View full case

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. JOSEPHINE L. PAPA

FACTS:

On March 30, 2006, Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of money against Josephine L. Papa (Papa) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). PSB alleged that Papa obtained a flexi-loan and failed to make the necessary payments resulting in a total obligation of P173,000.00 as of March 27, 2006. Papa, on the other hand, filed an Answer denying the allegations and claiming that her liability had already been extinguished through staggered payments. During the trial, PSB presented a photocopy of the promissory note, which the MeTC admitted as evidence despite Papa's objection. After the parties submitted their memoranda, the MeTC rendered a decision in favor of PSB, ordering Papa to pay the amount outstanding plus interest and attorney's fees. Papa moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. Papa then appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the RTC reversed the MeTC decision, ruling that PSB failed to prove its cause of action. PSB filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC. PSB then petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision. PSB filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it dismissed petitioner's appeal by reason of pure technicality thereby prejudicing the substantial right of the petitioner to recover the unpaid loan of the respondent.

  2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it affirmed the lower courts' decision dated 14 October 2009 on the ground that petitioner failed to prove its cause of action when it failed to present the original of the promissory note thereby failing to establish the due existence and execution of the promissory note.

  3. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it dismissed petitioner's appeal resulting in unjust enrichment in favor of the respondent.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was validly filed

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the arguments raised by the petitioner deserve scant consideration. Filing and service are distinct acts that must be considered together when determining whether a pleading, motion, or any other paper was filed within the applicable reglementary period. The Rules of Court require that every motion set for hearing be accompanied by proof of service to the other parties concerned, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the motion as not filed. In this case, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of attaching an affidavit of the person who sent the motion for reconsideration via private courier, and did not show compliance with the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal.

  2. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was not validly filed. The court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements under Rule 13, Section 7 for an effective service by ordinary mail. The petitioner did not offer an acceptable reason why it resorted to "private registered mail" instead of registered mail. Consequently, the petitioner failed to comply with the required proof of service by ordinary mail. As a result, the motion for reconsideration is deemed as not filed, and the decision of the trial court has already attained finality.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Filing and service of pleadings and motions must be considered together when determining compliance with the reglementary period for filing.

  • Every motion set for hearing must be accompanied by proof of service to the other parties concerned, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the motion as not filed.

  • 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 and show compliance with the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court.

  • Judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration.

  • Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights.

  • Rules of procedure, especially those prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of business.

  • The relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice was never intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity.

  • A decision that has already attained 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.