Facts:

The case involves petitioners Ligaya Mendoza and Adelia Mendoza against the Honorable Court of Appeals (Eighth Division), Judge Liberato C. Cortez, and Bangko Kabayan (formerly Ibaan Rural Bank, Inc.). The events leading to this case began on September 4, 1997, when the petitioners secured a loan of P12,000,000.00 from Bangko Kabayan, evidenced by a Promissory Note. To secure this loan, they executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over 71 parcels of land registered in their names, located in Mabini, Batangas. However, the petitioners defaulted on their loan, prompting the bank to file a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure on May 21, 1998, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City. The RTC rendered a Judgment on the Pleadings on March 7, 2002, ordering the petitioners to pay the bank the principal amount, interest, and attorney's fees within 90 days, failing which the properties would be sold at public auction. The petitioners did not appeal or file a motion fo...

Facts:

Loan and Mortgage Agreement

On 4 September 1997, petitioners Ligaya Mendoza and Adelia Mendoza obtained a loan of P12,000,000.00 from Bangko Kabayan (formerly Ibaan Rural Bank). The loan was secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over 71 parcels of land registered under their names in Mabini, Batangas.

Default and Judicial Foreclosure

Petitioners defaulted on the loan, prompting Bangko Kabayan to file a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure of the REM on 21 May 1998 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City. Petitioners admitted the material allegations in the Complaint, leading the RTC to render a Judgment on the Pleadings on 7 March 2002. The judgment ordered petitioners to pay the principal amount, interest, and attorney's fees within 90 days, failing which the mortgaged properties would be sold at public auction.

Failure to Appeal

Petitioners failed to timely appeal the RTC judgment. They claimed that their counsel only received a copy of the judgment on 13 June 2002, prompting them to file a Notice of Appeal on 14 June 2002. The RTC denied the Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time, citing negligence on the part of petitioners' counsel in handling mail.

Execution of Judgment

The RTC issued an Order on 28 May 2003 denying petitioners' Opposition to the Motion for Execution and directed the issuance of a writ of execution. The properties were ordered to be sold at public auction. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that there was valid service of the judgment to petitioners' counsel. The appellate court found that the postmaster's certification of delivery to the counsel's address of record was sufficient, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was not rebutted by petitioners.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Service of Judgment to Counsel: Notices to counsel must be sent to the address of record. The postmaster's certification of delivery to the counsel's address of record is sufficient evidence of valid service. The counsel's failure to ensure prompt receipt of mail constitutes negligence, which binds the client.
2. Negligence of Counsel: Clients are bound by the actions of their counsel in the conduct of their case. The only exception is when the counsel's negligence is gross or palpable, resulting in serious injustice. This case does not fall within the exception.
3. Finality of Judgment: Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. Litigation must end, and the doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on public policy and sound practice. Dilatory tactics to evade final and executory judgments are not tolerated.