Abutin vs. San Juan

A final order served by registered mail becomes final upon actual receipt by the addressee or by a person of sufficient discretion at the addressee's mailing address; once final, the trial court loses jurisdiction to set it aside, and a judge who does so commits grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari. A judge likewise commits grave abuse of discretion in dismissing an appeal for failure to include a record on appeal when that failure is attributable to the fault of the clerk of court.

Corazon M. San Juan, who had no surviving ascendants or descendants, had been in a same-sex relationship with Purita Dayao and lived with Purita and Purita's daughter, Filipina D. Abutin, in a residential house on a 108-square-meter lot in Tondo, Manila. Corazon left holographic wills purporting to bequeath her properties to Purita and Filipina. Corazon's sister, Julita San Juan, and niece, Josephine San Juan, were among those who opposed the probate of those wills. The dispute concerned the probate of holographic wills and the procedural consequences of service of the probate court's order on the parties' counsel.

Corazon M. San Juan, who had been in a same-sex relationship with Purita Dayao, died on March 23, 2008, without any surviving ascendants or descendants. She left behind a 108-square-meter lot in Tondo, Manila, on which a residential house was constructed. Corazon and Purita lived in that house for 48 years, along with Purita's daughter, Filipina D. Abutin. Corazon left three holographic wills: the first dated December 23, 2007; the second dated March 10, 2008; and the third undated. Although phrased differently, each will bequeathed to Purita and Filipina all of Corazon's properties, which she referred to as "lote, bahay at lahat ng aking maiiwan."

On July 7, 2008, Purita and Filipina filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila a Petition for the probate of the three holographic wills. On September 2, 2008, Corazon's sister, Julita San Juan, and Corazon's niece, respondent Josephine San Juan, filed an Opposition to the Petition for Probate. During trial, three witnesses authenticated Corazon's handwriting and signature: Cecilia San Juan, who testified that she was familiar with Corazon's signature and handwriting; Norma Manabat, who testified that she personally witnessed Corazon write and sign a will; and Romero Magcuro, a document expert from the National Bureau of Investigation's Questioned Documents Section. Magcuro testified that the handwriting and signatures on the purported wills were made by one and the same person as those on documents containing Corazon's authentic signature and handwriting.

In an Order dated December 28, 2015, the Regional Trial Court, through Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso, admitted to probate the wills dated December 23, 2006 and March 10, 2008. Both parties, through their respective counsels—Atty. Raul A. Mora for Purita and Filipina, and Atty. Adorlito B. Ginete for Julita and Josephine—were served copies of this Order by registered mail. Sometime in March 2016, Purita and Filipina, believing that the Order should have attained finality because no motion for reconsideration had been filed, inquired with the Regional Trial Court as to when Atty. Ginete received a copy. After being told to return on another day and then being given information on how to inquire with the Post Office, they obtained a Certification from the Office of the Postmaster that the copy for Julita and Josephine had been received on behalf of Atty. Ginete by Rodnelito Capuno on February 9, 2016.

On April 6, 2016, Atty. Ginete filed a Manifestation with Motion to withdraw appearance. He disavowed receiving a copy of the December 28, 2015 Order and explained that he only learned of it when informed by Josephine; he also stated that he was withdrawing because he was running as mayor of Sta. Teresita, Batangas. Convinced that the Order had attained finality, Purita and Filipina filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment and Writ of Execution on April 7, 2016. On April 12, 2016, Julita and Josephine, through their new counsel, Atty. Melchor V. Mibolos, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 28, 2015 Order. Purita and Filipina filed a Motion to Strike Out the Motion for Reconsideration on April 19, 2016, and an Opposition on May 2, 2016; attached to the Opposition were several registry return receipts for pleadings addressed to Atty. Ginete but actually received for him by Capuno. Josephine filed a Reply on May 20, 2016, attaching Atty. Ginete's Affidavit insisting that Capuno was not authorized to receive mail for him. Purita and Filipina filed a Rejoinder on June 9, 2016. Julita and Purita died during the proceedings.

On November 25, 2016, the Regional Trial Court issued an Order setting aside its December 28, 2015 Order and denying probate to the wills dated December 23, 2006 and March 10, 2008. Filipina filed her Notice of Appeal on January 11, 2017. On February 20, 2017, Josephine filed a Manifestation with Motion asking that Filipina's Notice of Appeal be dismissed because it was unaccompanied by the record on appeal. Filipina opposed, explaining that she could not furnish the record on appeal because the Clerk of Court, who had already received P2,000.00 for photocopying the relevant documents, told her that completion of the records was stopped because Josephine opposed it; she also filed a Motion to Admit Record on Appeal. In an Order dated August 7, 2017, the Regional Trial Court denied Filipina's Motion to Admit Record on Appeal and dismissed her appeal for failing to include the record on appeal. The Court of Appeals later noted that Atty. Ginete did not refute the evidence that several registry return receipts bore Capuno's name and signature, indicating that Capuno had been customarily receiving decisions or orders from the courts.

• Finality of the December 28, 2015 Order: Petitioner maintained that the Order had attained finality because the copy for respondent's counsel, Atty. Ginete, was received by Capuno on February 9, 2016, and no motion for reconsideration was filed within fifteen days; the later motion filed on April 12, 2016 was too late.
• Grave Abuse in Reversing the Order: Petitioner argued that Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she set aside her own final December 28, 2015 Order and denied probate to the holographic wills.
• Grave Abuse in Dismissing the Appeal: Petitioner argued that the dismissal of her appeal for failure to include the record on appeal was grave abuse because the omission was not her fault; the Clerk of Court, after receiving P2,000.00 for photocopying, stopped completing the records on account of respondent's opposition.

• Invalid Service: Respondent consistently claimed that receipt by Capuno did not amount to valid service because Capuno was never authorized to receive mail matter for Atty. Ginete.
• Void Judgment: Respondent contended that the December 28, 2015 Order was void because it supposedly relied on NBI document expert Romero Magcuro's testimony, and, citing Heirs of Borres vs. Abela, that a void judgment never acquires finality.
• Dismissal of Appeal: Respondent, through Josephine, filed a Manifestation with Motion asking that Filipina's Notice of Appeal be dismissed because it was unaccompanied by the record on appeal.

• Reversal of the Final Probate Order: Whether Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing her own December 28, 2015 Order allowing probate of the holographic wills dated December 23, 2006 and March 10, 2008.
• Dismissal of the Appeal: Whether Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner Filipina D. Abutin's appeal for failing to include the record on appeal.

• Reversal of the Final Probate Order: Yes. The December 28, 2015 Order became final upon valid service on Atty. Ginete through Capuno on February 9, 2016, and no timely motion for reconsideration was filed; the trial court lost jurisdiction to set it aside.
• Dismissal of the Appeal: Yes. The failure to include the record on appeal was attributable to the Regional Trial Court's Clerk of Court, and dismissing the appeal on that ground was grave abuse of discretion.

• Reversal of the Final Probate Order: The Court applied Rule 13, Section 2: service upon counsel is service upon the client. The December 28, 2015 Order was a final order served by registered mail. Under Rule 13, Section 10, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five days from the postmaster's first notice, whichever is earlier. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Fernando Alsua held that delivery to a person of sufficient discretion to receive the mail is sufficient. Capuno received the Order on February 9, 2016; registry return receipts showed he had customarily received court mail for Atty. Ginete, and Atty. Ginete offered only bare denial. Service was therefore complete on February 9, 2016. The 15-day period to move for reconsideration ran from that date under Rule 37, Section 1 and Rule 41, Section 3. No motion for reconsideration was filed until April 12, 2016, after Purita and Filipina had already moved for execution. The Order thus lapsed into finality under Rule 36, Section 2. Gatmaytan vs. Dolor confirmed that a final judgment may no longer be modified and that the court loses jurisdiction. Respondent's reliance on Heirs of Borres vs. Abela was misplaced: that case involved a void judgment penned by a retired judge, not a mere error in judgment. Atty. Ginete's withdrawal and disavowal came too late; the negligence of counsel binds the client, subject only to the exception of reckless or gross negligence depriving the client of due process, which was not shown. Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso's reversal of her own final Order was manifest disregard of settled procedure and grave abuse of discretion.
• Dismissal of the Appeal: Rule 41, Section 10 imposes on the clerk of court the duty, after perfection of appeal, to verify the correctness and completeness of records, take measures to complete them, and transmit them to the appellate court. Petitioner's failure to include the record on appeal was caused by the Clerk of Court, who received P2,000.00 for photocopying but stopped completing the records because respondent opposed. The judge ignored her own subordinate's impropriety and dismissed the appeal for lack of record on appeal. Because the failure was attributable to the fault of the court's own subordinate, the dismissal was grave abuse of discretion and enabled a violation of Rule 41, Section 10. The finality of the December 28, 2015 Order already mooted the need for the appeal, but the dismissal independently constituted grave abuse.

• Grave abuse of discretion — Defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or acting in contemplation of law as when judgment is based on caprice, whim, and despotism. Mere abuse is not enough; it must be patent and gross. The Court applied this to Judge Patrimonio-Soriaso's reversal of her final order and dismissal of the appeal.
• Service upon counsel is service upon the client — Under Rule 13, Section 2, if a party has appeared by counsel, service upon the counsel is effective service upon the party. Notices of all kinds, including motions, pleadings, and orders, must be served on counsel, and notice to counsel is notice to client. The Court applied this to service of the December 28, 2015 Order on Atty. Ginete.
• Completeness of service by registered mail and delivery to a person of sufficient discretion — Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five days from the date the addressee received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever is earlier. Actual delivery to a person of sufficient discretion to receive the mail is sufficient, even if that person is not expressly authorized by special power of attorney. The Court applied this to Capuno's receipt of the Order on February 9, 2016.
• Finality and immutability of judgments — Once a judgment or final order becomes final, the court loses jurisdiction; it may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct a perceived error of fact or law, whether by the court rendering it or by the highest court. The finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event that cannot depend on a party's convenience. The Court applied this to the December 28, 2015 Order, which lapsed into finality after no timely motion for reconsideration.
• Negligence of counsel binds the client — The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, including mistakes in applying procedural rules. The exception is reckless or gross negligence of counsel that deprives the client of due process. The Court applied this to Atty. Ginete's failure to timely act, holding respondent bound by her counsel's negligence.
• Void judgment never acquires finality — A void judgment is no judgment at all, cannot be the source of any right or obligation, and never becomes final. However, this applies to judgments void for lack of authority, such as one penned by a retired judge, not to a judgment merely alleged to contain an error in judgment. The Court distinguished Heirs of Borres vs. Abela on this basis.
• Duties of the clerk of court upon perfection of appeal — Under Rule 41, Section 10, the clerk of court must verify the correctness and completeness of the records, take measures to complete incomplete records, and transmit them to the appellate court; if efforts fail, the clerk must indicate the missing exhibits or transcripts and the steps taken. The Court applied this to hold that the dismissal of petitioner's appeal for failure to include the record on appeal was grave abuse when the failure was caused by the clerk of court.

• "Obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure is not mere error of judgment. It amounts to evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law. It is grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari." — This opening passage states the ratio for the Court's finding of grave abuse of discretion and frames the standard applied to the trial judge's procedural lapses.
• "When a party is represented by counsel, "notices of all kinds, including motions, pleadings, and orders must be served on said counsel and notice to him is notice to client."" — This passage states the controlling rule on service upon counsel, which the Court used to treat service on Atty. Ginete as service on respondent.
• "All that the rules of procedure require in regard to service by registered mail is to have the postmaster deliver the same to the addressee himself or to a person of sufficient discretion to receive the same." — Quoted from Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Fernando Alsua, this passage defines the standard that made Capuno's receipt of the Order effective service.
• "The finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event which cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party." — Also quoted from Land Bank, this passage anchors the Court's conclusion that the December 28, 2015 Order had become final and could no longer be set aside.

• Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Fernando Alsua, 548 Phil. 680 (2007) — The Court relied on this as controlling precedent for the rule that service by registered mail is complete upon delivery to a person of sufficient discretion, and that finality of a decision is a jurisdictional event not dependent on a party's convenience. The Court found the facts similar because Capuno, like the security guard in Land Bank, customarily received court mail for counsel.
• Gatmaytan vs. Dolor, 806 Phil. 1 (2017) — Cited for the doctrine that a final judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified; once final, the court loses jurisdiction and any modification is null and void.
• Heirs of Borres vs. Abela, 554 Phil. 502 (2007) — Cited by respondent for the rule that a void judgment never acquires finality; the Court distinguished it because the judgment there was void for having been penned by a retired judge, not merely erroneous.
• Delos Santos vs. Elizalde, 543 Phil. 12 (2007) — Cited for the rationale that service upon counsel of record is tantamount to service upon the party, while service upon the party is not service upon counsel.
• Ong Lay Hin vs. Court of Appeals, 752 Phil. 15 (2015) — Cited for the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client, subject to the exception of reckless or gross negligence depriving the client of due process.
• State Prosecutors II Comilang and Lagman vs. Judge Medel Belen, 689 Phil. 134 (2012) — Cited for the holding that obstinate disregard of basic and established rules of law or procedure is not mere error of judgment but grave abuse of discretion.
• Crisologo vs. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corporation, 728 Phil. 315 (2014) — Cited for the rule that manifest disregard of basic rules and procedures constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
• Niaconsult, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 334 Phil. 16 (1997) — Cited for the purpose of service rules and the responsibility of recipients to devise a system for receiving mail.
• Laza vs. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 631 (1997) — Cited in Land Bank for the rule that delivery to any person of sufficient discretion to receive the mail is sufficient.

• Rule 13, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Defines filing and service; provides that if a party has appeared by counsel, service upon the counsel is service upon the party. Applied to service of the December 28, 2015 Order on Atty. Ginete.
• Rule 13, Section 5, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Modes of service: personally or by mail. Cited as background for service of the Order.
• Rule 13, Section 6, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Personal service by delivering copy to party or counsel, or leaving it in office with clerk or person in charge, or at residence with person of sufficient age and discretion. Cited in the Court's discussion of service modes.
• Rule 13, Section 7, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Service by registered mail by depositing copy in post office, addressed to party or counsel, postage prepaid, with instructions to return after ten days if undelivered; ordinary mail only if no registry service. Cited for service by mail.
• Rule 13, Section 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Judgments, final orders, or resolutions shall be served either personally or by registered mail. Applied to the December 28, 2015 Order.
• Rule 13, Section 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Completeness of service: personal service complete upon actual delivery; ordinary mail after ten days; registered mail upon actual receipt by addressee or after five days from first notice of postmaster, whichever is earlier. Applied to complete service on February 9, 2016.
• Rule 13, Section 11, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Preference for personal service; service by mail or substituted service must be accompanied by written explanation why not personal, except for papers emanating from the court. Cited in the service discussion.
• Rule 36, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided, the judgment or final order shall be entered by the clerk in the book of entries; date of finality is date of entry. Applied to the December 28, 2015 Order.
• Rule 37, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Grounds and period for motion for new trial or reconsideration; within the period for taking an appeal. Applied to the 15-day period from notice.
• Rule 41, Section 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Period of ordinary appeal: 15 days from notice; where record on appeal required, notice of appeal and record on appeal within 30 days; period interrupted by timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. Applied to finality and appeal.
• Rule 41, Section 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Duties of clerk of court upon perfection of appeal: verify correctness and completeness of records, take measures to complete incomplete records, transmit records; if efforts fail, indicate missing exhibits or transcripts and steps taken. Applied to the dismissal of petitioner's appeal.

Justices Carandang, Zalameda, and Gaerlan concurred. Justice Gesmundo was on official leave.