Gatmaytan vs. Dolor (G.R. No. 198120, February 20, 2017) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts 

Petitioner Mercedes S. Gatmaytan was the losing party in an action for reconveyance before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC). Gatmaytan’s counsel, Atty. Raymond Palad, filed a Notice of Change of Address on June 8, 2004, updating his address from No. 117 West Avenue to Unit 602, No. 42 Prince Jun Condominium, Timog Avenue, Quezon City. The RTC issued an Order noting this change and directing future service of papers, pleadings, and processes be made at the updated address.

The RTC Decision, dated March 27, 2006, was served at the counsel’s former address on April 14, 2006. Gatmaytan filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) on June 16, 2006.

Gatmaytan insisted the April 14, 2006 service was ineffectual and that service upon the correct, updated address was made only on June 1, 2006, making her June 16, 2006 MR timely filed (within the 15-day period). The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the appeal, ruling that the RTC Decision had attained finality based on the April 14, 2006 service. Gatmaytan failed to present any documentary proof (such as the registry receipt, return card, or postal certification) to substantiate her claim that actual service at the updated address occurred only on June 1, 2006.

Issues

Whether the Regional Trial Court’s March 27, 2006 Decision has already attained finality thus, precluding the filing of petitioner Mercedes S. Gatmaytan’s appeal with the Court of Appeals.

Ruling

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED, the assailed March 24, 2011 Decision and August 9, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Division, in CA-G.R. CV No. 88709 are AFFIRMED.”.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

1. Ineffectual Service at Former Address: When a party’s counsel serves a notice of change in address upon a court, and the court acknowledges this change via an Order, service of papers, processes, and pleadings upon the counsel’s former address is ineffectual. Service is deemed completed only when made at the updated address. To hold otherwise would violate the party’s right to due process.
2. Service Upon Counsel: If a party is represented by counsel, service must be made upon his or her counsel, unless the court orders service upon the party himself (Rule 13, Sec 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
3. Burden of Proof for Affirmative Allegation: A party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. A mere allegation is insufficient; the burden must be discharged with the requisite quantum of evidence.
4. Distinct Burden of Proof: The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of when service was made is distinct from the burden of proving the allegation of where service was or was not made.
5. Proof of Service: Proof of mailing and service required to establish the date of receipt includes (1) certifications from the official Post Office record book and/or delivery book; (2) the actual page of the postal delivery book showing acknowledgment of receipt; (3) registry receipt; and (4) return card.
6. Consequence of Failure to Prove: A party who fails to discharge his or her burden of proof regarding the date of service, which is the reckoning point for the prescriptive period, is not entitled to the relief prayed for.
7. Finality of Judgment: Once a judgment becomes final, it can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified. Appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from (Rule 41, Sec 3).

Sample Q&A

Q: Atty. X successfully filed a Notice of Change of Address which was noted by the court, establishing his new address. The RTC later served its unfavorable Decision to Atty. X’s former address on May 1, 2024, which he disregarded as ineffectual. The court subsequently mailed a copy to the new address, which Atty. X alleges was received on May 10, 2024. Atty. X files his Motion for Reconsideration on May 27, 2024. If the opposing counsel argues the decision is already final, citing the ineffectual May 1 service and arguing that Atty. X failed to prove his May 10 receipt, how should the Supreme Court rule, and on what legal basis?

A: The Supreme Court should deny Atty. X’s appeal/motion for relief and hold that the RTC Decision has attained finality. While the service made at the former address on May 1, 2024, was indeed ineffectual because the court was previously ordered to use the updated address, Atty. X failed to discharge his burden of proving the specific date (May 10, 2024) when service at the updated address was actually made.

Since the period for filing a Motion for Reconsideration is 15 days from notice (Rule 41, Sec 3), and Atty. X’s claim that he filed within this period hinges entirely on the unproven May 10 receipt date, his failure to present corroborating evidence (such as a registry receipt, return card, or postal certification) is fatal to his claim. A party who fails to discharge the burden of proving an affirmative allegation is not entitled to relief. Consequently, having failed to establish the reckoning point, the court cannot conclude that the MR, filed on May 27, 2024, was timely.

---

GatmaytanVsDolor #GR198120 #ServiceOfPleadings #BurdenOfProof #CivilProcedure #RulesOfCourt #ProofOfService #NoticeOfChangeOfAddress #FinalityOfJudgment #DueProcess #OnusProbandi #LawPH #PhilippineLaw #AttyPH #LawStudentPH #BarExamsPH #CaseDigest #SupremeCourtPH #JurisprudencePH #RemedialLaw #LegalPracticePH #Lawyer #LawFirm #Legal #LawSchool #LawStudents #LawyerLife #LegalUpdates #StudyLaw #KnowYourRightsPH #Philippines