G.R. No. L-64334. May 21, 1987
THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. JUDGE HERMINIO C. MARIANO, BRANCH IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, and INDALECIO CASASOLA, Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for rescission and damages filed by Indalecio Casasola against Norman Guerrero and Philippine American General Insurance Co. (Philamgen), the latter being the surety on a performance bond for a construction contract. The trial court rendered a decision adverse to the defendants, ordering rescission and awarding various damages. Philamgen filed a timely motion for reconsideration. During the pendency of this motion, Philamgen formally notified the trial court of a change of its counsel of record. The trial court subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration but sent the denial order to the address of the former counsel, not the new counsel of record. The former counsel forwarded the order to the new counsel, who received it on November 15, 1982. Philamgen filed its notice of appeal on November 16, 1982.
However, the notice of appeal erroneously stated the date of receipt as November 12, 1982, the date stamped by the former counsel. Casasola moved for execution, arguing the appeal was filed two days late from the November 12 date. The trial court granted execution. Philamgen petitioned the Intermediate Appellate Court to quash the writ, explaining the clerical error and proving actual receipt was on November 15, making the appeal timely. The appellate court dismissed the petition, relying strictly on the erroneous date stated in the notice of appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in refusing to quash the writ of execution and in not giving due course to Philamgen’s appeal, despite evidence that the late filing was due to a palpable mistake in the notice of appeal and the trial court’s error in serving the order on the former counsel.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philamgen, setting aside the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic centers on equity and the proper application of procedural rules. The Court found that the appeal was, in fact, timely filed within the reglementary period from the actual receipt of the denial order on November 15, 1982. The mistaken date in the notice of appeal was a palpable clerical error, which under Section 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, a party is allowed to contradict. More significantly, the delay in receipt was attributable to the trial court’s own negligence in serving the order on the former counsel despite proper notification of a change of counsel. The Court emphasized that it is inequitable for a court to insist on strict compliance with procedural rules when it has itself failed to observe them, particularly in effecting proper service. The Supreme Court thus ordered the trial court to certify Philamgen’s appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court declined to rule on an ancillary issue regarding an alleged implied abandonment of the appeal through a consignation, finding it more appropriate for the appellate court to resolve upon hearing the main appeal.