BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from a lease contract between BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. (BPI) and the spouses Gail and Eric Manalang for a commercial unit used as a pawnshop. The lease, initially entered into with the former Family Savings Bank and Trust Company (FBTC), was for 35-1/2 months, commencing January 16, 1985. Four months before its expiration, a fire destroyed a significant portion of the leased premises. BPI, considering itself the successor-in-interest to FBTC, terminated the lease, citing the fire as a fortuitous event under Article 1655 of the Civil Code. The Manalangs objected, deeming the termination illegal. 2. Procedural History: The spouses Manalang filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against BPI with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, asserting the illegal termination of their lease. BPI filed its answer, asserting its right to terminate the lease. The RTC scheduled a pre-trial hearing. However, BPI's counsel failed to appear due to illness, leading the RTC to declare BPI in default and allow the plaintiffs to present evidence ex-parte. BPI filed a motion to set aside the order of default, which was denied by the RTC for failing to comply with the 3-day notice rule. Subsequently, the RTC rendered a default judgment against BPI, awarding damages and ordering a new lease. BPI filed a notice of appeal. The Manalangs then moved for execution, arguing the judgment had become final due to the appeal being filed out of time. The RTC granted the motion for execution. BPI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, affirming that the appeal was filed late. BPI's motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: BPI-Family Savings Bank, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its petition and upholding the RTC's finding that its notice of appeal was filed out of time. BPI contended that the service of the RTC's decision was invalid because it was received by Reynaldo Quintos, a representative of BPI, and not by its counsel of record, D.T. Ramos & Associates. BPI invoked the ruling in PLDT v. NLRC, which mandates that service of court processes must be made upon the counsel of record. BPI argued that Quintos was not an authorized representative of its counsel and that the mail was inadvertently included in BPI's direct delivery mail. Therefore, the reglementary period for filing the appeal should have commenced only upon actual receipt by its counsel on December 26, 1988, making its notice of appeal timely filed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari based on the finding that the petitioner's notice of appeal was filed out of time. Whether the service of the trial court's decision dated December 13, 1988, to Mr. Reynaldo Quintos was valid, and if not, whether the service to the petitioner's counsel, D.T. Ramos & Associates, on December 26, 1988, was the valid service.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court, which is directed to admit the Notice of Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' dismissal: The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, agreeing with the petitioner that the ruling in PLDT v. NLRC is applicable. The Court concluded that it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court not to have admitted the notice of appeal filed by the petitioner. Since the remedy of appeal was available, the Court found it unnecessary to discuss the second issue raised by the petitioner, as the appellate court is the proper forum to question the judgment on its merits. On the validity of service and timeliness of appeal: The Court emphasized that service of pleadings, notices, and judgments must be made upon the counsel of record, not the client, unless specifically ordered by the court. In this case, the trial court's decision was received by Mr. Reynaldo Quintos, who was an authorized representative of BPI-Family Savings Bank for postal matters, but not an authorized representative of the petitioner's counsel, D.T. Ramos & Associates. The Postmaster's testimony confirmed that Quintos was not connected with the law office and that the mail was inadvertently included in the bank's direct delivery book. Therefore, service upon Quintos was not legally effective service upon the counsel. The Court reiterated that service must be effected at the exact given address of the lawyer. The actual and valid service of the decision occurred only when it was received by the petitioner's counsel, D.T. Ramos and Associates, at their office on the 15th floor of Filinvest Center on December 26, 1988. Consequently, the reglementary period for filing the notice of appeal commenced on December 26, 1988, making the appeal filed on January 10, 1989, timely.
Main Doctrine
Service of judgment upon a party's authorized postal representative, who is not the counsel of record or their authorized representative, is not legally effective service upon the counsel, and thus, the reglementary period for filing a notice of appeal does not commence from the date of such ineffective service.