Case Digest (G.R. No. 126620)
Facts:
Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126620, April 17, 2002, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court (Vitug, Acting Chairman; Panganiban and Sandoval‑Gutierrez, JJ., concurring; Melo, J., Chairman, abroad on official leave).Petitioner Producers Bank of the Philippines filed a complaint on March 29, 1988 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 147, to recover P11,420,000.00 against Asia Trust Development Bank (Asiatrust) and the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP), later amending the complaint to implead numerous individuals alleged to have caused the wrongful transmittal and crediting of proceeds of matured treasury bills to Asiatrust’s account. Petitioner alleged a chain of custody failures and negligence by bank officers and bearers which resulted in the proceeds being paid to third parties and credited to Asiatrust; the CBP was later dismissed from the action after lifting conservatorship conditioned on petitioner dropping cases against it.
The defendants answered, the issues were joined and trial proceeded. On August 30, 1993 the law firm Quisumbing, Torres & Evangelista (QTE) entered its appearance for petitioner in substitution of prior counsel. At a hearing on May 17, 1995, petitioner's handling counsel, Atty. Alvin A. T. Ignacio of QTE, arrived late; on motion of Asiatrust’s counsel the RTC dismissed the case for lack of interest to prosecute. Atty. Ignacio filed a motion for reconsideration on June 9, 1995 which was denied in an Order dated August 1, 1995; QTE received a copy of the denial on August 11, 1995. The last day to file a notice of appeal was August 12, 1995, but a Notice of Appeal was only filed on August 25, 1995.
Asiatrust filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal in the Court of Appeals on November 13, 1995. In a Resolution dated September 19, 1996 the Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed petitioner’s appeal as filed 13 days late, finding the delay caused by counsel’s gross and inexcusable negligence but nonetheless treating the p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioner’s appeal filed thirteen days late and in binding petitioner to the gross and inexcusable negligence of its prior counsel?
- Was petitioner deprived of due process by the dismissal and the subsequent failure to perfect an appeal within th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)