Philippine Savings Bank vs Papa

Philippine Savings Bank vs. Josephine Papa GR No. 200469 PLAINTIFF: Philippine Savings Bank DEFENDANT: Josephine Papa DATE: January 15, 2018 PONENTE: J. Martires TOPIC: TYPE OF CASE: VENUE: CAUSE OF ACTION: Collection for Sum of Money RESOLUTION: Facts: 



  

This is a case wherein, PSB filed a complaint for collection collection of sum of money against against Papa, wherein it alleged that Papa obtained flexi-loan, also executed a PN for it  – wherein such PN provides additional interest in case of default. o Papa failed failed to pay, despite despite repeated repeated demands demands she still failed to meet meet her obligation In her answer, she alleged that PSB PSB had no cause of action against her her as her liability had been extinguished extinguished by several staggered payments she made to PSB  – there was also no basis for the interest since her principal debt has been paid. PSB introduced in evidence evidence a photocopy of the PN, which Papa vehemently vehemently objected  – was still admitted by MeTC MeTC: favored PSB and denied Papa’s MR – there was cause of action against Papa by preponderance of evidence RTC: reversed MeTC o PSB failed to prove it cause of of action due to its its failure to prove the existence existence and due execution execution of the PN Papa apparent apparent admission in her Answer could no tbe taken against her, in fact she denied any liability to PSB and never admitted the genuineness and due execution of the PN o Papa posited that RTC decision had already attained finality Although PSB PSB filed the MR on November November 10, 2009, it appears that that service service of the said motion was made 2day late as PSB availed a private courier service instead of the modes of service prescribed under the ROC MR is deemed not not to have been made on the date it was deposited to to the private courier courier for mailing but rather on November 11, 2009  – the date it was actually received by Papa CA: sustained RTC decision 







Issue: W/N the MR was served out of time, YES 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. Filing and service go hand-in-hand and must be considered together when determining whether the pleading, motion, or any other paper was filed with the applicable reglementary period. 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. 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. Very clearly, PSB failed to comply with the requirements under Rule 13, Section 7 for an effective service by ordinary mail.1âwphi1 While PSB explained that personal service was not effected due to lack of time and personnel constraints, it did not offer an acceptable reason why it resorted to "private registered mail" instead of by registered mail. In particular, PSB failed to indicate that no registry service was available i n San Mateo, Rizal, where the office of Papa's counsel is situated, or in Makati City, where the office of PSB's counsel is located. Consequently, 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 effecti vely considered as not filed.