Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    PSB Vs Papa

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    This case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court's decision had attained finality. The Supreme Court rules that the Regional Trial Court's decision did attain finality because the petitioner, Philippine Savings Bank, failed to properly serve its motion for reconsideration according to the Rules of Court. Specifically, PSB did not provide an affidavit showing that it served the motion by registered mail or proving valid reasons for using ordinary mail. As the motion was not properly served, it is considered as not filed. Once the period to appeal lapses, a judgment becomes final by operation of law, and can no longer be modified. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in its ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PSB Vs Papa

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    80 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court's decision had attained finality. The Supreme Court rules that the Regional Trial Court's decision did attain finality because the petitioner, Philippine Savings Bank, failed to properly serve its motion for reconsideration according to the Rules of Court. Specifically, PSB did not provide an affidavit showing that it served the motion by registered mail or proving valid reasons for using ordinary mail. As the motion was not properly served, it is considered as not filed. Once the period to appeal lapses, a judgment becomes final by operation of law, and can no longer be modified. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in its ruling.

    Original Title

    234. PSB vs Papa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court's decision had attained finality. The Supreme Court rules that the Regional Trial Court's decision did attain finality because the petitioner, Philippine Savings Bank, failed to properly serve its motion for reconsideration according to the Rules of Court. Specifically, PSB did not provide an affidavit showing that it served the motion by registered mail or proving valid reasons for using ordinary mail. As the motion was not properly served, it is considered as not filed. Once the period to appeal lapses, a judgment becomes final by operation of law, and can no longer be modified. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in its ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    PSB Vs Papa

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    This case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court's decision had attained finality. The Supreme Court rules that the Regional Trial Court's decision did attain finality because the petitioner, Philippine Savings Bank, failed to properly serve its motion for reconsideration according to the Rules of Court. Specifically, PSB did not provide an affidavit showing that it served the motion by registered mail or proving valid reasons for using ordinary mail. As the motion was not properly served, it is considered as not filed. Once the period to appeal lapses, a judgment becomes final by operation of law, and can no longer be modified. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in its ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Cervantes, Gabriel Homer O.

    234. PSB vs Papa (G.R. No. 200469. January 15, 2018)

    PETITIONER: PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK (PSB)


    RESPONDENT: JOSEPHINE L. PAPA
    DATE: January 15, 2018
    PONENTE: Martires, J.
    TOPIC:

    FACTS:
     This is a petition for review on certiorari.
     PSB filed before the MeTC a complaint for collection of sum of money against respondent
    Josephine L. Papa.
     PSB alleged that Papa obtained a flexi-loan with a face amount of P207,600.00, payable in 24
    monthly installments of P8,650.00 with interest at 38.40% per annum. For the said loan, Papa
    executed a promissory note. When the obligation fell due, Papa defaulted in her payment.
     Papa alleged that PSB had no cause of action against her as her liability had already been
    extinguished by the several staggered payments she made to PSB, which payments she
    undertook to prove.
     The MeTC rendered a decision in favor of PSB and against Papa. Papa moved for
    reconsideration, but the same was denied by the MeTC.
     The RTC reversed and set aside the MeTC decision. The trial court ruled that PSB failed to prove
    its cause of action due to its failure to prove the existence and due execution of the promissory
    note. PSB filed its motion for reconsideration. The RTC denied PSB's motion for reconsideration
    ratiocinating that its decision had already attained finality, among others.
     PSB filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court before the CA. The
    CA affirmed the decision and the order of the RTC. PSB moved for reconsideration, but the same
    was denied by the CA.

    ISSUE: Whether the CA erred when it ruled that the RTC decision had already attained finality. NO.

    RULING:
     PSB is correct that filing and service are distinct from each other. Indeed, filing is the act of
    presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court; whereas, service is the act of
    providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned.
     Nevertheless, although they pertain to different acts, filing and service go hand-in-hand and must
    be considered together when determining whether the pleading, motion, or any other paper was
    filed within the applicable reglementary period.
     Precisely, the Rules require every motion set for hearing to be accompanied by proof of service
    thereof to the other parties concerned; otherwise, the court shall not be allowed to act on it,
    effectively making such motion as not filed.
     The kind of proof of service required would depend on the mode of service used by the litigant
    (Rule 13, Section 13).
     In some decided cases, the Court considered filing by private courier as equivalent to filing by
    ordinary mail. The Court opines that this pronouncement equally applies to service of pleadings
    and motions. Hence, to prove service by a private courier or ordinary mail, a party must attach an
    affidavit of the person who mailed the motion or pleading. Further, such affidavit must show
    compliance with Rule 13, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.
     This requirement is logical as service by ordinary mail is allowed only in instances where no
    registry service exists either in the locality of the sender or the addressee. This is the only
    credible justification why resort to service by ordinary mail or private courier may be allowed.
     PSB failed to comply with the requirements under Rule 13, Section 7 for an effective service by
    ordinary mail. It did not offer an acceptable reason why it resorted to "private registered mail"
    instead of by registered mail.
     PSB failed to comply with the required proof of service by ordinary mail. Thus, the RTC is correct
    when it denied PSB's motion for reconsideration, which, for all intents and purposes, can be
    effectively considered as not filed.
     It is well-settled that judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not
    by judicial declaration. The finality of a judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the
    reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected or no motion for reconsideration or new
    trial is filed. The court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes
    final by operation of law.
     Considering that the RTC decision had already attained finality, there is no longer need to discuss
    whether the RTC and the CA erred in ruling that PSB failed to prove its cause of action. A
    decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be
    modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact
    and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land.
    Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down.

    DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    You might also like