February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 169365 : February 02, 2009] SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO AND LIWANAG SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VERSUS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRISELDA MAS, ATTY. LORENZO 0. NAVARRO, JR. AND JESSE LANTORIA, RESPONDENTS; AND G.R NO. 169669 - SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO AND LIWANAG SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. LORENZO O. NAVARRO, JR., CRISELDA MAS AND JESSE LANTORIA, RESPONDENTS :
[G.R. No. 169365 : February 02, 2009]
SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO AND LIWANAG SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VERSUS THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRISELDA MAS, ATTY. LORENZO 0. NAVARRO, JR. AND JESSE LANTORIA, RESPONDENTS; AND G.R NO. 169669 - SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO AND LIWANAG SANTIAGO, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. LORENZO O. NAVARRO, JR., CRISELDA MAS AND JESSE LANTORIA, RESPONDENTS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 February 2009:
G.R. No. 169365 - SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO and LIWANAG SANTIAGO, petitioners, versus THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRJSELDA MAS, ATTY. LORENZO 0. NAVARRO, JR. and JESSE LANTORIA, respondents; and G.R No. 169669 - SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO and LIWANAG SANTIAGO, petitioners, versus ATTY. LORENZO O. NAVARRO, JR., CRISELDA MAS and JESSE LANTORIA, respondents.
We resolve the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration of our Resolution dated November 25, 2008 (assailed Resolution) dismissing the consolidated petitions. Our assailed Resolution provides:
The arguments in the Consolidated Motion do not raise any new matter or new legal reason to justify a reconsideration of the assailed Resolution. This reason alone justifies the motion's denial.
We also see no merit in the petitioners' first, second, third, and fourth arguments. Our rules and their supporting jurisprudence hold that notice sent to counsel who is already dead (at that time the notice was served) is ineffective to bind the client.[1] In the present case, Atty. Navarro, the respondents' counsel of record, was already dead when copies of the consolidated petitions were sent at his given address. At that point, the attorney-client relationship between the respondents and Atty. Navarro had already been extinguished.[2]
We also reiterate that no proof on record shows that the respondents were served, actually or constructively, copies of the consolidated petition. The petitioners alleged that even when Atty. Navarro was still alive, the petitioners had already exerted their utmost in locating the whereabouts of Lantoria and Mas. In effect, they judicially admit that the respondents no longer resided at their given address and could no longer then be served, either actually or constructively, copies of the consolidated petitions.
The respondents cannot be personally bound until they have had their day in court, i.e., until they have been validly cited to appear, and have been afforded an opportunity to be heard.[3] The duty to furnish the correct address of the respondents lies with the petitioners themselves. They cannot delegate this responsibility to Mrs. Trinidad Navarro (Mrs. Navarro) as she is a stranger to the present cases.
In light of the foregoing, we see no compelling reason to reconsider our Resolution dated November 25, 2008. Any relief to the petitioners-spouses1 present predicament should be addressed to the trial courts to which the Court of Appeals remanded the subject criminal cases.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY WITH FINALITY the Motion for Reconsideration of our Resolution dated November 25, 2008. No further pleadings shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 169365 - SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO and LIWANAG SANTIAGO, petitioners, versus THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRJSELDA MAS, ATTY. LORENZO 0. NAVARRO, JR. and JESSE LANTORIA, respondents; and G.R No. 169669 - SPOUSES PEDRO SANTIAGO and LIWANAG SANTIAGO, petitioners, versus ATTY. LORENZO O. NAVARRO, JR., CRISELDA MAS and JESSE LANTORIA, respondents.
We resolve the Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration of our Resolution dated November 25, 2008 (assailed Resolution) dismissing the consolidated petitions. Our assailed Resolution provides:
In light of these developments, we RESOLVE to DENY the consolidated petitions pursuant to Section 5, Rule 45 and Section 5(d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Courl for the petitioners-spouses' failure to submit the required proof of service and their continued failure to effect service on the respondents. The "show cause" order issued to Mrs, Natividad P. Navarre is hereby. CANCELLEDThe requested reconsideration raises the following points:
SO ORDERED.
- SINCE THE PETITIONS WERE FILED UNDER RULE 45, NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF RECORD WAS NOTICE TO CLIENTS, RESPONDENTS MAS AND LANTORIA;
- SINCE THE ADDRESS OF MAS AND LANTORIA APPEARING THROUGH THE RECORDS WERE THAT OF THEIR COUNSEL AND/OR EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT ATTY. LORENZO NAVARRO, JR. THEN SERVICE OF COPIES OF THE PETITION AT THIS ADDRESS WAS SUFFICIENT;
- PETITIONERS HAD EXERTED EFFORTS TO LOCATE THE ADDRESSES OF RESPONDENTS MAS AND LANTORIA;
- PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE FAULT OF MRS. TRINIDAD NAVARRO
(ATTY. NAVARRO'S WIDOW) TO PROVIDE THE ADDRESSES OF MAS AND LANTORIA; and- THE GREATER INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE LEANS TOWARDS A RECONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
The arguments in the Consolidated Motion do not raise any new matter or new legal reason to justify a reconsideration of the assailed Resolution. This reason alone justifies the motion's denial.
We also see no merit in the petitioners' first, second, third, and fourth arguments. Our rules and their supporting jurisprudence hold that notice sent to counsel who is already dead (at that time the notice was served) is ineffective to bind the client.[1] In the present case, Atty. Navarro, the respondents' counsel of record, was already dead when copies of the consolidated petitions were sent at his given address. At that point, the attorney-client relationship between the respondents and Atty. Navarro had already been extinguished.[2]
We also reiterate that no proof on record shows that the respondents were served, actually or constructively, copies of the consolidated petition. The petitioners alleged that even when Atty. Navarro was still alive, the petitioners had already exerted their utmost in locating the whereabouts of Lantoria and Mas. In effect, they judicially admit that the respondents no longer resided at their given address and could no longer then be served, either actually or constructively, copies of the consolidated petitions.
The respondents cannot be personally bound until they have had their day in court, i.e., until they have been validly cited to appear, and have been afforded an opportunity to be heard.[3] The duty to furnish the correct address of the respondents lies with the petitioners themselves. They cannot delegate this responsibility to Mrs. Trinidad Navarro (Mrs. Navarro) as she is a stranger to the present cases.
In light of the foregoing, we see no compelling reason to reconsider our Resolution dated November 25, 2008. Any relief to the petitioners-spouses1 present predicament should be addressed to the trial courts to which the Court of Appeals remanded the subject criminal cases.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY WITH FINALITY the Motion for Reconsideration of our Resolution dated November 25, 2008. No further pleadings shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rueda v. Juan. 106 Phil. 1069,1171 (1960); and Heirs of Masangya v. Masangya, G.R. No. 84091, August 30. 1990. 189 SCRA 234, 238 (1990).
[2] But see: Amatorio v. People, G.R. No. 150453, February 14, 2003: 397 SCRA 445. 454 and Bernardo v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 106153. July 14, 1997, 275 SCRA 413, 427.
[3] Rueda v. Juan, supra note 1. p. 1073.
