G.R. No. 182814 - Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, 8th Division

The petitioners, Ligaya Mendoza and Adelia Mendoza, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The petition challenges the 29 November 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the 28 May 2003 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City.
The RTC Order denied the petitioners' Opposition to the Motion for Execution filed by the private respondent, Bangko Kabayan.

On 4 September 1997, the petitioners secured a loan of P12,000,000.00 from Bangko Kabayan, evidenced by a Promissory Note.
The loan was secured by a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over 71 parcels of land owned by the petitioners in Mabini, Batangas.
The petitioners defaulted on the loan, prompting the bank to file a Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure on 21 May 1998.

The RTC rendered a Judgment on the Pleadings on 7 March 2002, ordering the petitioners to pay the loan amount, interest, penalties, and attorney's fees.
The petitioners did not appeal or file a motion for reconsideration within the prescribed period.
The private respondent subsequently filed a Motion for Execution, which the petitioners opposed, claiming they were not properly served with the RTC Decision.

The RTC denied the petitioners' Notice of Appeal on 28 May 2003, citing negligence on the part of their counsel regarding mail handling.
The RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for the sale of the mortgaged properties.
The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 13 July 2004, and the Sheriff was directed to proceed with the sale.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Orders, finding valid service of the judgment to the petitioners' counsel.
The petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was also denied, leading to the filing of the current Petition for Certiorari.

The petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC's finding of valid service of judgment.
They argued that the security guard was not authorized to receive mail for their counsel, and thus the service was invalid.
The petitioners also claimed that their counsel's negligence should not bind them and that the court should have extended the period for filing the appeal in the interest of justice.

The Court ruled that service of the judgment was valid as it was delivered to the address of record for the petitioners' counsel.
The Court emphasized that attorneys are responsible for ensuring that official communications are received and that negligence on their part is binding on their clients.
The petitioners' counsel failed to implement a system for the prompt receipt of mail, which contributed to the situation.

The Court reiterated the principle that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it cannot be altered or modified.
The petitioners were bound by their counsel's actions, and their c...continue reading