d2015member

Andy Quelnan v. VHF Philippines (2005) Garcia, J. Facts:

VHF leased a condo unit in Roxas Blvd to Quelnan and later filed an ejectment suit. MeTC-Manila rendered judgment in favor of VHF finding that "summons together with a copy of the complaint was served to Quelnan thru his wife on Aug 25, 1992 by substituted service" and that Quelnan "failed to file his answer within the reglementary period." o Quelnan was ordered to vacate and to pay P1 million and some other sums for rentals and legal interest. Copy of MeTC decision was served on Quelnan by registered mail but it was returned unclaimed on account of petitioners failure to claim the same despite the postmasters three (3) successive notices (Nov 25, Dec 7, Dec 11, 1992) No appeal was filed so the MeTC decision became final and executory. May 18, 1993: a writ of execution, a notice of levy and a notice to vacate were served on Quelnans wife who acknowledged receipt May 24, 1993: Quelnan filed with RTC-Manila a Petition for Relief from Judgment with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or temporary restraining order, alleging that he was never served with summons and was unaware of the proceedings in the ejectment suit. He also says he learned of the judgment rendered only on May 18, 1993 when a notice of levy on execution came to his knowledge. He prayed for annulment of the MeTC decision and the writs issued. RTC set aside the MeTC decision. RTC says Quelnan was unduly deprived of a hearing and was prevented from an appeal because his wife, in a fit of anger, tore the summons/complaint in the ejectment suit in the heat of a marital squabble. o MR of VHFdenied. o VHF went straight to the SC (petition for review) but petition was remanded to the CA. CA reinstated MetC decision.

Issue/Held: If a party fails to claim his copy of the adverse decision which was sent through registered mail, when is he deemed to have knowledge of said decision? 5 days from first notice of the postmaster Will the presumption of completeness of service of a registered mail matter under Rule 13, Section 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure apply in relation to the 60-day period for filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, Section 3? YES Quelnan argument: He argues that the 60-day period for filing a petition for relief from judgment must be reckoned from the time a party acquired knowledge of the judgment. Hence, since he became aware of the MeTC decision only on May 18, 1993, Quelnan submits that his petition for relief from judgment was timely filed on May 24, 1993. Ratio: SC disagrees with Quelnan. Under the Rules, service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. However, if the addressee fails to claim his mail from the post office within 5 days from the date of the first notice, service becomes effective upon the expiration of 5 days therefrom. Rule 38, Sec 3. A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within: a. 60 days from knowledge of judgment, order or other proceedings to be set aside; and b. 6 months from entry of such judgment, order or other proceeding. c. These two periods must concur. Both periods are also not extendible and never interrupted. Strict compliance with these periods stems from the equitable character and nature of the petition for relief. Relief is allowed only in exceptional cases (when there is no other remedy). SC agrees that the 60-day period should be reckoned from the time the party has knowledge of the judgment but does not agree that it was only on May 18, 1993 when he became aware of the judgment. o records reveal that a copy of the MeTC decision was sent to Quelnan through registered mail at his given address on Nov 25, 1992. Quelnan was not represented by counsel during the MeTC proceedings. The first notice to him by the postmaster to check his mail was on Nov 25, 1992, followed by 2 more notices. For sure, a certification that the mail was unclaimed and thus returned to the sender after 3 successive notices would have been issued by the postmaster. (There was none). o Hence, service of MeTC decision became effective 5 days after the first notice on Nov 25, 1992. --- This is in conformity with Rule 13 Sec 10 of 1997 Rules of Civ Pro o SEC. 10. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after 5 days from the date he received the first notice of the postmaster, whichever date is earlier. This means that the period to appeal or to file the necessary pleading begins to run after 5 days from the first notice given by the postmaster. In such a case, there arises a presumption that the service was complete at the end of the 5-day period. This means that the period to appeal or to file the necessary pleading begins to run after 5 days from the first notice given by the postmaster. This is because a party is deemed to have received and to have been notified of the judgment at that point. Quelnan was first notified by the postmaster on Nov 25, 1992. Service of a copy of the MeTC decision was deemed complete 5 days therefrom (Nov 30). The 60-day period for filing a petition for relief must be reckoned from such date (Nov 30) as this was the day when actual receipt by petitioner is presumed. o Quelnan was deemed to have knowledge of the MeTC decision on Nov 30, 1992. The 60-day period thus expired on Jan 29, 1993. He filed only on May 24, 1993, or 175 days after.

d2015member

A petition for relief is actually the "last chance" given by law to litigants to question a final judgment or order. Failure to avail of such "last chance" within the grace period fixed by the Rules is fatal. Relief from judgment under Rule 38 is a legal remedy whereby a party seeks to set aside a judgment rendered against him whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing or was prevented from taking an appeal because of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect. He did not offer any explanation why he was not able to obtain a copy of the decision despite the 3 notices. Failure to claim a registered mail matter is not excusable neglect. RTCs reason for granting relief was based on excusable negligence: the act of Quelnans wife in tearing the summons/complaint because of marital disharmony. This is extending a plethora of leniency of the rules to the point of defeating justice to the other party. Rule 13 is intended to embrace and govern the filing of ALL pleadings, judgments, orders, notices and other papers, as well as the service. The records show that the service of summons upon Quelnans wife was effected in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 14, the law that provides for substituted service of summons. Whenever necessary, the presumption of completeness of service ought to be applied, as in this case. o The burden is on Quelnan to show that the postmasters notice never reached him. He failed to discharge his burden. In this case, the postmasters certification is the best evidence to prove that the first notice was sent. Petition denied.