G.R. No. 117408 - NATIONAL INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (NIDC-PNB), VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPS. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA AND BASILISA FRANCISCO BAUTISTA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, a judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Dismissing the complaint against Banco Filipino; 2. Ordering National Investment and Development Corporation to reconvey the 5,546 square meters to plaintiffs after reimbursement by the latter; 3. Ordering plaintiffs to reimburse National Investment and Development Corporation the amount of P431,470.66 plus legal interest of 6% from date of redemption, October 27, 1972 until fully paid; and 4. Ordering National Investment and Development Corporation to pay the costs of suit. On January 29, 1992, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, alleging that it received a copy of the decision on January 16, 1992. This claim was disputed by private respondents who alleged that petitioner actually received the decision on December 6, 1991 and, therefore, the decision of the RTC had become final and executory. Consequently, private respondents moved for the execution of the decision in their favor. In a resolution, dated March 9, 1992, the RTC declared its decision to have become final and executory on the ground that the first registry notice of the mail containing the decision had been placed in the post office box of the PNB on December 6, 1991 and therefore the 15-day period of appeal expired on December 21, 1991. As petitioner filed its notice of appeal on January 29, 1992, it was filed late. Petitioners notice of appeal was therefore denied due course. The RTC cited the rules and regulations of the Post Office which provide that mail matter is considered delivered from the time it is placed in a box, or notice in the case of registered articles, because such box is an extension of the addressees office or residence. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, but its petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that petitioners remedy was to file a motion for reconsideration in the RTC. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was later denied. Hence this petition. Petitioner claims that its failure to file a motion for reconsideration should not be deemed fatal because the error complained against was patent and resulted in depriving it of due process, specifically its right to appeal. Petitioner argues that it has spent millions of pesos to develop the subject property for housing of its employees and that it stands to lose its investment if its right of appeal is lost. The petition is meritorious. First. The preliminary issue is whether the present petition was filed on time. Private respondents contend that petitioner had only eight (8) days from its receipt on October 4, 1994 (October 12, 1994) of the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying its motion for reconsideration within which to file this petition, since seven (7) days had already elapsed when petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA decision. The contention is without merit. Rule 45, §1 expressly provides that a party may appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals by filing with the Supreme Cou