G.R. No. 182814 July 15, 2015
LIGAYA MENDOZA and ADELIA MENDOZA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (EIGHT DIVISION), HONORABLE JUDGE LIBERATO C. CORTEZ and BANGKO KABAYAN (Formerly IBAAN RURAL BANK, INC.,) Respondents.

FACTS

On September 4, 1997, petitioners Ligaya Mendoza and Adelia Mendoza obtained a loan of ₱12,000,000.00 from respondent Bangko Kabayan, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over 71 parcels of land. Upon petitioners’ default, the bank filed a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure. Petitioners admitted the material allegations, leading the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 8, to render a Judgment on the Pleadings on March 7, 2002, ordering petitioners to pay the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees within 90 days, or the properties would be sold at public auction. Petitioners failed to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. Respondent bank filed a Motion for Execution. Petitioners opposed, claiming they were not duly served a copy of the RTC Decision and that their counsel only received it on June 13, 2002, prompting them to file a Notice of Appeal on June 14, 2002. The RTC denied the opposition and the Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time, citing counsel’s negligence in handling mails, and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders, finding valid service of the judgment as attested by a postmaster’s certification showing delivery to the counsel’s address of record, received by a security guard on March 15, 2002. The appellate court also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether there was a valid service of the March 7, 2002 RTC Judgment on the petitioners, thereby rendering it final and executory and justifying the denial of their Notice of Appeal and the grant of the Motion for Execution.

RULING

Yes, there was valid service. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that where a party appears by attorney, notices must be given to the attorney of record at his official address of record. A Certification from the Postmaster General evidenced that the copy of the judgment was duly delivered to and received at petitioners’ counsel’s address of record on March 15, 2002. The Court held that petitioners’ counsel was negligent for failing to adopt a system to ensure prompt receipt of official mail and that such negligence is binding upon the clients. The general rule that clients are bound by their counsel’s actions applies, as no gross negligence resulting in serious injustice or deprivation of due process was shown. The judgment had thus become final and executory. The doctrine of finality of judgment renders it immutable and unalterable, and execution is the ministerial duty of the court. The Court emphasized the importance of writing finis to litigation once a judgment attains finality.