G.R. No. 155316 - PORTHOS P. ALMA JOSE AND MA. THERESA D. ALMA JOSE, VS. INTRA STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly ordered the remaining defendants to jointly and severally pay respondent the sum of P3,010,758.00 plus attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the amount due and the costs. No appeal from the trial court's decision having been taken, it became final and executory. On respondent's motion, a Writ of Execution was issued on October 13, 1998. [10] Petitioners, claiming that they received a copy of a Notice of the Sheriff's Sale [11] of their conjugal property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-66602 located at their residential address at 48 Guijo St., Town and Country Executive Village, Antipolo City on September 23, 1999 and that it was only then that they were apprised of the complaint filed against them by respondent, filed before the trial court on September 30, 1999 a "Petition for Relief from Judgment with a Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order." [12] In their petition, petitioners alleged that Atty. Bernabe's appearance in their behalf was without their consent and knowledge; that they were not properly served with summons, hence, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons ; and that if given the chance to be heard, they could controvert respondent's claim with good and strong evidence. Apprehensive that their petition for relief from judgment "may have been filed out of time," petitioners nevertheless pleaded that given the flaw in the service of summons upon them and the unauthorized entry of Atty. Bernabe as their counsel, they were deprived of their day in court, hence, they prayed that in the interest of justice, their petition be given due course and judgment be rendered: setting aside the judgment rendered in [the] case, lifting or canceling the writ of execution and ordering the conduct of a new trial; immediately enjoining the Sheriff and the [respondent] from conducting the sale of [petitioners'] levied property; after trial, making the injunction above-mentioned permanent. [13] By Resolution [14] of July 3, 2000, the trial court, noting that the petition for relief from judgment was filed out of time and the supporting affidavit did not state a valid defense to the complaint, and discrediting petitioners' claim that Atty. Bernabe's appearance as counsel was unauthorized in this wise: [Petitioners] could not feign not know[ing] about the filing of this case during its early stage because Atty. Leonides Bernabe who lawyered for them and the defendant corporation was the corporate secretary of the corporation where petitioners were President and Treasurer, respectively. Defendant corporation did not disown the representation of Atty. Leonides Bernabe. This being so and considering that petitioners were key officers of the corporation, they were presumed to have authorized Atty. Bernabe to represent the corporation perforce they are presumed to have gained actual knowledge of the fact that they were sued in this case in their respecti