G.R. No. 117408 March 26, 1997
NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (NIDC-PNB), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA and BASILISA FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the spouses Bautista, filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against petitioner NIDC-PNB and Banco Filipino. They claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Quezon City that was mistakenly included in a mortgage to Banco Filipino, leading to its foreclosure sale and subsequent redemption by petitioner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the Bautistas, ordering NIDC-PNB to reconvey the land upon reimbursement of the redemption price. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on January 29, 1992, claiming receipt of the RTC decision on January 16, 1992.
Private respondents contested this, alleging petitioner received the decision on December 6, 1991, making the judgment final. The RTC agreed, declaring its decision final and executory. It ruled that the 15-day appeal period began on December 6, 1991, when the first registry notice was placed in PNB’s post office box, citing postal regulations that such a box is an extension of the addressee’s office. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequent certiorari petition for failure to first file a motion for reconsideration in the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly declared its decision final and executory by ruling that service of the decision upon petitioner’s counsel was completed upon the deposit of the registry notice in PNB’s post office box, thereby rendering the notice of appeal filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered the RTC to give due course to the appeal. The Court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed. The legal logic centers on the proper service of court processes upon a counsel of record. Petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Giovanni Manzala, specified his exact address as “6th Floor, PNB Bldg., Escolta, Manila.” The deposit of the registry notice in the general PNB post office box, which was not the address given by counsel, did not constitute valid service. The postal employee admitted she only used the PNB box because of the intervention of private respondents’ daughter, who informed her that Atty. Manzala worked in the PNB Legal Department.
The Court emphasized the rule that service upon a party represented by counsel must be made upon counsel at his exact given address to ensure orderly prosecution of the case and to avoid important notices being commingled with general corporate mail. The purpose is to maintain a uniform procedure placing case management in competent hands. Since counsel did not designate the PNB post office box as his address, service was not completed upon the deposit there. Therefore, the 15-day period to appeal did not commence on December 6, 1991, and the notice of appeal filed on January 29, 1992, based on the claimed receipt date of January 16, 1992, was timely.