G.R. No. L-49223 May 29, 1987
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. RODOLFO ORTIZ, ROGELIO MARAVILES, and QUEZON CITY SHERIFF, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) was the defendant in a damages suit filed by depositor Rogelio Maraviles. PCIB was represented by the law firm Ledesma, Saludo & Associates. During trial, PCIB’s counsel failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. Consequently, the trial court issued an order considering the case submitted for decision and later rendered judgment against PCIB. PCIB’s counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that the handling associate, Atty. Mangohig, had resigned and inadvertently omitted the case from his turnover report.
Maraviles opposed the motion, arguing that the judgment had already become final. He asserted that a copy of the decision was validly served on July 15, 1978, through Commercial Exponent Philippines, Inc. (COMMEX), a corporation sharing the same building as PCIB’s counsel. The trial court denied PCIB’s motion, ruling that service through COMMEX was valid and that the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. The court also found no excusable negligence in counsel’s failure to appear and noted the absence of a required affidavit of merit.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the service of the trial court’s decision upon COMMEX, instead of directly upon PCIB’s counsel of record, constituted valid service such that PCIB’ motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period, rendering the judgment final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against PCIB and upheld the finality of the judgment. The legal logic centers on the rules governing service and the finality of judgments. Service of court notices and decisions must be made upon the party’s counsel of record, not the party, unless otherwise directed. However, the Court found that PCIB, through its counsel, had established a practice of receiving court processes through COMMEX. The records showed that Atty. Mangohig had previously received several notices and orders via COMMEX without objection. By acquiescing to this mode of service, PCIB is deemed to have authorized it. Therefore, service of the decision on COMMEX on July 15, 1978, was valid and effective from that date.
Consequently, PCIB’s period to appeal or move for reconsideration began to run from July 15, 1978. Its motion for reconsideration filed on August 15, 1978, was one day late, as the judgment became final on August 14. The Court also emphasized that the negligence of counsel binds the client. The requirement for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion and ordering execution. The petition was dismissed.