ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 19 2005.

G.R. No. 161722 ( G.Q. Garments, Inc. vs. Angel Miranda, et al. )

On March 5, 2004, the petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision ^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 45567, as well as its Resolution which denied its motion for reconsideration. The petitioner claims that the CA erred in awarding damages way below that prayed for in the Complaint, and in not finding respondent Angel Miranda liable for damages.

On March 15, 2004, Atty. Wellington B. Lachica, counsel for respondents Florenda Miranda and Executive Machineries and Equipment Corporation (EMECO), filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel ^[2] stating that: (a) his client has not contacted him for the past 5 years or more; (b) his client is not anymore residing in the address given in the petition and that her whereabouts are unknown; and (c) he is no longer in the active practice of law having suffered a stroke on November 5, 2001, and is presently undergoing physical and occupational therapy.

In a Resolution dated April 26, 2004, the Court required the respondents to file their respective Comments on the petition for review on certiorari . Prior thereto, the Court received, on April 16, 2004, a Motion to Withdraw ^[3] as counsel for respondent Angel Miranda, signed by Atty. Reynaldo A. Feliciano, who explained that it was physically impossible for him to represent the said respondent because he migrated to the United States of America. The motion of Atty. Feliciano was filed through Atty. Florosco P. Fronda.

In a Resolution ^[4] dated June 16, 2004, the Court required respondent Angel Miranda to file his Comment on the motion to withdraw.

For failure to comply with the said resolutions, the Court in a Resolution dated January 12, 2005 required respondent Angel Miranda and Atty. Lachica to show cause why they should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt. Atty. Lachica filed his explanation stating that he already submitted a motion to withdraw as counsel for respondents Florenda Miranda and EMECO.

In a Resolution ^[5] dated February 23, 2005, the Court accepted the explanation of Atty. Lachica and required respondents Florenda Miranda and EMECO to submit the name and address of their new counsel within 10 days from receipt of notice.

On April 25, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution ^[6] noting the returned and unserved copy of the resolution dated January 12, 2005 addressed to respondent Angel Miranda of Magdiwang, Noveleta, Cavite City, with the notation "RTS, Deceased." Similarly, in a Resolution ^[7] dated June 27, 2005, the Court, likewise, noted the returned and unserved copies of the resolution dated February 23, 2005 addressed to respondent Florenda Miranda at Lot 6, Block 5, Do�a Manuela Subdivision, Las Pi�as City, and to respondent EMECO at Niog, Cavite, with notations "No Such Address and Unknown at Manuela" and "RTS Insufficient Address," respectively. We then required the petitioner to submit the correct and present addresses of the two aforementioned respondents.

In a Postal Reply ^[8] dated May 30, 2005 and addressed to the Clerk of Court, Alexander P. Olmos, the Postmaster of Niog, Cavite, informed the Court that the registered letter bearing Registry No. 27267 dated March 11, 2005 and containing the Resolution dated February 23, 2005 addressed to respondent EMECO was returned to sender with notation "insufficient address." By virtue thereof, the Court issued a Resolution ^[9] dated August 17, 2005, stating that the returned and unserved copy of the said resolution to respondent EMECO is deemed served by substituted service pursuant to Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

Substituted service. - If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be made under the two preceding sections, the office and place of residence of the party or his counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the time of such delivery.

On August 22, 2005, the petitioner filed its Compliance, ^[10] stating therein that after a meticulous investigation and diligent efforts, the officer-in-charge of the petitioner could not locate the whereabouts of respondents Florenda Miranda and EMECO. The petitioner annexed to its compliance a copy of the complaint that was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 17, indicating therein the address of Florenda Miranda, and a copy of the Articles of Incorporation of EMECO, which, likewise, indicated its office address to be in "Bacoor, Cavite."

In view of the failure of respondent Florenda Miranda to file her comment, the Court considers her to have waived her right to do so. We reiterate that the Resolution dated February 23, 2005 is deemed served by substituted service pursuant to Section 8, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; hence, EMECO is likewise considered to have waived its right to file comment on the petition.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, respondents Florenda Miranda and Executive Machineries and Equipment Corporation are considered to have waived their right to file their respective Comments.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court