Gatmaytan v.

Dolor
Filing and Service of Pleadings
G.R. No. Ponente Date
198120 LEONEN, J. 20 February 2017
Petitioners Respondents
MERCEDES S. GATMAYTAN FRANCISCO DOLOR (SUBSTITUTED BY
HIS HEIRS) AND HERMOGENA DOLOR

DOCTRINE: When a party's counsel serves a notice of change in address upon a court,
and the court acknowledges this change, 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. Proof, however, of ineffectual service at a counsel's former
address is not necessarily proof of a party's claim of when service was made at the updated
address. 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. A party who fails
to discharge his or her burden of proof is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

I. FACTS:
● The case stemmed from the RTC's March 27, 2006 Decision, resolving an action for
reconveyance against Gatmaytan, and in favor of the Francisco and Hermogena Dolor (Dolor
Spouses). The RTC ordered Gatmaytan to convey the subject lot to the Dolor Spouses.
● Gatmaytan filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Gatmaytan then filed an
appeal with the CA, which the CA dismissed, ruling that the RTC's March 27, 2006 Decision
had already attained finality as Gatmaytan filed her Motion for Reconsideration beyond the
requisite 15-day period.
o The RTC's Decision was rendered on March 27, 2006.
o Per the registry return receipt attached to the back portion of the last page of the RTC's
Decision, Gatmaytan's counsel, Atty. Raymond Palad, received a copy of the same
Decision on April 14, 2006.
o Gatmaytan filed her Motion for Reconsideration only on June 16, 2006.
● Gatmaytan filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The CA denied the same. It emphasized that
the Receipt at the back of the last page of the RTC's Decision indicated that a copy of the
same Decision was received by a certain Maricel Luis, for and on behalf of Atty. Palad, on
April 14, 2006. The CA added that previous orders of the RTC were likewise received by Luis,
and that Luis' authority to receive for Atty. Palad had never been questioned.
● Gatmaytan filed the Present Petition, insisting that the RTC's March 27, 2006 Decision has
not attained finality as the April 14, 2006 service was made to her counsel's former address
as opposed to the address that her counsel indicated in a June 8, 2004 Notice of Change of
Address filed with the RTC. Gatmaytan adds that the RTC noted the change of address in an
Order, and directed that, from then on, service of papers, pleadings, and processes was to be
made at her counsel's updated address at Unit 602, No. 42 Prince Jun Condominium, Timog
Avenue, Quezon City.

II. Issue/s
Whether or not the RTC’s March 27, 2006 Decision has already attained finality, thus,
precluding the filing of petitioner Gatmaytan’s appeal with the CA. (YES)

III. Ratio/Legal Basis

● It is elementary that "[a]ppeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege." As
such, one who wishes to file an appeal "must comply with the requirements of the rules,
failing in which the right to appeal is lost." It is just as basic that a judgment can no longer
be disturbed, altered, or modified as soon as it becomes final and executory; "nothing is more
settled in law." Once a case is decided with finality, the controversy is settled and the matter
is laid to rest.
● Accordingly, a final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or
law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering
it or by the highest court of the land.
● In accordance with Rule 36, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, unless a Motion
for Reconsideration is timely filed, the judgment or final order from which it arose shall
become final. In turn, Rule 37, Section 1, in relation to Rule 41, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, allows for 15 days from notice of a judgment or final order within which
a Motion for Reconsideration may be filed.
● Reckoning the date when a party is deemed to have been given notice of the judgment or final
order subject of his or her Motion for Reconsideration depends on the manner by which the
judgment of final order was served upon the party himself or herself. When, however, a party
is represented and has appeared by counsel, service shall, as a rule, be made upon his or
her counsel.
● As Rule 13, Section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Section 2. Filing and Service, Defined. – Service is the act of providing a party with
a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel,
service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the
party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he
shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side.

● Service upon the parties' counsels of record is tantamount to service upon the parties
themselves, but service upon the parties themselves is not considered service upon
their lawyers. The reason is simple-the parties, generally, have no formal education or
knowledge of the rules of procedure, specifically, the mechanics of an appeal or availment of
legal remedies; thus, they may also be unaware of the rights and duties of a litigant relative
to the receipt of a decision. More importantly, it is best for the courts to deal only with one
person in the interest of orderly procedure-either the lawyer retained by the party or the party
him/herself ifs/he does not intend to hire a lawyer.
● While Gatmaytan filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC’s March 27, 2006
Decision, there is a dispute as to the date from which the 15-day period for filing a
Motion for Reconsideration must be reckoned. That is, there is a dispute as to when she
was given notice of the Decision. The CA refused to entertain her appeal reasoning that the
judgment appealed from has attained finality. This is because she belatedly filed her Motion
for Reconsideration on June 16, 2006 considering that her counsel supposedly received
notice of it on April 14, 2006. Gatmaytan insists that the Motion was timely filed, her counsel
having received notice of it only on June 1, 2006.
o She claims that the CA wrongly reckoned service on April 14, 2006 as the service
made on this date was upon her counsel's former address. She adds that service upon
her counsel's updated and correct address was made only on June 1, 2006.
● We sustain Gatmaytan’s position that the service made on her counsel's former address was
ineffectual. We find however, that she failed to discharge her burden of proving the specific
date - allegedly June 1, 2006 - in which service upon her counsel's updated address was
actually made.
o Having failed to establish the reckoning point of the period for filing her Motion for
Reconsideration, we cannot sustain the conclusion that petitioner insists on, and which
is merely contingent on this reckoning point. We cannot conclude that her Motion for
Reconsideration was timely filed. Having failed to discharge her burden of proof, we
are constrained to deny her Petition.
o None of the documents that Gatmaytan adduced before this Court attests to the truth
of her allegation that service to her counsel's new and correct address was made only
on June 1, 2006. In her Petition, she alluded to a receipt attached at the back of the
RTC's March 27, 2006 decision. No copy of this receipt, however, was produced by
her.

IV. Disposition
Lacking evidentiary basis, petitioner's contention that service upon her counsel's updated
and correct address was made only on June 1, 2006 cannot be sustained. As her plea for
relief hinges on this singular detail, we are constrained to deny such. Bereft of any avenue
for revisiting the Regional Trial Court's March 27, 2006 Decision, its findings and ruling
must stand.
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.

V. Notes (OPTIONAL)