National Investment and Development Corporation-Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents, spouses Francisco and Basilisa Bautista, filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against petitioner National Investment and Development Corporation-Philippine National Bank (NIDC-PNB) and Banco Filipino. They claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Pasong Tamo, Quezon City, which was mistakenly included in their mortgage to Banco Filipino, subsequently foreclosed and sold to Banco Filipino, and later redeemed by petitioner NIDC-PNB. Private respondents blamed Banco Filipino for the erroneous inclusion. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the private respondents, ordering NIDC-PNB to reconvey the land upon reimbursement and ordering the Bautistas to reimburse NIDC-PNB for the redemption amount. NIDC-PNB filed a notice of appeal, alleging receipt of the decision on January 16, 1992. Private respondents disputed this, claiming receipt on December 6, 1991, and moved for execution. The RTC declared the decision final and executory, stating the 15-day appeal period expired on December 21, 1991, and denied due course to NIDC-PNB's appeal. A petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed for failure to file a motion for reconsideration. NIDC-PNB's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: NIDC-PNB filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, arguing that its failure to file a motion for reconsideration should not be fatal as the error was patent and deprived it of due process, specifically its right to appeal, which would result in the loss of its substantial investment in developing the property.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review was filed on time. Whether the notice of appeal filed by petitioner NIDC-PNB was timely filed.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court of Appeals' decision is reversed, and the Regional Trial Court is ordered to give due course to petitioner NIDC-PNB's appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for review: The Court held that the petition was filed on time. Private respondents contended that petitioner had only eight days from receipt of the CA resolution denying its motion for reconsideration to file the petition. However, Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides for a fifteen (15) day period from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration within which to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Since petitioner received the CA resolution on October 4, 1994, the filing of the petition on October 19, 1994, was within the prescribed period. On the timeliness of the notice of appeal: The Court found petitioner's contention well-taken. The RTC erred in ruling that service was completed five days after the first registry notice was placed in the PNB's P.O. Box on December 6, 1991. The P.O. Box belonged to PNB, and while petitioner's counsel, Atty. Giovanni S. Manzala, was a member of petitioner's Legal Department, he never used the PNB P.O. Box as his own and had provided a different address for service. The postal employee testified that the notice was placed in the P.O. Box only due to the intervention of private respondents' daughter, who informed her that Atty. Manzala worked for PNB. This intervention raised the apprehension that the notice was deliberately placed in the P.O. Box to circumvent direct service to Atty. Manzala's given address. The Court reiterated the rule that service of notice upon a party represented by counsel must be made upon the counsel at their exact given address to ensure orderly prosecution and prevent important notices from being missed. Allowing service at an address other than that given by the counsel would disregard the admonition for attorneys to adopt a system for the delivery of court processes.
Main Doctrine
Service of court notices must be made upon counsel at their exact given address to ensure orderly prosecution of a party's case and prevent mail from being commingled with other mail, thus avoiding the possibility of important court notices escaping notice. A post office box, even if belonging to the addressee's employer, cannot be used for service if the counsel has provided a different address.