G.R. No. 110610 and G.R. No. 113851 October 8, 1998
ARTURO R. MACAPAGAL, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMONA M. TORRES, and ESTEBAN YAU, respondents. (G.R. No. 110610)

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. and ARTURO MACAPAGAL, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ESTEBAN YAU, respondents. (G.R. No. 113851)

FACTS

These consolidated cases involve motions for reconsideration of a Supreme Court decision dated April 18, 1997. Petitioner Arturo Macapagal (in G.R. No. 110610) claims he only learned of Civil Case No. CEB-2058 (Esteban Yau vs. Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation, et al.) when a writ of execution was issued against his properties. He asserts he had no prior knowledge of the complaint, service of summons, motions, petitions, default declaration, trial court decision ordering payment of over P12M, or the appeal’s dismissal. He argues he was deprived of due process and could disprove liability as a one-share, non-management director under the Corporation Code. He seeks annulment of the trial court decision or a hearing to determine if the law firm “Salva, Villanueva and Associates” had authority to represent him. The Court of Appeals had previously held service of summons on that law firm at the Philfinance Building was valid to acquire jurisdiction over Philfinance’s officers and directors, including Macapagal. Atty. Emerito Salva’s firm was counsel for Delta Motors, Philfinance, and their officers. Macapagal claims he had resigned from both corporations before summons was served and that summons should have been served at his residence. The Supreme Court, in the decision subject to reconsideration, found his claims unmeritorious.
In G.R. No. 113851, petitioner Ricardo Silverio, Sr. contends that Atty. Salva was grossly negligent in handling the case, specifically by failing to pay docket fees which led to the dismissal of the appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 33496). He argues this negligence should not bar his petition and that his constant travel explains his failure to monitor the case.

ISSUE

The primary issues are whether the motions for reconsideration should be granted based on: (1) Arturo Macapagal’s claim of lack of due process due to invalid service of summons and lack of attorney authority; and (2) Ricardo Silverio, Sr.’s claim of gross negligence by his counsel warranting relief from judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motions for reconsideration with finality for lack of merit.
Regarding Macapagal (G.R. No. 110610), the Court held: The validity of service of summons was settled by the Court of Appeals. Atty. Salva’s law firm was counsel for the corporations and their officials, and Macapagal did not deny Salva was once his counsel. Atty. Salva sought affirmative relief, which he would not have done without authority. Macapagal’s resignation letters alone are insufficient proof to overturn the finding of valid service. It was improbable he was unaware of the case given his business circles and Philfinance’s well-publicized legal troubles. His proper remedy was an action for annulment of judgment on grounds of extrinsic fraud, not a petition for certiorari, which he did not file. The burden was on him to prove Salva was no longer his counsel, which he failed to do.
Regarding Silverio (G.R. No. 113851), the Court held: The failure to pay docket fees was not conclusively shown to be Atty. Salva’s fault, as he was not called to explain. By not paying the fees, Silverio abandoned his appeal, making the trial court decision final as to him. The payment of docket fees by co-defendants does not inure to his benefit.