G.R. No. 182814 - LIGAYA MENDOZA AND ADELIA MENDOZA, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (EIGHT DIVISION), HONORABLE JUDGE LIBERATO C. CORTEZ AND BANGKO KABAYAN (FORMERLY IBAAN RURAL BANK, INC.,).

Ruling

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the pleadings, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the [private respondent] and against the [petitioners] ordering the [petitioners] to pay to the court or to [private respondent] within a period of ninety (90) days from the entry of this judgment the amounts hereunder set forth, and in default of such payment, the [properties] shall be sold at the public auction to satisfy this judgment: a. The principal sum of TWELVE MILLION PESOS (P12,000,000.00) with interest thereon at the rate of 30% per annum and penalty computed from September 4, 1997 until fully paid; b. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total amount due, and cost of suit. [9] After petitioners failed to timely interpose an appeal or a motion for reconsideration, private respondent filed a Motion for Execution to enforce the above judgment which was duly opposed by the petitioners on the ground that they were not duly served with a copy of the RTC Decision. It was argued by the petitioners that it was only on 13 June 2002 that their counsel was able to receive a copy of the said judgment prompting them to immediately file a Notice of Appeal on the following day, 14 June 2002. On 28 May 2003 the RTC issued an Order [10] denying due course to petitioners' Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time. The court a quo declared that petitioners' counsel was negligent in handling her mails and that negligence is binding upon petitioners. Accordingly, the RTC forthwith directed the issuance of the motion for execution, to wit: WHEREFORE, the [c]ourt declares that the [petitioners'] notice of appeal cannot be given due course as having been filed out of time, and the opposition to the motion for execution is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, let the corresponding writ of execution issue. [11] In an Order [12] dated 13 July 2004, the RTC denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and thereby ordered the Sheriff to proceed with the sale of the foreclosed properties at the public auction, thus: WHEREFORE, the [petitioners'] Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED and, accordingly- The Order of this [c]ourt dated May 28, 2003; the writ of execution issued on September 25, 2003; and the order dated October 20, 2003 directing the Sheriff of this [c]ourt to proceed with the sale at public auction of the mortgaged properties subject matter of this case remain undisturbed and shall be implemented. Sheriff Rosalinda G. Aguado shall proceed without further delay with the sale [and] execution of the mortgaged properties. [13] On Certiorari , the Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed RTC Orders after finding that there was a valid service of the notice of judgment to petitioners' counsel as attested by the postmaster who enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duty and which presumption was not satisfactorily rebutted by the petitioners in the instant case. [14] Similarly ill-fated was petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration which was d