GR 97664; (October, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97664 October 10, 1991
OUANO ARRASTRE SERVICE, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. PEARY G. ALEONOR, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch XXI and INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) filed a complaint against Mercantile Insurance Company, Inc. and petitioner Ouano Arrastre Service, Inc. (OASI) for the replacement of imported equipment lost on arrival, allegedly due to OASI’s mishandling. The trial court held them jointly and severally liable. Only Mercantile appealed. IPI subsequently moved for execution against OASI, which the trial court granted. OASI then filed a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration, claiming excusable neglect due to miscommunication within its counsel’s law firm, Ledesma, Saludo and Associates (LSA), and arguing that Mercantile’s appeal should benefit OASI as a solidary co-debtor. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals dismissed OASI’s appeal.
ISSUE
The issues are: (1) whether there was valid service of the trial court’s decision upon OASI’s counsel, and (2) whether Mercantile’s timely appeal should stay execution against OASI.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court found valid service. The Court of Appeals established that a copy of the decision was served on Atty. Catipay of LSA-Cebu, who refused receipt and instructed it be sent to the Makati office. The Court ruled that LSA, operating as a single firm under one name, could not treat its offices as separate entities. Service to any office constituted service to the firm. Thus, the period to appeal commenced, and OASI’s failure to timely appeal rendered the decision final and executory as to it.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Mercantile’s appeal did not inure to OASI’s benefit. For a solidary co-debtor to benefit from a co-debtor’s appeal, their rights and liabilities must be interwoven with similar defenses. Here, their defenses conflicted: OASI claimed the goods were already damaged upon receipt from the carrier, while Mercantile contended there was no damage during transit and that the insurance had lapsed. By not appealing, OASI waived its right to assert any defense pertaining to Mercantile against the judgment creditor. Consequently, execution against OASI was proper.