GR 94925; (April, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94925; April 22, 1991
BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the SPOUSES GAIL MANALANG, and ERIC B. MANALANG, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner bank declared a lease contract with the respondent spouses terminated due to a fire that damaged the leased premises, invoking Article 1655 of the Civil Code on fortuitous events. The spouses filed a complaint for specific performance. During pre-trial, the petitioner’s counsel failed to appear due to illness, leading the trial court to issue an order of default and allow the respondents to present evidence ex-parte. The petitioner promptly filed a motion to set aside the order of default, but the trial court denied it for alleged non-compliance with the three-day notice rule. A judgment by default was subsequently rendered against the petitioner.
The trial court’s decision was mailed to the petitioner’s counsel. The post office, however, inadvertently delivered the copy to the bank’s own mail representative at a different address on December 22, 1988, instead of to the law office. The counsel actually received the decision at his correct office address on December 26, 1988. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 1989. The trial court, computing the reglementary period from December 22, deemed the appeal filed out of time and granted execution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent certiorari petition, upholding the trial court’s finding of a belated appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed on time, considering the date of proper service of the trial court’s decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the notice of appeal was timely filed. The Court emphasized that service of court orders and decisions must be made upon the counsel of record at his exact given address. The service of the decision on December 22, 1988, was invalid because it was delivered to the bank’s mail representative, a person not authorized to receive notices for the counsel. Valid service occurred only on December 26, 1988, when the counsel actually received the decision at his law office. Consequently, the reglementary period for filing the appeal commenced on December 26, making the notice of appeal filed on January 10, 1989, well within the prescribed period. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to admit the appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to admit the petitioner’s notice of appeal.