G.R. NO. 147912 - RUSSEL, RIZZA, KATHERINE, LYRA, RUTH, ALL SURNAMED DE LOS SANTOS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER LEONARDO DE LOS SANTOS , CORONA, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, PASIG REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPOUSES JOSE RAMIREZ SAN BUENAVENTURA AND JOSEPHINE REDIGA SAN BUENAVENTURA. D E C I S I

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , judgment is hereby rendered: (a) Dismissing the instant complaint for lack of cause of action; (b) Declaring the cancellation of the Contract to Sell by respondent corporation, and the consequent forfeiture of the payments made thereunder by the complainants, valid, legal and binding between the parties, the same being in accordance with law. [7] In a petition for review to the HLURB Board of Commissioners, the arbiter's decision was affirmed in toto. [8] On appeal, the decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners was affirmed by the Office of the President (OP) on October 1, 1997. [9] On October 8, 1997, a certified copy of the decision was sent to the given address of petitioners' then counsel of record, Atty. Benedicto Gonzales; this was returned to sender with the notation that the addressee was "no longer connected in (that) office." [10] While the case was pending adjudication, private respondent corporation sold the contested property to the private respondent spouses Jose Ramirez San Buenaventura and Josephine Rediga San Buenaventura. On January 30, 1995, TCT no. PT-97285 was issued to them. On March 6, 1998, the October 1, 1997 OP decision became final and executory. On March 30, 1998, petitioners, through their new counsel, Atty. Cesar Turiano, filed a motion to set aside the March 6, 1998 order and/or petition for relief from judgment. [11] They argued that the order of finality should be lifted and set aside since there was no proper service of the October 1, 1997 OP decision. The OP denied the motion and affirmed the order of finality in a resolution dated March 27, 2000. [12] As shown by the records of this case, proper service of this Office's decision dated October 1, 1997 upon petitioners' counsel of record, Atty. Gonzales, may be presumed for his failure to give proper notice of his change of address. This is binding upon petitioners. Thus, it would be a mere superfluity to again serve notice of said decision on petitioners themselves, considering that they are already bound by their counsel's negligence. Thus, the said decision has already become final and executory. xxx In Antonio vs. Court of Appeals, the Court categorically stated that the requirements of conclusive proof of the registry notice presupposes that the notice is sent to the correct address as indicated in the records of the court. It does not apply where, as in the case at bar, the notice was sent to the lawyer's given address but did not reach him because he had moved therefrom without informing the court of his new location. The service at the old address should be considered valid. xxx [13] This resolution was received on April 11, 2000 by Anarose Delfin, the secretary of Atty. Turiano. However, according to petitioners, Delfin misplaced it and a copy thereof was secured by them only on July 14, 2000. On September 8, 2000, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals [14] imputing grave abuse of discreti