altering the judgment without a proper basis.

• Finality of Judgment: Respondent countered that the judgment had become final and executory because service upon Atty. Unson was valid under Rule 13, section 8 of the Rules of Court. His withdrawal in the intestate court did not operate to terminate his appearance in the appellate court without a formal withdrawal and substitution filed therein. His failure to claim the registered mail rendered service complete after five days, starting the period for finality.

• Proper Modification on Appeal: Respondent argued that the award of compound interest and attorney’s fees was proper because those items were expressly stipulated in the promissory note, had been prayed for before the trial court, and were the subject of respondent’s appeal, which the trial court itself suggested be resolved by the appellate court.

• Service and Finality: Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision had become final and executory by virtue of valid service upon Atty. Unson as counsel of record, despite his failure to claim the registered mail and the subsequent replacement of the administrator and the trial-level counsel.

• Excess of Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the judgment to award compound interest and attorney’s fees.

• Service and Finality: The decision was validly served upon Atty. Unson, who remained the estate’s counsel of record in the appellate court. He never filed a withdrawal in that court, and the estate never informed the court of any change of counsel or party-administrator as required by Rule 138, section 26. Atty. Unson’s withdrawal in the intestate court did not automatically sever his attorney-client relationship with the estate in a separate appeal; the estate itself had the duty to terminate him and notify the appellate court. Service by registered mail was completed upon his failure to claim the mail within five days from the first postmaster’s notice under Rule 13, section 8. Because no motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed within the reglementary period, the judgment became final and executory. The appellate court properly denied the belated motion for substitution, which sought to revive a lost period.

• Excess of Jurisdiction: The compound interest and attorney’s fees were not “new or further relief” devoid of basis. Respondent had prayed for them in the trial court precisely on the strength of the promissory note’s stipulation. The trial court, in denying respondent’s motion for reconsideration, expressly stated that the issue could be decided on appeal. Respondent duly appealed and assigned the denial as error. The Court of Appeals therefore acted within its appellate jurisdiction in modifying the judgment to conform to the note’s terms.

• Service by Registered Mail Completeness Rule — Under Rule 13, section 8, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt, but if the addressee fails to claim the mail within five days from the first notice of the postmaster, service takes effect at the expiration of that period. The rule serves public policy by preventing parties from indefinitely delaying finality through inaction. Applied here, Atty. Unson’s failure to claim the mail meant service was completed and the decision became final.

• Continuity of Counsel of Record — A counsel of record retains authority to represent a party until a formal withdrawal or substitution is filed with and approved by the court where the case is pending. A change in the party’s administrator or a grant of leave to withdraw in a different proceeding does not automatically terminate the attorney’s representation. The client bears the burden of terminating the relationship and informing the court. Because the estate never notified the appellate court of any change, Atty. Unson remained counsel of record, and service upon him bound the estate.

• “Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee; but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect at the expiration of such time.” — The restatement of the controlling rule on completeness of service, grounding the finality of the decision.

• “The party in the subject case was the intestate estate of the deceased Luis C. Domingo, Sr. and that Atty. Unson represented the estate as counsel in the said case. The fact that his services were engaged by Luis Domingo, Jr. in his (Luis’) official capacity as administrator, did not make him the personal counsel of Luis.” — Clarifying that the attorney-client relationship was with the estate, not the removed administrator, and therefore subsisted until formally terminated.

• “The cooperation of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless clogging of the court dockets with unmeritorious cases may be avoided. There must be more faithful adherence to Rule 7, section 5 of the Rules of Court…” — An admonition against filing frivolous petitions, enforcing the duty of candor and imposing treble costs on counsel.

• Fojas vs. Navarro, L-26365, April 30, 1970 — Followed as the most recent affirmation of the long-standing rule that registered mail service is complete upon failure to claim within five days; cited to confirm that the decision had become final.

• Pajares vs. Abad Santos, 30 SCRA 748 (Nov. 29, 1969) — Followed for its admonition that an attorney’s signature on a pleading certifies there is good ground and no purpose of delay; relied upon to impose treble costs and admonish petitioner’s counsel.

• Rule 13, section 8, Rules of Court — Defines completeness of service by registered mail. Applied to hold that service upon Atty. Unson was completed five days after first notice from the postmaster, despite his failure to claim the mail.

• Rule 138, section 26, Rules of Court — Governs change of attorneys and requires leave of court and notice of substitution. Applied to conclude that Atty. Unson remained counsel of record in the appellate court.

• Rule 7, section 5, Rules of Court — Imposes the requirement that an attorney’s signature constitutes a certificate of good ground and no intent to delay. Invoked as basis for admonishing counsel and imposing treble costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Villamor, Makasiar, JJ.