AND Y QUE LNAN v s VHF P HILIP P INE S

FAC TS:

 V H F f il e d an e je ctme n t s ui t agai n s t Q ue l n an . Me TC s e rv e d su mmon s wi th the

copy of the compl ai n t th ru h is wi fe by su bs ti tu te d s erv i ce an d th e pe ti ti on e r
f ai l e d to f i l e hi s an s we r wi th i n the re gl e men tary pe ri od.
 A de ci s i on was ren de re d i n f av or th e res pon de n t. A copy of th e de ci si on was
s e rv e d by re gis te re d mai l bu t th e s ame was re tu rn e d u n cl ai me d on accou n t of
pe ti ti on e rs ’ f ai l u re to cl ai m th e s ame des pi te th e pos tmas te rs th ree cons e cu ti v e
n oti ce s , N ove mbe r 2 5 , D e ce mbe r 7 an d D e ce mbe r 11
 N o appe al h av i n g be en tak e n by th e pe ti ti on e r, th e Me TC de cis i on be came f in al
an d e xe cu tor
 a wri t of e xe cu ti on , a n oti ce of l e v y an d a n oti ce to v acate we re se rv e d on
pe ti ti on e r's wi f e wh o ack n owl e dge d re ce i pt th e re of
 pe ti ti on e r fi l e d wi th th e Re gi on al Tri al Cou rt (RTC) at Man i l a a   Petition for
Relief from Judgment With Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or temporary
restraining order
o n e ve r s e rve d wi th s u mmons an d was compl e te l y u n aware of th e
e je ctme n t s u i t, he l e arn e d of the ju dgme n t on l y on May 1 8 , 19 93 wh e n a
n oti ce of l ev y on ex e cu ti on came to hi s k n owl e dge .
 th e RTC gran te d pe ti ti on e r's pe ti ti on f or re l i ef an d s e t as i de the Me TC de ci s i on .
o Th e RTC e x pl ai n e d th at pe ti ti on e r h ad be e n un du l y de pri v e d of a h e ari n g
an d h ad bee n pre v e n te d f rom tak i n g an appe al f or the re as on th at
pe ti ti on e r's wi f e , in a f i t of an ge r, tore th e s u mmons an d compl ai n t in
th e e je ctme n t su i t i n th e h e at of a mari tal s qu abbl e
o th i s con s ti tu te d e xcu s abl e n e gl i gen ce as wou l d ju s ti f y th e f il i n g of th e
pe ti ti on f or re l ie f from ju dgme n t.
 Re s pon de n t s ou gh t re con s i de rati on of the RTC de ci s i on bu t i ts ' moti on a was
de n ie d by s ai d cou rt
 Th e re f rom, re s pon de n t di re ctl y wen t to th i s Cou rt on a pe ti ti on f or re vi e w,
wh i ch pe ti ti on was re man de d by th i s Cou rt to th e Cou rt of Appe al s (CA)
 th e appe l l ate cou rt, in a   dec isio n dat ed Sept ember 1 7 , 19 9 7 ,[7 ]   u pon a
f i n di n g th at pe ti ti on e r's pe ti ti on f or re l i e f was f i l e d wi th the RTC bey o nd t he
6 0 -da y ma nda t o ry perio d the re f or u n de r S e cti on 3 , Ru l e 38 of th e Ru le s of
Cou rt, re v e rs e d an d s e t as i de th e RTC de ci s i on an d re i n s tate d th at of th e Me TC
 In ti me , pe ti ti on e r mov e d f or a re con si de rati on bu t h is moti on was de n ie d

ISSU E :

Wh e th e r or n ot th e 6 0 -day pe ri od of fi l i n g a pe ti ti on f or re l ie f f rom ju dgme n t mu s t be

re ck on e d f rom the ti me a party acqu i re d kn owl e dge of th e ju dgme n t – wh i ch i n th i s
cas e , th e pe ti ti on e r be came aware of th e de ci s i on on l y on May 1 8, 19 93 wh e n a n oti ce
to pay an d v acate was se rv e d on hi m by th e sh e ri ff

(1 ) i f a party f ai l s to cl ai m hi s copy of th e adv e rs e de ci s i on wh i ch was se n t

th rou gh re gi s te re d mai l , wh e n is he de e me d to h av e k n owl e dge of s ai d
de ci s i on ?
(2 ) wi l l th e pre s u mpti on of compl e te n es s of se rv i ce of a re gi s te re d mai l matte r
u n de r Ru le 13 , S e cti on 1 0 of th e 1 99 7 Ru le s of Ci v i l Proce du re [1 0 ]  appl y i n
re l ati on to th e 60 -day pe ri od f or f i l in g a pe ti ti on f or re l i e f f rom ju dgme n t
u n de r Ru le 38 , S e cti on 3 of the Rul e s ?
HE LD : NO

 Re l ie f f rom ju dgme n t u n de r Ru le 38 i s a le gal re me dy whe re by a party s ee k s to

s e t as i de a ju dgme n t re n de re d agai n s t h i m by a cou rt wh e ne v e r h e was u n jus tl y
de pri v e d of a h e ari n g or was prev e n te d f rom tak i n g an appe al , in ei th e r cas e ,
be cau s e of frau d, acci de n t, mis tak e or e x cus abl e ne gl e ct.

 A pe ti ti on f or re l i e f f rom ju dgme n t mu s t be f il e d wi th in : (a) 6 0 day s f rom

k n owl e dge of ju dgme n t, orde r or oth e r proce e di n gs to be s e t as i de ; an d (b) si x
(6 ) mon th s f rom e n try of su ch ju dgme n t, orde r or oth e r proce e di n g. Th e se two
pe ri ods mu s t con cu r. Both pe ri ods are al s o n ot ex te n di bl e an d ne v e r
i n te rru pte d

 S tri ct compl i an ce wi th th e s e pe ri ods s te ms f rom th e e qu i tabl e ch aracte r an d

n atu re of th e pe ti ti on f or re l ie f . In dee d, re li e f i s al l owe d on l y in ex ce pti on al
cas e s as whe n th e re i s n o oth e r av ai l abl e or ade qu ate re me dy . As i t we re , a
pe ti ti on f or re l ie f is actu al l y th e 'l as t ch an ce gi v e n by l aw to l i ti gan ts to
qu e s ti on a f in al ju dgme n t or orde r. An d f ai l u re to av ai l of su ch l as t ch an ce
wi th i n th e grace pe ri od f ix e d by the Ru l e s is f atal

 Th e con te n ti on th at th e pe ti ti on e r be came aware of th e ju dgme n t su bje ct of h i s

pe ti ti on f or re l ie f was on l y on May 1 8 , 19 93 i s n ot v al i d.

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 ?

 Th e re i s n o dou bt th at un de r th e Ru l es , se rv i ce by re gi s te re d mai l i s compl e te

u pon actu al re cei pt by the addre s se e . Howe v e r, i f th e addre s s e e f ai l s to cl ai m
h i s mai l f rom the pos t of fi ce wi th in fi v e (5 ) day s f rom th e date of th e f i rs t
n oti ce , se rv i ce be come s e ff e cti v e u pon the ex pi rati on of f i v e (5 ) day s the re f rom

 In su ch a cas e , th e re ari s es a pre s u mpti on th at th e se rv i ce was compl e te at th e

e n d of the s ai d f i ve - day pe ri od. Th i s me an s th at th e pe ri od to appe al or to f il e
th e n e ces s ary ple adi n g be gi n s to run af te r f i ve day s f rom the fi rs t n oti ce gi v en
by the pos tmas te r. Th i s i s be cau se a party is de e me d to h av e re ce iv e d an d to
h av e be e n n oti f i e d of th e ju dgme n t at th at poi n t .

o Th e re cords cle arl y re v e al th at a copy of th e Me TC de ci s i on was se n t to

pe ti ti on e r th rou gh re gi s te re d mai l at h i s gi v en addre s s on   No v ember
2 5 , 1 99 2 .

o It s h ou l d be n ote d th at pe ti ti on e r was n ot re pres e n te d by cou ns e l du ri n g

th e proce e di n gs be f ore th e Me TC. The first no t ic e t o him by t he
po st ma st er t o c hec k his ma il wa s o n No v ember 25 , 19 92 .
Therea ft e r, subsequent no t ic es were sent by t he po st ma st er o n
D ec ember 7 , 1 99 2 a nd D ec embe r 1 1 , 1 99 2 . For su re , a ce rti f i cati on
th at the re gi s te re d mai l was u n cl ai me d by th e pe ti ti on e r an d th u s
re tu rn e d to th e s en de r af te r th re e su cce s si v e n oti ce s was is s ue d by th e
pos tmas te r. He n ce , serv ic e o f sa id MeTC dec isio n bec a me effec t iv e
fiv e (5 ) day s a ft er No v ember 25 , 19 92 , o r o n   Nov embe r 3 0 , 1 99 2 ,
c o nfo rma bly wit h Rule 1 3 , Sec t io n 1 0 o f t he 19 97 Rules o f C iv il
P ro c edure
 o W it h t he rea lit y tha t pet it io ner wa s first no t ified by t he
po st ma st er o n No v ember 2 5 , 1 99 2 , it fo llo ws t hat serv ic e o f a
c o py o f t he MeTC dec isio n wa s deemed co mplet e a nd effec t iv e
fiv e (5 ) day s t herefro m o r o n   Nov embe r 3 0 , 1 99 2 .

Will the presumption of completeness of service of a registered mail matter under

Rule 13 , Section 10 of the 19 97 Rules of Civil Procedure [10 ]   apply in relation to the
6 0 -day period for filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 3 8 , Section 3 of
the Rules ?

 N e ces s ari l y , th e 6 0 -day pe ri od f or f i l in g a pe ti ti on f or re l i e f mu s t be re ck on e d

f rom su ch date (N ov e mbe r 3 0 , 1 99 2 ) as th i s was th e day whe n actu al re ce i pt by
pe ti ti on e r is pre s u me d. In sh ort, pe ti ti on e r was de e me d to h av e k n owl e dge of
th e Me TC de cis i on on N ov e mbe r 3 0 , 1 99 2 . Th e 6 0 -day pe ri od f or f i li n g a
pe ti ti on f or re l ie f thu s e x pi re d on J an u ary 2 9 , 1 99 3 . Un f ortu n ate l y , i t was on l y
on May 2 4 , 1 99 3 , or 17 5 day s af te r pe ti ti on e r was dee me d to h av e le arn e d of
th e ju dgme n t th at h e f il e d hi s pe ti ti on f or re l ie f wi th th e RTC. In du bi tabl y , th e
pe ti ti on was fi l e d way be y on d the 60 -day pe ri od prov i de d by l aw .

 Mo reo v er, t he rec o rds a re bereft o f a ny sho wing why pet it io ner fa iled
t o c la im his co py o f t he MeTC dec isio n. Fo r sure, pet it io ner ha s no t
o ffered a ny expla na t io n a s to why he wa s not a ble t o o bta in a c opy o f
sa id dec isio n despit e t he three no t ic es sent t o him by the po st ma st er.
The fa ilure to c la im a regist er ed ma il ma t t er o f whic h no t ic e ha d been
duly giv en by t he po st ma st er is no t a n exc usa ble neglec t tha t wo uld
wa rra nt the reo pening o f a dec ided c a se