ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 140608.� April 6, 2005]
PERMANENT BANK vs. VELARDE
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 6 2005.
G.R. No. 140608 (Permanent Savings and Loan Bank vs. Mariano Velarde.)
On September 23, 2004, the Court rendered judgment in the above-entitled case, with the following dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decisions of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 37) dated January 26, 1996, and the Court of Appeals dated October 27, 1999, are SET ASIDE. Respondent
is ordered to pay One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) plus 25% interest
and 24% penalty charge per annum beginning October 13, 1983 until fully paid,
and 25% of the amount due as attorney's fees.
Costs against respondent.
SO ORDERED. [1]
In response to a tracer, the Postmaster of Pasig City informed the Court that a copy of the judgment addressed to respondent's counsel, Raval & Lokin Lawyers, was delivered to its address at Unit 410 Amberland Plaza, Do�a Julia Vargas Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City and was received by a certain Dory Pelayo on October 13, 2004. [2] cralaw
On February 22, 2005, respondent, through counsel Atty. Augustine M. Vestil, Jr., filed a Consolidated Manifestation and Clarification with Notification of Change of Address, wherein respondent stated that he has not yet received a copy of the Court's Decision dated September 23, 2004, and it was only through the newspapers that he learned of the promulgation of said Decision. Respondent's counsel also averred that the copy of the decision sent to the former address of Raval & Lokin, Lawyers, was received by unauthorized persons considering that at the time the decision was promulgated, the law firm was already dissolved, and that Atty. Vestil, who was retained by respondent, already ceased to be an associate thereof as early as October 2002. [3] cralaw Atty. Vestil thus furnished the Court with its new address:
Vestil & Associates
Rm. 208 Jesever Building II
Osme�a Blvd., Cebu City
Thereafter, or on March 7, 2005, respondent filed a motion praying that his Motion for Reconsideration be admitted for reasons of substantial and equitable justice, and his Motion for Reconsideration be granted. [4] cralaw The grounds set forth in his Motion for Reconsideration are as follows:
I.
IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL CONCLUSIONS MADE BY BOTH TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT ATTENDED BY ANY VICE, IRREGULARITY, OR DEFECT THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE REOPENING OR REVIEW OF SUCH FINDINGS.
II.
IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ANSWER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT CONSTITUTED A SPECIFIC DENIAL OF BOTH THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SAID ANSWER THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED EVEN AS AN IMPLIED ADMISSION. [5] cralaw
The Court finds no merit or reason to grant respondent's Urgent Motion to Admit and Motion for Reconsideration.
Service of notice or other pleadings that are required by the rules to be furnished to the parties must be made on their last address on record. If the parties are represented by counsel, such notices shall be sent instead to the counsel's last given address on record in the absence of a proper and adequate notice to the court of a change of address, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. It is the duty of counsel to inform the court of a change in his address. [6]
In this case, there is nothing on record, which shows that Atty. Vestil ever notified the Court of the following: (1) the dissolution of Raval & Lokin, Lawyers, which represented respondent, (2) his cessation of office as an associate therewith; (3) respondent's retention of his services as counsel in this case; and most importantly, (4) his change of address. Insofar as the Court is concerned, the last address on record is the place where all notices shall be served until the Court is officially informed to the contrary, which in this case, is the address where the Court's Decision dated September 23, 2004 was delivered and received. Hence, it is now deemed served.
Considering that due service of the decision was on October 13, 2004, the last day within which respondent should have filed his motion for reconsideration is on October 28, 2004. Thus, when the same was filed only on March 7, 2005, the Court's Decision dated September 23, 2004 had become final and executory.
Even if the Court, in the interest of justice, suspends the rules and admits respondent's motion for reconsideration, still there is no merit to reconsider the decision as respondent's basic arguments and the issues relied upon therein have already been passed upon in the Court's decision.
WHEREFORE, the Urgent Motion to Admit and the Motion for Reconsideration are DENIED. The Court's Decision dated September 23, 2004 now being final and executory, let judgment be entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 198-199.
[2] cralaw Id., p. 202.
[3] cralaw Id., pp. 204-206.
[4] cralaw Id. , pp. 209-212.
[5] cralaw Id. , p. 215.
[6] cralaw Gold Line Transit, Inc. vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 144813, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 262; Thermochem, Inc. vs. Naval, G.R. No. 131541, October 20, 2000, 344 SCRA 76, 80-81..
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
