PNB v CA
G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
FACTS:
The mail containing the trial court's decision was addressed to the petitioners' counsel, Atty. Avamor Perez, whose address is entered in the record as the "6th Floor, PNB
G.R. No. 108870 July 14, 1995
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
FACTS:
The mail containing the trial court's decision was addressed to the petitioners' counsel, Atty. Avamor Perez, whose address is entered in the record as the "6th Floor, PNB
Bldg., Escolta Manila." The PNB mailing clerk is Catalino M. Sandoval, who is with
the PNB Mailing Division, General Services Department.
The trial court held that the petitioners are, on the ground of estoppel, deemed to have received a copy of the decision on 23 January 1992 when the registered mail containing it was received by Mr. Sandoval.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*RTC: disallowed appeal.
*CA: affirmed RTC.
*SC: affirmed CA.
present motion for reconsideration before SC.
ISSUES & RULING:
1. [W]hether herein petitioners . . . are deemed to have received a copy of the decision of the trial court on January 23, 1992 when the mail containing the decision was received by the PNB mailing clerk from the post office or only on January 28, 1992 when the mail was delivered by said clerk to the Legal Department of the PNB
YES, they are late.
Atty. Avamor Perez admitted that he had received all the previous notices and orders of the court in Civil Case No. RQ-18176 through Sandoval, who had been signing the registry receipts therefor. He had not questioned the validity of such service. Estoppel will thus bar him from denying Sandoval's authority and from questioning the validity of the service of the decision
The registered mail containing the trial court's decision of 20 January 1992 was not a mail matter for the PNB or for petitioner National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC). It was a registered mail matter addressed to and exclusively intended for Atty. Avamor Perez, in his capacity as counsel for the petitioners, and not as an official or employee of the PNB.
Service to a party is allowed only if the party is not represented by counsel. If he is, then, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 13, service shall be made upon the attorney, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Unless so ordered, service on the party himself who is represented by counsel is not notice in law and is invalid.
the general rule is that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. The express exception is when the addressee does not claim his mail within five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster, in which case the service is deemed complete at the expiration of such time.
An implied exception is where the addressee has authorized another to receive the registered mail matter, in which case the service shall take effect upon receipt thereof by the latter.
Hence, Atty. Avamor Perez is deemed to have received the decision of the trial court on 23 January 1992 when the registered mail containing it was picked up by Sandoval from the Post Office. The 15-day reglemetary period should be counted from that date. The last day, therefore, was 7 February 1992. Clearly, the appeal filed on 10 February 1992 is three days late.
The trial court held that the petitioners are, on the ground of estoppel, deemed to have received a copy of the decision on 23 January 1992 when the registered mail containing it was received by Mr. Sandoval.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
*RTC: disallowed appeal.
*CA: affirmed RTC.
*SC: affirmed CA.
present motion for reconsideration before SC.
ISSUES & RULING:
1. [W]hether herein petitioners . . . are deemed to have received a copy of the decision of the trial court on January 23, 1992 when the mail containing the decision was received by the PNB mailing clerk from the post office or only on January 28, 1992 when the mail was delivered by said clerk to the Legal Department of the PNB
YES, they are late.
Atty. Avamor Perez admitted that he had received all the previous notices and orders of the court in Civil Case No. RQ-18176 through Sandoval, who had been signing the registry receipts therefor. He had not questioned the validity of such service. Estoppel will thus bar him from denying Sandoval's authority and from questioning the validity of the service of the decision
The registered mail containing the trial court's decision of 20 January 1992 was not a mail matter for the PNB or for petitioner National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC). It was a registered mail matter addressed to and exclusively intended for Atty. Avamor Perez, in his capacity as counsel for the petitioners, and not as an official or employee of the PNB.
Service to a party is allowed only if the party is not represented by counsel. If he is, then, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 13, service shall be made upon the attorney, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Unless so ordered, service on the party himself who is represented by counsel is not notice in law and is invalid.
the general rule is that service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. The express exception is when the addressee does not claim his mail within five days from the date of the first notice of the postmaster, in which case the service is deemed complete at the expiration of such time.
An implied exception is where the addressee has authorized another to receive the registered mail matter, in which case the service shall take effect upon receipt thereof by the latter.
Hence, Atty. Avamor Perez is deemed to have received the decision of the trial court on 23 January 1992 when the registered mail containing it was picked up by Sandoval from the Post Office. The 15-day reglemetary period should be counted from that date. The last day, therefore, was 7 February 1992. Clearly, the appeal filed on 10 February 1992 is three days late.
2. WON it should be decided on the merits in the higher interest of justice
Similarly, this Court shall, in the higher interest of justice, allow the appeal of the petitioners which was filed three days late. For, to bar the appeal would be inequitable and unjust when viewed in the light of the trial court's decision (1) ordering the petitioners to pay the private respondents the sum of P19,985,848.00 as actual damages, plus interest thereon at the rate of six percent from the date of the judgment until it is fully paid; P1 million as exemplary damages; and P0.5 million as attorney's fees; and (2) declaring that the private respondents' secured loans of P490,000.00 and P796,00.00 obtained from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in 1960 and 1961, respectively, and later assigned to the PNB are deemed fully paid by reason of set-off with the award of damages and attorney's fees.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment