G.R. No. 120972 -

Ruling

accordingly, we set aside the questioned resolution and ordered the appellate court to properly serve the same on therein petitioner. In the instant case, in the Court of Appeals rollo there is no postmaster's certification to the effect that the registered mail was unclaimed by the addressee Atty. Amador and thus returned to sender, after first notice was sent to and received by addressee on a specified date. Thus, there is no conclusive proof that notice was sent to Atty. Amador and actually received by him. Absent such proof, the disputable presumption of completeness of service does not arise as to the registered mail addressed to Atty. Amador. However, even absent proof of completeness of service upon Atty. Amador, we must rule that service upon petitioner Jose Aguilar himself was complete. Jurisprudence provides that when a party is represented by counsel, notice should be made upon the counsel of record at his given address to which notices of all kinds emanating from the court should be sent in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address, [18] unless service upon the party himself is by court order. [19] This doctrine is founded on §2, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court [20] which provides thus: Papers to be filed and served. -- Every order required by its terms to be served, every pleading subsequent to the complaint, every written motion other than one which may be heard ex parte , and every written notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected thereby. If any of such parties has appeared by an attorney or attorneys, service upon him shall be made upon his attorneys or one of them unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one attorney appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side. (Underlining supplied.) The mailing of a copy of the February 2, 1994 Resolution to Jose Aguilar was effected by the Court of Appeals, [21] after the resolution could not be served upon Atty. Almario. It is not disputed that the mail was sent to the address of Mr. Aguilar on record, but that the mail was returned to the appellate court with the annotation "moved." [22] Notably, petitioners admit that after the preparation and filing of their rejoinder before the appellate court, Atty. Almario took ill and could no longer discharge his functions as their counsel. [23] Yet, Atty. Almario, at his address on record, received a copy of the appellate court's decision. [24] Subsequently, it was Mr. Aguilar himself who signed the motion for reconsideration. [25] Knowing fully well that Atty. Almario may not be physically up to acting on any pleading, and petitioners having taken over the "following up" of the case, it was petitioners and their counsel's responsibility to devise a system for the receipt of mail intended for them. [26] To rule otherwi