[G.R. No. 143009. July 10, 2000]

RAQUEL AQUINO-CAHAYON vs. PNB

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 10 2000.

G.R. No. 143009. (Raquel Aquino-Cahayon, Represented by Julia Aquino-Cahayon as Attorney-in-fact vs. Philippine National Bank.)

This is a petition for review of the decision, dated February 18, 2000, and of the resolution, dated April 17, 2000, of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner's appeal by certiorari on the ground that her petition was not accompanied by (1) a written explanation why service of the petition on the adverse parties was not made personally as required by Rule 13, �11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and (2) a certified true copy of the order denying her motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner Raquel Aquino-Cahayon contends that the affidavit of service attached to her petition in the Court of Appeals is sufficient. In her affidavit of service, she mentioned "that on the 21st day of December, 1999, I served a copy of the Petition for Review on Certiorari entitled 'Raquel-Aquino-Cahayon vs. Philippine National Bank (Balayan Branch) and Leonardo Jonson' by registered mail to the following.." Furthermore, she contends that Rule 13 �11 applies only to subsequent pleadings after the original action has been filed. Thus considering that her petition in the Court of Appeals was originally filed with the Supreme Court (which later referred the petition to the Court of Appeals) there was no more need for complying with Rule 13, �11.

With respect to the other ground for denying her petition, i.e., that it was not accompanied by a certified true copy of the decision denying her motion for reconsideration, petitioner claims that she attached to her petition a duplicate original of the order as required by Rule 42, �2.

The petition has no merit.

First. An explanation for non-personal service and/or filing is specifically required by Rule 13, �11 which provides:

Priorities in modes of service and filing. - Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.

The affidavit of service, on the other hand, serves a different purpose. Rule 13, �13 provides:

Proof of service. - Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

The fact that petitioner executed an affidavit of service does not excuse her from her failure to explain why she resorted to service by registered mail instead of personal service.

Petitioner points out that in her motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, she stated that "[a] perusal of said affidavit will reveal that the parties who were served notice, namely the Clerk of Court and the Philippine National Bank, have their offices in Nasugbu, Batangas, while the counsel for private respondent has his office in Muntinlupa, thus resort to messengerial service becomes cumbersome, inconvenient and costly considering that counsel for petitioner has his office in Pasig City."

The reason, however, for requiring a written explanation for non-personal service of pleadings is precisely to prevent the Court from guessing why a party was not able to personally serve a pleading. The time for giving an explanation for non-personal filing and service of pleadings is at the time such pleadings are filed.

Second. Petitioner claims that she attached a duplicate original of the order of the trial court to her petition. This is not so. What was attached was a signed copy, not a duplicate original. In Mahilum v. Court of Appeals (17 SCRA 482 (1996)), it was held

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a contract upon the outside sheets, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of the pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for the non-production of the others.

Of course this does not apply to carbon copies which do not include the signature made at the same time and by the same process, or which leave anything to be added before the document has been fully executed as a binding obligation, for such imperfect carbon copies would be, like letterpress copies, only secondary evidence. (5 MANUEL V. MORAN, COMMENTS ON THE RULES OF COURT 86-87 (1980))

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com