GR 158806; (December, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158806, December 16, 2004
PRUDENTIAL BANK (formerly PILIPINAS BANK), petitioner, vs. BUSINESS ASSISTANCE GROUP, INC. (now known as Business Assistance Credit Corporation), and RODOLFO L. VEGA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Prudential Bank entered into a Collection Agreement with respondent Business Assistance Group, Inc. (BAGCO). BAGCO, through its retained counsel, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Vega, handled the collection of an unpaid account from Rustica Tan, which involved extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Tan filed a damages case against the bank, which was represented by Atty. Vega. Despite a preliminary injunction, Vega proceeded with the foreclosure sale. The trial court later declared the sale null and void and awarded damages against the bank, a decision later annulled by the Court of Appeals. The bank, believing BAGCO and Vega were negligent, terminated the agreement and filed a damages case against them. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the bank’s complaint and ordered it to pay BAGCO service charges.
The bank appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court issued a notice to file appellant’s brief, sent by registered mail to the bank’s counsel. BAGCO moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to file the brief on time. The Court of Appeals granted the motion, finding the brief was filed beyond the 45-day reglementary period, counting from the date a certain Arlan Cayno, a bank employee, received the notice.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time, based on the service of the notice to a bank employee rather than the counsel of record.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reinstated the appeal. Service of court notices and pleadings must be made upon the counsel of record, not upon the party itself, unless the party is specifically authorized to receive them. The notice to file appellant’s brief was improperly served. The registry receipt indicated it was received by Arlan Cayno, a Maintenance Clerk in the bank’s General Services Department. He was not an authorized representative of the bank’s counsel of record, the Gella, Danguilan, Nabaza & Associates law firm. Previous court notices were properly received by an authorized person at the law firm, Ms. Dolores Zaraspe.
Since the counsel of record was not validly served, the reglementary period to file the appellant’s brief did not begin to run. The subsequent filing of the brief, attached to the opposition to the motion to dismiss, was therefore timely. The dismissal of the appeal on a technicality, given the lack of proper service, was a grave abuse of discretion. The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings on the substantive issues regarding the Collection Agreement and alleged negligence.