National Power Corporation v. Tac-an
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner National Power Corporation (NPC) filed a complaint for eminent domain to acquire an easement of right of way over properties totaling 4,366 square meters for its San Pascual 230-KV Associated Transmission Line Project. The properties were owned by private respondents. Procedural History: The trial court appointed commissioners who submitted a report indicating a selling price of ₱4,000.00 per square meter based on deeds of sale. NPC, through its counsel Atty. Sofronio A. Hernandez, argued for a valuation of ₱390.00 per square meter based on appraisal reports. The trial court, on November 10, 2000, fixed the value at ₱2,000.00 per square meter, considering sales data and the depreciation of the peso. A copy of this order was received by Atty. Hernandez's secretary at his private law office on November 15, 2000, and by NPC's General Counsel in Quezon City on November 23, 2000. Atty. Hernandez filed a notice of appeal on December 6, 2000, questioning the valuation. Private respondents moved to strike out the notice of appeal, arguing it was filed out of time. The trial court granted the motion, stating that counsel for the plaintiff received the order on November 15, 2000. Subsequently, the trial court ordered the execution of its decision, which had become final. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and a writ of execution was issued. The Court of Appeals denied NPC's petition for certiorari, affirming the trial court's orders and holding that service on Atty. Hernandez's private law office was valid. The Petition: Petitioner National Power Corporation filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that service of the November 10, 2000 order should have been made at Atty. Hernandez's address of record in San Jose, Batangas, not his private office. Petitioner contended that the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period based on the November 23, 2000 service on its General Counsel. Alternatively, NPC argued for a liberal application of rules due to the allegedly exorbitant valuation.
Issue(s)
Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period, considering the validity of service of the trial court's November 10, 2000 order upon petitioner's counsel.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, is directed to give due course to the notice of appeal filed by petitioner National Power Corporation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of service and timeliness of the notice of appeal: The Supreme Court held that service of court processes and orders must be made upon the counsel of record at his exact given address. Unless the counsel files a notice of change of address, his official address remains his address of record. In this case, the trial court's November 10, 2000 order should have been served on Atty. Hernandez at his address of record at the NPC projects in San Jose or Ibaan, Batangas. Service at his private law office, the Pag-Ibig Bldg. in Batangas City, was improper as it was not his address of record for the case. The Court distinguished this case from Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. Ortiz, where service at a different address was deemed valid because the counsel had previously accepted service there and impliedly adopted it. The Court emphasized that service must be made at the counsel's "exact given address." Therefore, the service on Atty. Hernandez's secretary at his private office was invalid for the purpose of computing the reglementary period to appeal. The Court considered the service on petitioner's General Counsel in Quezon City on November 23, 2000, as appropriate, making the notice of appeal filed on December 6, 2000, timely. The Court reiterated the rule that notices should be sent to the attorney of record at his given address, and any deviation requires proof of adoption of a new address for service.
Main Doctrine
Service of court processes and orders must be made upon the counsel of record at his exact given address. Service at an address other than the address of record is improper unless the counsel has expressly or impliedly adopted it for service, which must be proven.