You are on page 1of 1

SALVADOR O. MOJAR, EDGAR B. BEGONIA, Heirs of the late JOSE M.

CORTEZ, RESTITUTO GADDI, VIRGILIO M. MONANA, FREDDIE


RANCES, and EDSON D. TOMAS v. AGRO COMMERCIAL
SECURITY SERVICE AGENCY, INC., et al.1
G.R. No. 187188 June 27, 2012 SERENO, J.:

Facts:

Former security guards filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Agro
Commercial Security Service Agency, Inc. Both the LA and the NLRC ruled in favor of
complainants. Agro Commercial filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
Complainants failed to comment and the case was submitted for decision. The CA in
particular found merit in the position of Agro Commercial.

Complainants, now Petitioners, questioned the ruling of the CA. In particular,


they argued that the CA lacks jurisdiction since Agro Commercial, as required by Sec. 3,
Rule 46, (1) failed to indicate the actual addresses of the parties; and (2) failed to attach
the affidavit of service to the CA petition.

Issue: Whether or not the CA lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition for certiorari.

Ruling: No, the CA has acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition for certiorari.

(1) Actual Address of Parties:

As a rule, a petition for certiorari must contain the actual addresses of all
petitioners and respondents, and that failure to comply is a sufficient ground to dismiss
the petition.

The rule, however, is not absolute. Where the parties themselves indicated that
they may be served with court notices and processes through their respective counsels,
this act would constitute substantial compliance with the requirements of Sec. 3, Rule
46. In fact, Sec. 2, Rule 13 of the Rules provide that the notice required by law is notice
to counsel if the party has already appeared by counsel.

(2) Affidavit of Service

Section 3, Rule 46 provides that the petition for certiorari should be filed together
with the proof of service thereof on the respondent. Under Section 13, Rule 13, if service
is made by registered mail, as in this case, proof shall be made by an affidavit of the
person mailing and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. Section 3, Rule 46
further provides that the failure to comply with any of the requirements shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

In this case, service was made upon Atty. Espinas, petitioners’ counsel of record
at that time. The fact that Atty. Espinas was already deceased at that time does not render
the services made to him as invalid. If a party to a case has appeared by counsel, service
of pleadings and judgments shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless
service upon the party is specifically ordered by the court. It is not the duty of the courts
to inquire, during the progress of a case, whether the law firm or partnership representing
one of the litigants continues to exist lawfully, whether the partners are still alive, or
whether its associates are still connected with the firm.

1 Sherlyn Lopez