ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138806. April 12, 2000]

TERESITA DICHAUCO vs. UNIBANCARD CORP.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 12 2000.

G.R. No. 138806 (Teresita Dichauco vs. Unibancard Corporation.)

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Teresita Dichauco seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision, dated 25 March 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49799 affirming the issuance of an alias writ of execution against her. Petitioner likewise seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution, dated 20 May 1999, denying her motion for reconsideration.

The case arose from the complaint for collection of sum of money filed by respondent Unibancard Corporation against Jacky Chan and petitioner. On 27 March 1992, after due trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 141 of Makati City rendered City rendered judgment against petitioner. On 18 July 1994, respondent moved for its execution alleging that petitioner, through counsel, received a copy of the lower court's decision on 9 June 1994 and since petitioner did not interpose an appeal within the reglementary period, said decision had become final and executory. On 15 September 1998, the lower court granted respondent's motion and ordered the issuance of an alias writ of execution to enforce its decision.

On appeal by certiorari, the CA affirmed the order of the lower court. The appellate court did not give credence to petitioner's claim that her counsel did not receive a copy of the decision of the lower court. The CA, like the lower court, considered the signed registry return receipt indubitable proof that the decision was delivered at petitioner's counsel's address and received by a duly authorized person.

Aggrieved, petitioner files the instant petition. Petitioner alleges that the CA erred in affirming the order of the lower court directing the issuance of an alias writ of execution. She maintains that the decision of the lower court did not become final and executory because there was no proof that a copy thereof was served on and received by her counsel. Her appeal was thus allegedly perfected on time and the execution of the lower court's decision is, as yet, premature.

The petition is bereft of merit.

Petitioner's contention that her counsel did not receive a copy of the lower court's decision is completely belied by the records of the case. The registry return receipt attached to the records of the case shows that petitioner's counsel received a copy of the adverse decision of the lower court on 9 June 1994. The fact that the signature on said registry return receipt does not appear to be that of petitioner's counsel is immaterial. The Court is cognizant of the fact that lawyers do not, as a rule, personally receive mail matters. They have employees to do this task for them. Absent any proof to the contrary, the signed registry return receipt is conclusive proof that the decision was duly received by petitioner's counsel on 9 June 1994.

The records likewise show that petitioner filed her notice of appeal only on 18 August 1998 or more than four (4) years after said receipt. The decision clearly had long become final and executory. The general rule is when a court's judgment or order becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to issue a writ of execution to enforce this judgment (Soco vs. Court of Appeals, 263 SCRA 449 [1996]). The lower court correctly issued the order directing the issuance of an alias writ of execution. The petition for certiorari filed by petitioner alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court was thus correctly dismissed by the CA.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE