04 PCIB v.

Ortiz
No. L-49223 (1987)
J. Narvasa / Tita K

Subject Matter: Rule 37

Case Summary:
Maraviles filed a suit for damages against PCIB. PCIB’s lawyer failed to appear to present evidence, so the trial court
ruled in favor of Maraviles. PCIB’s lawyers filed an MR on the ground of excusable negligence, explaining the non-
appearance of the previous lawyer. They explained that the previous lawyer handling the case previously resigned and
failed to submit a list of his pending cases, that is why the law firm was not able to reassign the case in time for the
presentation of evidence. Maraviles opposed the MR arguing that the trial court’s decision has become final as the 15-
day period has already lapsed. PCIB file a reply saying that service of the judgment on COMMEX (a corporation located
at the ground floor of the same building) on July 15, 1978 was inefficacious, and that the period for appeal should be
reckoned on July 17, when COMMEX delivered the notice to the law firm. TC denied the MR and ruled that PCIB has no
good and valid defenses which might change or alter the judgment of this Court if it were to set it aside and reopen the
case. PCIB filed a special civil action for certiorari.

The SC ruled that TC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. It ruled that the non-appearance of the lawyer was not
an excusable negligence that would warrant reconsideration.

Doctrines:

To set aside the judgment, reopen the case and allow the adversely affected party to present evidence of defenses
which are inconsequential, would not serve any useful purpose.

A motion for new trial on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence (FAME )should be proved in
the manner provided for proof of motions (i.e. by affidavits or depositions) unless the court should direct that the
matter be heard on oral testimony or depositions.

The said motion for new trial should also be accompanied by 2 affidavits: (1) setting forth the facts and circumstances
constituting the FAME, and (2) setting forth the particular facts claimed to constitute the movant's meritorious cause of
action or defense (aka an affidavit of merit).

A motion for a new trial grounded on FAME that does not contain either or both affidavits is pro forma or a scrap of
paper, and will not interrupt the running of the period of appeal.

Action Before SC: “This is a special civil action for certiorari.”

Parties:
Petitioner PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK

Respondent HON. RODOLFO ORTIZ, ROGELIO MARAVILES, and QUEZON CITY SHERIFF

Antecedent Facts:
1. Private Respondent Maraviles instituted an action for damages against Philippine Commercial and Industrial
Bank (PCIB), resulting from the dishonor of Mariveles’ two checks due to the negligence of some PCIB
employees.
2. PCIB was represented by Ledesma, Saludo & Associates (LS&A), which was located at 3F LTR Bldg 5548 South
Superhighway, Makati, Metro Manila. Commercial Exponent Philippines Inc. (COMMEX), a corporation was
holding office in on the ground floor of the same building.
 3. June 28, 1978 - The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Maraviles, because PCIB's lawyers did not appear
to present evidence on time. The court ordered PCIB to pay Maraviles P20k moral damages, P5k exemplary
damages, and P2.5k attorney's fees.
RTC
1. August 15, 1978 - PCIB's lawyers filed an MR (and a motion for a new trial) invoking the ground of excusable
negligence and explaining that Atty. Mangohig, associate lawyer of LS&A handling PCIB's case, suddenly resigned
and did not submit a list of his pending cases. Thus, the case at bar was not reassigned in time. It also contested
the award of excessive damages.
2. Maraviles opposed the said motion, saying that the judgment had become final since notice had been served on
PCIB through COMMEX on July 15, 1978 and the 15-day period had already lapsed.
3. PCIB replied that service of the judgment on COMMEX (and not on LS&A) on July 15, 1978 was inefficacious, and
that the period for appeal should be reckoned on July 17, when COMMEX delivered the notice to LS&A.
4. The trial court denied PCIB's MR. TC held that PCIB has no good and valid defenses which might change or alter
the judgment of this Court if it were to set it aside and reopen the case (i.e. HAVE A NEW TRIAL) to allow the
defendant to cross examine the plaintiff and to present its evidence. TC deemed the lawyer’s failure to appear
as not an excusable negligence, considering that the said lawyer has been receiving court orders and notices
through COMMEX, and that the MR was filed out of time or 1 day after judgment became final and executory.
SC
1. PCIB instituted a special civil action for certiorari praying for the annulment of the TC’s order.
Issues:
WON trial court erred in denying the MR. NO
Sub-issue: WON the non-appearance of lawyer was an excusable negligence. NO

Ratio:
NO – TC did not err in denying the MR.

The non-appearance was not an excusable negligence that would warrant reconsideration.
 Notices, pleadings, motions and papers should be served on a party's counsel, at a given address. However, the
counsel is at liberty to change his address, for purposes of service, or expressly or impliedly adopt a new one. If
counsel does this, he cannot complain that the person who received the notice/pleading/motion/paper at the
new address did not deliver it or bring it to his attention.
o By accepting the notices "through COMMEX", PCIB's attorneys had acquiesced to and impliedly adopted
a different address (COMMEX’s address) for service of notices to them. They had accepted service at this
place, three floors down from the address originally given by them, without objection except as to the
service of notice of judgment on July 15, 1978.
o The lawyers’ omission to inquire of COMMEX’s receiving clerk exactly when the notice was received, and
their blithe assumption that service was effected on July 17, 1978, the day that the notice was handed
over to them, is arrant imprudence.
o This cannot be deemed to constitute that excusable negligence as would warrant reconsideration
under Section 1 [a], Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.

o Moreover, PCIB's unverified answer is made up mostly of denials for lack of knowledge. An averment of
"special and affirmative defenses" consisting in the insinuation that the dishonor of Maraviles checks
was due to mechanical and human errors which are expected and inevitable and for which reasonable
allowance" should have been made. There are no other defenses asserted by PCIB.
o Hence, to set aside the judgment, reopen the case and allow the PCIB attorneys to present evidence of
defenses which are inconsequential, would not serve any useful purpose.
Re: Motion for New Trial

 A motion for new trial on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence (FAME )should be
proved in the manner provided for proof of motions (i.e. by affidavits or depositions) unless the court should
direct that the matter be heard on oral testimony or depositions.
 It is also required that affidavits of merits be attached to the motion.
 The said motion for new trial should also be accompanied by 2 affidavits: (1) setting forth the facts and
circumstances constituting the FAME, and (2) setting forth the particular facts claimed to constitute the
movant's meritorious cause of action or defense (aka an affidavit of merit).
 A motion for a new trial grounded on FAME that does not contain either or both affidavits is pro forma or a
scrap of paper, and will not interrupt the running of the period of appeal.
 When the motion for new trial is founded not only on FAME but also on a ground such as "award of excessive
damage", as to which no affidavit of fraud, etc., or of merits is required, the motion cannot be denied pro forma
simply because it lacks an affidavit of merit. The untenability of one ground (the excusable negligence) does not
render the other ground (the excessive damage) unmeritorious.
 Finally, the filing of a proper motion for new trial interrupts the running of the period of appeal. It begins to run
again from receipt of notice by the movant of the order denying the motion. The party adversely affected has
only the balance of the period of appeal within which to perfect appeal (I’m not sure if affected to sa NEYPES
rule, siguro fresh 15day if denied?)
o In this case, the motion was not grounded on an excusable negligence and PCIB really did file out of
time.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

.